GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Clinton's health plan unlikely to affect feds' premiums

• 87965
  

  I have to agree with the other comments. Given the situation of the economy now, people cannot afford to eat, they are stealing everything they can for their needs. It may be for necessary food & etc, however many of those are stealing for their habits. If this health care goes in we will be paying for those who don't want to work, and those who have never worked or paid any part to the government or our country. I don't feel this is the best plan. I have family members who do not have insurance, because spouse died, and have no job with a 16 year old to support with no income. This plan would not help them, because they don't have the funds to pay for insurance, and they would not be the only ones. I have tried to add them alone with my disabled daughter that lives with me and I cannot add them to my plan. The health care plan as I see it would only cost us who are paying more to support those who cannot pay and this is very unfair. Many of us have a hard enough time as it is.

  Thelma McClure Posted September 29, 2009 7:54 AM
• 50309
  

  Just a quick note for Michelle, Why should federal workers have to pay for the health benefits of others. If this program is stated it will wind up just like social security everyone will want to dip into it and our benefits will erode and premiums will go up to where we can not afford health care.

  CRF Posted May 8, 2008 1:57 PM
• 42145
  

  There is only one "small" problem with Sen. Clinton's proposal. That problem is money. The average fed pays only 30% of FEHB premiums and the government pays the remaining 70%. Given the government's fiscal condition we must assume that private buy-ins will pay 100% of the cost, the government will pay nothing. This is as it should be since the buy-ins are not providing a service to the government, they are just buying health care. The cost will be considered prohibitive to 98% of the non-fed public resulting in few buy-ins, probably less than a million. Most uninsured are still going to prefer free clinics and emergency room visits to paying $1000+ monthly for health insurance. This is a political year and Sen. Clinton's health care plan is "politics" and not a health care solution.

  kwmcbride Posted January 24, 2008 10:47 AM
• 37217
  

  Just another nail in the coffin for Feds. The politicians have been taking away from us since I joing the civil service in 1976! Billy C. fired half of the DOD civilians in the 1990's and now his "better half???"

  want to open up our health insurance to all of the folks who are too cheap to buy their own! And wait, is not going to impact us - right, I believe this. As for the geniuses who are saying the government will pay - guys, where does this government get its money? I hope you know - taxes! I've been paying my fair share and I don't want to pay more. I also don't believe I want to subsidize the health insurance for some guy making $80K+ in New Jersey who has decided he has better things to spend his money on than insurance for his kids. If I can pay for insurance, so can he. Sometimes you need to make tough choices, but you actually can get by on that income.

  KL Posted November 13, 2007 2:35 PM
• 36574
  

  Just remember who is going to pay for this; YOU. I can't believe the idiots out there that think the government should pay for everything. Just something else for those not capable of supporting themselves to cling to. Between welfare,unemployment, and now medical care for all, why work? No wonder we have a "welfare mentality" in this country. Our politicians seeking a vote will provide it all.

  Paul Merlin Posted November 5, 2007 12:27 PM
• 36562
  

  I think Hillary is on to something with her proposal. There shouldn't be a seperate pool but put us all together. If rates go up the government will pick up 80% of ours so the harm will be minimul. Plus think what it will do to increase the pool of progressive voters

  dan ketter Posted November 5, 2007 11:06 AM
• 35477
  

  It is more than simply irregular to use an employee's (of any org) benefit package for non-employees. The real answer to the latest group of 40+ million without healthcare insurance is to tweak the Medicaid program to fit these people IF these people can prove they are valid citizens.

  The other answer to keeping OUR employee healthcare insurance benefit healthy is to allow insurance companies to include their real programs, programs without child-bearing coverage, and programs that cover those in high-risk work. These are all realities of life and need to be covered differently. There are enough people in each risk group to keep the premiums affordable while covering special needs. But I do not bear babies (and raised none) and this is one of the highest costs. Why am I paying for this when a properly constructed group plan would do a better job for those that need the coverage. I say the same for my special needs--why are you covering me?

  The other answer is to form healthcare premiums like the long term care program. We can pick the coverage we need and pay the premium ourselves. We then own the coverage and can stay in this nice benefit package even if we do not work for the government any more. Before you yell at me, do the math and think about the real benefits of this thought.

  Another answer is to make all life, health, long-term care, and disability insurance paid with pre-tax dollars. Great way to offset the cost of insurance.

  But making my employee benefit a welfare program for those who already have other programs that pay for health care is NOT the answer.

  I am going to spend some time on getting real numbers and costs over the next few weeks. I still believe there must me a valid, honest, non-political, non-agenda driven group that does this research somewhere!

  Selma Larson Posted October 20, 2007 5:17 PM
• 35054
  

  If the federal govt would let federal employees' children get medical coverage until they're 25, that would cover a lot of the young and uninsured that Hillary wants covered. For Hillary to cover the poor and uninsured, the rates for this group would have to be much lower than what FEHBP members pay. Eventually, FEHBP members will end up paying for the shortfall in the premiums. Since FEHBP premiums are automatically collected through payroll deduction, we are sitting ducks for the insurance companies to hike up premiums to cover their red ink. Employers and insurance companies are not going to act as collection agencies to get money from those who can least afford to pay for it. If they are mandated by law to provide insurance for the poor, FEHBP members will be the prime target to help fund it.

  P. Correa Posted October 16, 2007 11:56 PM
• 35010
  

  With our health benefits already going up, based upon current health costs, how are you going to pay for the additional burden against the system? Ultimately we will pay through higher taxes. Something like "Social Assistance Tax". The Federal worker is incrementally being stripped of their benefits through "Politically Correct" spending.

  R Johnsen Posted October 16, 2007 10:44 AM
• 35007
  

  Just a quick comment for "Char" - My son needs health insurance. He makes $26,000/year and the company he works for doesn't offer any. His daughter has asthma (a pre-existing condition). Even if he could afford to buy health insurance own his own, they wouldn't take him because of her.

  Michelle Posted October 16, 2007 10:39 AM
• 34963
  

  Health care in America is a sham. Those who have the means to pay get the quality care and those who don't don't! To have to share the amount and quality of my health care in an already overburdened HMO is not appealing. (It appears we already share with large numbers of uninsured) Another factor to consider is this: premiums may not go up but TAXES definitely WILL! There is no way this proposal can be implemented without additional funding. We already over-burdened taxpayers need relief not more tax bills! There are many people who play today with no thought of saving to pay for tomorrow. Why should they? Someone else (Uncle Sam) will pick up the tab at our expense. One of the keys to this whole picture is called "responsibility".

  Karen Polk Posted October 15, 2007 6:54 PM
• 34962
  

  You know our premiums would go up drastically. How else would they pay for the additional 40 million enrollees? These people haven't bothered trying to get insurance before now as they don't want to pay for it. Why should Federal employees and retirees subsidize their insurance?

  Char Posted October 15, 2007 5:55 PM
• 34957
  

  You can forget about what it'll do to your premiums. You'll be in line getting little of the care promised by the plan. So what if there are 40 million un-insured, until there are honest numbers including those that have the ability to pay for it, but don't, and an explanation to the public of what SCHIP and other programs already pay for, I don't want to hear about Hiliary trying to reach into my pocket for anything.

  Bob Coleman Posted October 15, 2007 3:03 PM
• 34951
  

  My college son has been kicked off of my health insurance (when he turned 22) but he has to claim my income when applying for aid (til he is 25) - result - he receives no aid -except from me, and has no insurance. BOO on inconsistant parameters. If I have to pay for all of his schooling - I should be able to have him covered on my insurance!!!!

  Barb Posted October 15, 2007 1:55 PM
• 34945
  

  As a new fed employee i will say not only are my benefit premiums higher, but so are the costs for services. No joke i pay $40 more a pay check in Health, Dental, and Vision than i did at my previous company.

  I wouldn't have any problem opening up the Fed benefits for non feds AS LONG AS there are no special provisions made for these people that allow them cheaper premiums than what everyone else pays. The problem that i see with this is depending on how its implemented, private companies may stop offering group insurance and put that burdern on the government. You know what? I believe in a smaller federal government, and to allow more people into the FEHBP would be to expand the size and role of the fed government. This would not be a smart long term decision

  Valek Posted October 15, 2007 1:14 PM
• 34943
  

  Eventually, we have to do something for the 40 million uninsured AMERICANS in this country. WE (tax paying AMERICANS) are already paying for the uninsured's care (via bankruptsy, other programs, etc.). To me opening up the FEHBP to non-FE's (with a separate risk pool) makes sense as the program is already in place (no need to create a new buraucracy), keeps our current HC market of choice (Plan- PPO/HMO, Doc's) in place, and keeps competition open amongst the 200-300 or so health plans that already participate in the FEHB program. This is anything but Social Medicine that we see in the UK, Canada that nobody wants. We should support it, not bad mouth an idea unless there is a better one out there, which i have yet to read amongst the commentary. The approximate cost of insuring these people would be $150-160 Billion a year. Though costly, it would cost 10-20 times this amount if we created a new system, and probably 5-10 times more if we open up Medicare. I would support such a program that keeps our current HC market in tact. Just b/c we are FE's and are covered under a HC program, does that mean we should turn our back on the people who help pay our salaries, our HC premiums, and without would not have our livleyhood? I don't think so. This is the best plan available that i have seen and one that should be supported, unless someone has a better idea. I'd much rather be out of Iraq and paying for a HC program than worrying if my nephew will come back home alive or mamed. How much is that war costing us every year? People need a reality check, we need to start taking care of our own...

  Scott Posted October 15, 2007 12:32 PM
• 34941
  

  What's does the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan have to do with those uninsured and worse yet, unemployed? Yes, I empathize with those uninsured due to the high rate of medical costs, however, why should the federal workforce have to pay higher insurance rates to offset costs by those unemployed and most of who have no interest in employment. Mrs. Clinton's attempt to pacify the unemployed at the expense of federal workers is ludicrous, particularly when federal workers salaries are not commensurate with either the private sector or the military. Economically, the idea is incongruous and exemplifies what one undertakes to ensure election to office and the fickleness of candidates.

  CAE Posted October 15, 2007 12:28 PM
• 34940
  

  The high deductible plans and other limited service programs are fine until you actually need regular medical care for stuff like diabetes, cancer, heart disease, or any of a thousand other conditions. Then they don't look so good. As for socialized medicine, we already have it for the elderly and the indigent. The medical costs for indigent health care in this country are staggering, in large part because they are funneled through the emergency rooms of our hospitals. Sooner or later, the whole system needs to be fixed, without forcing people out onto the street to die.

  tom Posted October 15, 2007 11:50 AM
• 34934
  

  You're going to pay for it one way or another. I prefer that it be a little more controlled than leaving it up to companies to bail out every whip stitch, leaving it to the taxpayers to clean up the mess after it's done, rather than planning properly for it. Kinda like the lack of preparation in Iraq.

  Don Posted October 15, 2007 10:13 AM
• 34932
  

  It doesn't matter on which health care plan this likely proposal will be based. Under our capitalistic system anyone can buy insurance. The big question is where will the money come from and will the government force our participating plans to accept these new applicants. Why not use the plan in place that covers the Congress. I heard it is pretty good. Now that would make sense.

  Charles McCollum Posted October 15, 2007 10:06 AM
• 34925
  

  I am against this. Why make things so complicated? Simply require all employers to provide health insurance for their employees. Let employers decide what types of coverage they will offer. What does FEHB have to do with it?

  John Posted October 15, 2007 9:31 AM
• 34922
  

  Keep the Hildabeast away from my health care. I like my Health Savings Account. I'm glad I Switched 3 years ago. Those who use healthcare infrequently and only need routine care or catastrophic coverage, you can pocket a lot with high deductable HSAs. Say NO to socialist medicine.

  Dean O Posted October 15, 2007 9:04 AM
• 34921
  

  Don't worry. Hillary's Universal (Socialistic) health care plan will hit each and every one of us pretty hard in the wallet. Most likely, she will use that $400 Billion tax increas on us to "move her health care plan along". Hold on to you wallets boys and girls. If she get't elected, we are in for a rough ride.

  Jimmy Posted October 15, 2007 8:43 AM
• 34920
  

  I oppose permitting the general public enrol in FEHBP. Please note that the first word in the acronym is FEDERAL and the second is EMPLOYEES. In my opinion, this includes active duty and retired members of the military. I do agree that there needs to be a similar plan for working people who cannot afford the high-priced insurance coverage. It can be similar, but not connected to FEHBP in any way. The cost could be based on what is on the workers 1040 (just as Part B of Medicare is) and family size.

  JB Posted October 15, 2007 8:35 AM
• 34915
  

  Unless we are planning to attach dedicated funding fees from all imported goods to sustain our National Health Care and Social Security systems, it would be enlightening to understand how employees and our unemployed are going to pay for these promises. As it appears that our decision makers are convinced that we as a nation are only capable or motivated enough to sustain a service economy. With the exception of an underground slave labor force necessary to do those jobs deemed to be to demeaning (Sic. exempt from the basic supply and demand principles of economics, only because they don't require an advanced degree or specialized skill.) Any hard numbers would be appreciated.

  wayne e. burke Posted October 15, 2007 3:58 AM