Return to Article: In Benefits Feds Trust
-
39304
Although Hillary seems to think FEHB is utopia for the masses, it isn't. Infact, my kids school district has much better rates for the some of the same HMOs provided through FEHB in Pennsylvania. Lets also make no mistake that FEHB is some kind of a free ride for federal employees. I pay $178 every two weeks for my HMO. The government pays $321 to my HMO for the same period. Or, translated, a $642 a month payout from Uncle Sam to my HMO, while I pay $360. It isn't cheap for me and by no means is it cheap for the Government. Hillary gives the grossly false impression that FEHB is the gateway to inexpensive and effective health care. Sure, public enrollees would pay some kind of premium, but who pays the rest. The government? Opening up FEHB would be a colossal mistake.
-
37913
I've heard a number of politicians talk about opening up the FEHP to the general public. The comments often ran something like "I think that all Americans should have the same benefits available to them as Congress and civil servants have." Well, I read the Reader's Digest "That's Outrageous" columnist, Michael Crowley's article "Perks in High Places".
If I may quote:
"Like all federal workers, members of Congress (and their dependents) are eligible for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program - the deal Steve Kagen turned down. For less than $1,000 a year, they and their Senate colleagues can also drop by the office of the Capitol's physician, where a $2 million-per-year staff of nearly 20 doctors, nurses and technicians is at their service. For major operations, they've got access to top-notch government facilities like Bethesda Naval Medical Center, where Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had his heart bypass surgery a few years ago."
Now I know that some of this is similar to ours, and I admit that I take Tricare and so have (to my thinking) an even better healthcare plan, but I had to pay for that with 20 years of my life and even this is less than promised to my family and I. Still, in all these responses and horror stories I've been reading on the FEHP Open Season choices, I've never seen as good a deal discussed as I read in the article. I've never heard these numbers mentioned. IF the article's facts are accurate, then I'd like to know which plan they chose. If the plans are NOT similar, I'd like someone to let Congress and the public know we are not the Fortunate Ones; and these plans are apples and oranges different.
-
37488
Fed. salaries are already well under that of the private industry. Fed. benefits are one of the only ways to offset the unequal pay rates. This should not be tampered with.
-
37473
Great job and great story, GovExec. It's getting so bad that I read GovExec even before I look at personal mail...to see who has their hand in my pocket, or is scheming to take something away while my back is turned. EDITOR, I can give you no higher compliment than to say, "YOU ARE THE 'RUSH LIMBAUGH' OF THE CIVIL SERVANTS"!
-
35912
I'm with Dean O and Tom. Without getting into our health benefits, they can make a separate system for others BASED on what we have, not mess ours all up. My health benefits are great and I don't want to lose them at this point in my life.
-
35627
CJ. Forget NSPS, what about FERS? For anyone who doesn't agree, FERS has made a whole generation of people my age (55 this year with 32 years of service) who cannot afford to retire because they switched (I worked in Personnel at the time and knew that if the government was saying it's great that I wasn't buying into it) and never paid into TSP because "they couldn't afford it". If you think about how much money the government has saved on paying retirement benefits (such as they did under CSRS) I think it would outweight what gets pay under FERS and TSP. There is still a large population of very low graded employees with 3 and 4 kids. Not only can they not afford insurance working for the government, they can't afford to pay into their retirement.
-
35609
I don't know of too many federal employees who are not from a two-income family (for those who are married or have a partner). It has taken two salaries for more than 40 years for families to at least "get by". That said, I also know families from one-spouse income with 3 or 4 children who manage to "get by" without health insurance, all the while enjoying life from an income more than triple what most of us earn with two incomes. Those earning outside fed govt enjoying 3 to 4 Xs the income are complaining because they "can't afford" health insurance for their families (children). They do, however, enjoy brand new vehicles that cost $35,000 plus; swimming pools behind their brand new homes; children in private schools and private lessons of some type; shopping at all the high-end stores for sales (most feds I know shop at discount store "sales"); the list can go on. The first thing any politician needs to look at are the circumstances for those who say they can't afford the insurance. Then look at the difference between who can and cannot afford the insurance, and develop a plan similar to FEHB. I have more than 30 years federal service, with about 12 more to go, and I've NEVER SEEN a politicians plan NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT the federal employee when they say something "will be better" - just take a look at NSPS...
-
35474
Too sleep perchance to dream. This is what all politicians do and that is offer things to the public on a dream, which almost always turns into a nightmare. When I was growing up in the forties there was no one with health insurance in my area, very few employers had it available. Now we are in the age I call "hyperdreams" because it is all a fantasy with political sleep apnea the rule. Federal employees are finding it hard to get someone to listen to their concerns and management is out of control. Only in justice will we find justice.
-
35432
Great point, Ed! Civil servants do pay their own salaries, at least in part, and like all workers, we are part of a national economy, where you pay for the goods and services you receive. That in turn pays the salaries of the workers in the private sector. Unfortunately, there is too much ignorance out there, especially from the "I pay your salary!" crowd. Perhaps it's jealousy?
-
35396
Opening the FEHB to all wold not affect the quality of care that feds already receive. People without health insurance are a much greater drain on resources, and result in more waste in the system, than if they had insurance. So, in the end, there would be a more efficient system, with more healthcare services available to everyone.
-
35326
I agree with Starr & Foster. Hillary is picking on the Fed health system because she can. Her other program didn't fly, so pick on on someone easy, the federal govt. I think she should use the fed system as an example, but not change it by including redefined eligibles. Its ok to propose a better system, but don't jeopardize the quality of the existing federal health system.
-
35310
Scott, I understand your compassion for the uninsured and I agree that separate coverage pools will minimize (probably eliminate)any effect on the FEHB. What I get tired of is the "We pay your salary" mantra you often hear from non-Federal employees. My response is "Where do you work?" "Chances are, I pay your salary in as much or greater proportion than you pay mine. Do you work for a utility? I pay an electric bill, phone bill, water bill, etc. Grocery store? I buy groceries. Gas station? I buy gas. Trucker? Most of what I buy, is hauled in trucks. If you make it, produce it, deliver it, sell it, I buy it and therefore pay your salary as well." Plus, each Federal employee pays 15% or more of his or her own salary. Nobody anybody else can claim that. So don't tell me you pay my salary as if I'm your personal employee. In this economy we all supportt each other.
-
35305
We are only as strong as our weakest link and this country has millions of them. Our benefits depend on every taxpayer, including ourselves, remaining healthy enough to work. 12 years ago the national healthcare proposal was demonized as socialism. Seems we are doing the same thing BECAUSE the same person has proposed it, again? Fed employees are blessed to have insurance, if we choose to buy it. Some of us buy into poor plans for the same reason some citizens have none, COST. The reason our costs are as 'reasonable' as they are is because we have leverage in numbers. With more people in the insurance pool, There would be more doctors, instead of fewer. What better way to keep hospital doors open and have more clinics available? The same providers of FEHBP coverages will make millions off something similar.
-
35288
Wow, who let in all the Grinch's to the Federal service?! Talk about mean spirited! This isn't some post-apocalyptic world where sharing limited resources personally dooms you to death. Making the claim that insuring everyone would mean less doctors to treat you and your family is like saying requiring an auto safety vehicle inspection every year is going to deplete the number of mechanics. Contrarywise, I suspect that forcing auto safety inspections has increased the number of mechanics -- indeed, where I live, almost every gas station has a placard in the window saying they do state inspections!
Come on folks -- think! We're supposedly the richest nation in the world. We're the world's Carnegie and Rockefeller at their peak. We have the world's best brains -- and yet we can't figure out how to ensure that those who need medical care can get it?!
I for one am willing to share. I am young and healthy, have a steady job and am doing OK financially. I strongly believe in the moral obligation to share. I am happy to contribute to the wealth -- and health -- of the nation. It's the moral thing to do.
-
35285
I haven't seen all of the comments from other readers. But the comment from someone named Scott does draw my particlar attention. My initial reaction was that many of those he would welcome into the Fed. benefits don't pay taxes, but then I realized that wasn't true either.
I am not in favor of the Clinton plan, but I have long thought that a quasi-public health plan could be developed. The concept is to work with major employers, unions, and health agancies to develop a plan which embodies a system similar to the Indian Health Service or Veterans Systems, and health plans of industry. The plan would be partially paid by the individual, and partially paid by taxes by integrating some of the current health programs now financed by States and Federal Programs.
-
35283
I've been with the gov't 29 years and just like everyone else I've paid for a health plan every year. One of benefits for working for the government is the wonderful health plans that are offered to federal employees. That's why it's called "Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan" not a nationwide plan. The "beast" needs to find another strategy/option because FEHBP is only for federal employees not John Q Public. Maybe she needs to go after the have's with all the money (millionaires, big business, etc) to fund her projects.
-
35278
I don't want Hillary messing with my FEHB, seperate or otherwise. Eventually, it will cost me money. She comes up with these hair brained schemes almost weekly to buy votes from the poor with promises she can't keep. Paying $5,000.00 for every newborn? Paying stay at home moms money to stay at home? What is welfare? I grew up poor (because my father did not have an education but he made sure all of his kids did) and didn't know it. My family never took a dime from the Govt. nor was any promised. Nowadays, it's gimme, gimme, gimme and Hillary is all too happy to oblige them and make them slaves to the Govt. at my expense. Socialism anyone?
-
35270
While I agree with Scott in principal, providing a mechanism to access health care to anyone is in the realm of the free market. If the Beast is interested in providing access to a federal plan perhaps access to her plan is the one needed. How many service members have had to wait for necessary service at Walter Reed/Bethesda Medical Centers because of the attention and benefits given to these politicians. While the Beast and her ilk are currying favor with the masses, room at her dinner table may be called for...just a little more honesty please. Who's to pay for this benefit? People make choices and decisions that often lead them down the path of life. I cannot and will not be responsible for the bad decisions made just so that the socialist dreams of the Beast are realized.
-
35264
There is a vast pool of un-insured, or should I say un-insurable, who could get into a program and bankrupt it due to their high medical needs. Do I want to suffer for this? Absolutely not. A parrallel program may be the only alternative to avoid this catastrophy.
-
35252
Statements against the plan seem short-sighted. A bigger FEHBP means an FEHBP in a better position to bargain for lower costs, more services and better quality. More providers would be attracted, not fewer. Why not embrace the economies of scale?
-
35250
If we want to cover our uninsured Americans, by leveraging the present FEHBP Barging power that is ok, as long as the Gov't setup firewall between the two systems. This firewall must prevent raising the FEHBP insurance premiums for Gov't employees and retirees to cover our uninsured Americans. All working tax payers (not retirees) should pay for the uninsured Americans
-
35248
I'm not sure if this specific proposal is the best way to approach the problem of health care for our citizens. Probably it is only a step in a needed campaign to bring universal health care to all Americans. Compassion is what is needed. I'm privately embarassed while at pharmacies when I hear an elderly and/or obviously ill American ask, "Can I buy just two pills? I can't afford all of them?" I hate having to worry about whether or not I should visit a doctor based on my fear of my insurance company's policies instead of basing my visit on the symptons of my illness and possible prognosis. We do have an embarassing health care problem in the USA. I don't know how to fix it, but I do know the status quo will not fix it.
-
35234
It is difficult for me to see a scenario under which federal employees would be teh exclusive entity to pay for insuring the uninusred. If including the 40 million in the federal program means that all U.S. residents will have access to adequate medical care I say that is the way to go. We are the only so called developed country that truly makes it difficult for people to receive medical care. Cut spending in Iraq by the billions to pay for this program.
-
35220
Again, this is a good example of how the silent majority will suffer because of the minority of people who can't manage their lives. Yes there are some who don't have the opportunity to get adequate health care because of circumstances beyond their control, but that's a very small minority. I don't have a big screen TV or a cell phone because I pay my own health premiums, but I prefer to do have good health care than luxury items. Prioritize your life.
-
35218
Everyone is missing the point here. There is absolutely no reason to open FEHB to the uninsured. Simply pass a federal law requiring all employers to provide health benefits to their employees and require all employees to sign up for the benefits. This is already being done in one state and is being considered in many others.
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.