Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Federal Retirees


For those approaching retirement as well as the currently already retired, here is a forum to share ideas and thoughts and exchange questions and answers.


To read today's top news stories on federal employee pay, benefits, retirement, job rights and other workplace issues visit FederalDaily.com.

To maximize your retirement, we also suggest you read "Retired Federal Employees Almanac".


(Reminder: soliciting of services is not allowed on this site.)

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Kathi52  
#1 Posted : Saturday, March 17, 2012 4:16:09 AM(UTC)
Kathi52

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/4/2009(UTC)
Posts: 773

http://www.fedsmith.com/...an-would-enroll-all.html

I am very surprised no one is talking about this. It is a must read for retirees and active feds as well. And for the record, I concur 100% with NARFE's statement.Kathi522012-03-17 12:22:12
postalvet  
#2 Posted : Saturday, March 17, 2012 4:35:11 AM(UTC)
postalvet

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/29/2009(UTC)
Posts: 5,359
Location: southern calif

Thanks: 8 times
Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 8 post(s)


clickable

 http://www.fedsmith.com/article/3342/medicare-reform-plan-would-enroll-all.html

 

wonder how that will play out with the post office wanting to remove us from the FEHB program,  and requiring us to enroll in Medicare.

from the date on the article this must have just been introduced.
postalvet2012-03-17 12:41:42
Retired postal worker of 38 years who is willing to help even though some do not want to hear the truth.
grieveit  
#3 Posted : Saturday, March 17, 2012 11:33:49 AM(UTC)
grieveit

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/3/2012(UTC)
Posts: 177



The bill is a common sense approach to a vexing problem, CS pay little for their HC benefits so meshing Medicare and FEHBP is a good solution
oktoots  
#4 Posted : Saturday, March 17, 2012 12:04:36 PM(UTC)
oktoots

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/17/2009(UTC)
Posts: 2,485


Grieveit/Maxketter/Lazycs, any plan that gives you a reason to show your resentment and hatred of civil service workers, is fine in your book. You actually believe that our premiums are so small in comparison to any other plan than FEHB. You're delusional, which is not surprising since you never worked for the Federal govt. 
  And NARFE has a point.

oktoots2012-03-17 20:11:01
multiple identities to 0%
JimEli  
#5 Posted : Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:06:20 PM(UTC)
JimEli

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/15/2007(UTC)
Posts: 389

And we pay only $30 more per month. 

Kathi52  
#6 Posted : Saturday, March 17, 2012 8:57:16 PM(UTC)
Kathi52

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/4/2009(UTC)
Posts: 773

Thank you oktoots. I know who the trolls are on this site and not a one of them works for the Feds nor ever have. So no big deal as they haven't a clue anyway. :) Now, back to the topic. It appears Rand Paul has apologized to the entire federal workforce for the potential increase of $400 a year on premiums. I could write a novel on how this is so wrong on many levels but don't have the time right now. Hopefully, NARFE will stay on top of this. Anyway, two things came to mind yesterday. First, can OPM actually handle the MILLIONS that sign up for this? I, personally, highly doubt it. And two, IF this comes pass, shouldn't the 5 year requirement that is in place for Feds prior to retirement be waived? I think so!
tigerseye  
#7 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2012 12:46:19 AM(UTC)
tigerseye

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/1/2009(UTC)
Posts: 329



Holy cow. What a nightmare proposal. And we thought OPM was awful now. Can you imagine what it would be like if they had to handle millions of folks like Kathi52 said? Maybe then Congress would better understand the frustrations we have over OPM processing of a few thousand retirement packages a month. Hahahahahahaha....
getting close  
#8 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2012 12:49:31 AM(UTC)
getting close

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/12/2010(UTC)
Posts: 602
United States

Thanks: 1 times
There really are no bounds to the idiocy that can come out of Congress, particularly when ignorance and political ambition are a large part of the mix.
RetireinFL  
#9 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2012 1:26:59 AM(UTC)
RetireinFL

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/21/2011(UTC)
Posts: 73

I just wonder what happens to the retirees who are covered under both Medicare and FEHB, does one of them go away?
Kathi52  
#10 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2012 1:54:13 AM(UTC)
Kathi52

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/4/2009(UTC)
Posts: 773

tigerseye, I know! I was laughing too because I thought exactly the same thing! RetireinFL, I wonder the same thing amongst many other questions I have. I guess the devil will be in the details. NARFE needs to really follow this closely!!!
tigerseye  
#11 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2012 3:01:40 AM(UTC)
tigerseye

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/1/2009(UTC)
Posts: 329


Dana Milbank of the Wash. Post had an article on this proposal in today's paper: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-republican-mediscare/2012/03/16/gIQAfoWYGS_story.html
What a chuckle. The idea was proposed by the most conservative members of the Republican party; according to Milbank, Sen. Lindsey Graham of SC said "Trust me, it's a good deal. We designed it. I can assure you, you will like it."  As I said before, Hahahahahaha.
 
RetireinFL, the plan would eliminate Medicare by pushing all seniors into FEHB gradually raising their age of eligibility to 70, and those who couldn't afford the FEHB premiums would have to apply for Medicaid.
Kathi52  
#12 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2012 3:36:56 AM(UTC)
Kathi52

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/4/2009(UTC)
Posts: 773

Okay, to be upfront and honest, I am a Republican. But the Dems will lap this up as well. My biggest problem with this is as I have always said, the FEHBP should NEVER be opened up. Party affiliation aside, NARFE assured the entire workforce and retirees in one of their March editions (forget what year), that this would NEVER happen. I don't mind the FEHBP being used as a model. But this is just wrong...no matter what side of the aisle you are on. These are benefits WE have earned...not the general public! That would be like me saying, "Hey Microsoft, you have a pretty good insurance plan, can I join?" Say what??!! And if any politician thinks this will work by adding MILLIONS to the FEHBP, they are delusional!! OPM will definitely have a nervous breakdown LOL! And again, I agree with NARFE's stance. I see nothing but big time problems arising from this. But, can't get too excited yet as it all remains to be seen.
postalvet  
#13 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2012 4:17:34 AM(UTC)
postalvet

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/29/2009(UTC)
Posts: 5,359
Location: southern calif

Thanks: 8 times
Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 8 post(s)

RetireinFL wrote:
I just wonder what happens to the retirees who are covered under both Medicare and FEHB, does one of them go away?
 
No!
Retired postal worker of 38 years who is willing to help even though some do not want to hear the truth.
SuzFed  
#14 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2012 7:46:07 AM(UTC)
SuzFed

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/25/2006(UTC)
Posts: 353

Just when I think Congress can't come up with another distressing proposal affecting federal employees and/or retirees, it does.

There are roughly 48 million Medicare recipients. There are less than three million federal civil servants.

I cannot imagine how dumping the medical costs of 48 million elderly & disabled onto the backs of three million workers is remotely workable in terms of the premiums we would be charged as the costs of that population are shifted from all Americans onto us.

Plus, Medicare spends about 2 percent in administrative costs. Insurance companies' administrative costs and profits are roughly 15 percent, or 7.5x higher. So this raises the cost of caring for our Medicare recipients, who will be denied care quietly, in unaccountable private insurer's offices, while the government steps out of the picture. Way to punt on the tough calls, guys! And think of the profits shuffled into your campaign coffers from the insurance industry. Sweet!

Bottom line, this sounds like a proposal to kill off Medicare and the FEHBP in one fell swoop.

Congress' contempt for federal workers and retirees knows no bounds. The feeling's mutual, at least for this civil servant. SuzFed2012-03-18 15:54:39
tigerseye  
#15 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2012 8:17:24 AM(UTC)
tigerseye

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/1/2009(UTC)
Posts: 329


I think Dana Milbank had it right in his column, these folks have proposed eliminating Medicare, ultimately raising the age for people to be eligible, plus increasing how much the enrollees have to pay a year. Not a very good marketing plan in an election year at least.

Kathi52, I was just saying who made the proposal, I wasn't making a political statement.

grieveit  
#16 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2012 11:43:49 AM(UTC)
grieveit

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/3/2012(UTC)
Posts: 177


Kathi52 wrote:
Okay, to be upfront and honest, I am a Republican. But the Dems will lap this up as well. My biggest problem with this is as I have always said, the FEHBP should NEVER be opened up. Party affiliation aside, NARFE assured the entire workforce and retirees in one of their March editions (forget what year), that this would NEVER happen. I don't mind the FEHBP being used as a model. But this is just wrong...no matter what side of the aisle you are on. These are benefits WE have earned...not the general public! That would be like me saying, "Hey Microsoft, you have a pretty good insurance plan, can I join?" Say what??!! And if any politician thinks this will work by adding MILLIONS to the FEHBP, they are delusional!! OPM will definitely have a nervous breakdown LOL! And again, I agree with NARFE's stance. I see nothing but big time problems arising from this. But, can't get too excited yet as it all remains to be seen.
Benefits that you have earned?? Sorry these are benefits that are provided to you by the generous taxpayers. If CS were paying the premiums then your objection would without question have merit. Since you don't CS don't have a dog in this fight
grieveit  
#17 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2012 11:50:48 AM(UTC)
grieveit

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/3/2012(UTC)
Posts: 177


oktoots wrote:

Grieveit/Maxketter/Lazycs, any plan that gives you a reason to show your resentment and hatred of civil service workers, is fine in your book. You actually believe that our premiums are so small in comparison to any other plan than FEHB. You're delusional, which is not surprising since you never worked for the Federal govt. 
  And NARFE has a point.

As usual the forum bully appears. sorry FEHBP is funded by the taxpayers with minimal contributions from CS. In addition at age 65 FEHBP should go away and Medicare should suffice for CS. You'll be amazed how well the program will be run and fraud eliminated once CS have to pay some of the costs and have skin in the game. It might caused the workforce to become more accountable in general. Unlike FEHBP who's cost continue to skyrocket

texasvet54  
#18 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2012 12:28:02 PM(UTC)
texasvet54

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/14/2011(UTC)
Posts: 121

I have 3 working adult children.  One works for an airline, another
works for a large IT company, and another works for a small accounting
firm.  All of them pay less in health care premiums than I do.  I'm
happy to have my health care in retirement, but Grievett, don't try to tell any of us that we pay little for our healthcare.

texasvet


RetirednHappy  
#19 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2012 1:01:09 PM(UTC)
RetirednHappy

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/18/2009(UTC)
Posts: 652

Again, Grieveit, et al, shows incompetence, not knowing that Civil Service employees pay a significant portion of their FEHBP costs, and always have. It really gets old seeing his/her/their baseless rantings, with NO BASIS in facts. Even with significant effort to ignore those comments, sometimes they are so egregious, we just have to respond!
retiredin09  
#20 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2012 1:23:35 PM(UTC)
retiredin09

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/15/2009(UTC)
Posts: 47

Insurance premiums are set by the demographic characteristics of the "risk pool" .... what this would do is dump a bunch of elders who have lots of expensive late-life medical expenses into a "risk pool" consisting mainly of working age people healthy enough to be in the workforce.   This can only serve to drive premiums up (way up, over time) for Federal employees & retirees. 

They bankrupted Medicare so now the solution is to dump them all into FEHB and let Federal workers foot the bill?    Great.



retiredin092012-03-18 21:29:46
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 1.612 seconds.