Should Federal Employees Continue to be in the FEHBP?

By on August 5, 2013 in Current Events, Retirement with 159 Comments

Healthcare is again in the national news headlines, as it has been almost continuously for the past several years.

Internal Revenue Service employees will play a big role in the new health insurance scheme now being rolled out but the union that represents many IRS employees does not want any part of being in the new system.  National Treasury Employees Union officials are urging members to write their congressional representatives in opposition to receiving coverage through President Obama’s health care law.

The head of the IRS also said Thursday he would rather keep his own insurance than get coverage under the system created by the new health care law

The new health care program is apparently unpopular with many Americans according to surveys. There is sentiment to put federal employees into the healthcare exchanges instead of the current system of health care coverage. As noted in a Forbes column: ”[E]ven more federal employees should be required to enroll in the exchanges, especially those at the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services who are writing thousands of pages of exchange regulations…It’s critical that those who design our laws get to experience them for themselves.”

Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has introduced a bill that would do just that. The bill is short and to the point. HR 1780 reads: “To provide that the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and Federal employees are those created under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or offered through a health insurance exchange.”

“If the ObamaCare exchanges are good enough for the hardworking Americans and small businesses the law claims to help, then they should be good enough for the president, vice president, Congress and federal employees,” according to Congressman Camp’s office.

Federal employee retirees may also see changes and are more likely to see changes than current federal employees. In the annual “call letter” to insurance carriers for 2014, OPM wrote: ”OPM is encouraging proposals for pilot programs where participating carriers offer a sub-option for Medicare eligible annuitants as an alternate choice.”

In the latest kerfuffle, Congress was upset because the law required that those in Congress participate in the health care exchanges now being created. The law did not make any exceptions for Members of Congress and their better paid staff members to receive subsidies for health care.

The Office of Personnel Management is riding to their rescue. OPM will release regulatory details this week, but leaks to the press suggest Congress will receive extra payments based on the defined-contribution formula for the federal employee health benefits program which covers about 75% of the cost of the average insurance plan. For 2013, that means payments of about $4,900 for individuals and $10,000 for families.

It is not clear yet if OPM will issue checks, similar to “cashing out” fringe benefits and increasing wages or if the agency will cover 75% of the cost of the ObamaCare plan the worker chooses. The latter option could turn out to be more expensive than what the government now contributes via the current health care system for federal employees.

OPM does not appear to have authority to pay for insurance plans that lack the usual contracts under the federal employee health care program and the language in the Affordable Care Act is clear and does not cite higher contributions for those in legislative branch or a unilateral increase  in congressional pay in return for less overall compensation—one of which is apparently going to happen anyway.

No doubt, the actions taken on behalf of the political class and creating a two-tier exchange system will not surprise many Americans and just another example of how the government takes care of its interests.

Should federal employees continue to have a separate health insurance program or participate in the new insurance exchanges? To see the results of our survey on this topic, see FedSmith.com Users Overwhelmingly Reject Inclusion in New Health Care Program.

© 2016 Ralph R. Smith. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent from Ralph R. Smith.

Tags:

About the Author

Ralph Smith has several decades of experience working with federal human resources issues. He has written extensively on a full range of human resources topics in books and newsletters and is a co-founder of two companies and several newsletters on federal human resources.

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

159 Replies

Comments RSS

  1. DeathWatch says:

    FEHB is part of the Federal Government employment agreement.

    • Retired Fed says:

      Apparently, Congress doesn’t see it that way. The people who wrote and voted for that “agreement” are no longer there. The current people don’t seem to be honor bound to it. I wonder if the “unions” have ever filed a lawsuit to get the courts to have the agreement honored as an implied contract.

  2. retired in 2011 says:

    Federal retirees do not pay the full premium, only our part. It’s a great benefit.

  3. michael says:

    Yea, like Congress is going do anything useful…this is reduntant.

  4. Older Lady says:

    After reading some of the preceding comments, I haven’t heard a retiree state what we (I am a retiree) have to pay after we retire. If we elect FEHB in retirement we pay the full premium (includes the Government part which we did not pay as when working fulltime). So, my medical premiums are almost triple for my coverage I elect, but, I’m still happy and would not change since I’ve had it for so many years. As I understand it, the Affordable Healthcare Plan covers people who are unable to afford insurance, or can’t get it through their employers. it doesn’t intrude on already existing plans in the Government or civilian sector.

  5. Terry says:

    Health care is broken, no one can afford it, not the Gov. employers or employees. What really needs to be addressed is the cost that insurance companies or forced to pay. Example, paper pill cup that they give in hospitals for Meds, can run $ 25 for a week. If the affordable health care is not the answer then the Republicans need to come up with something better, bashing it is to no avail.

  6. gwen11 says:

    I was forced to retire 5 years ago. I have my insurance. I paid for it for 20 years and am still paying for it. I put in my time. Now I must get medicare this year can’t afford it either. Let me and my husband alone so we can figure out what we can pay for this month. House, food, meds or other bills. Age discrimanation is keeping us from getting jobs. My health also. I do not want to go into the exchange. I have my insurance. Let the federal retires alone.

  7. Smart Fed says:

    The Affordable Care Act was purposefully designed to fail. We are just in the middle of the grand scheme. Pres Obama stated that he supported a single payer system but that it would take a while to get there. The plan is to collapse the system to the point where the Democrats will step in and say this isn’t working. The government will provide for everyone’s healthcare. No doctor choice, medical decisions administered by bureaucrats, decisions based on budgets. All you democrats/liberals who thought you were being altruistic have pushed this country one giant step closer to complete socialism and soon after that…tyrrany. Thanks a pantload!!

  8. IntruderJohn says:

    Let’s see if I have this right……………The IRS dosen’t want to be part of the health care system they are mandated to enforce. Now that my friends speaks volumes!

    • ChangingTimes says:

      You have misunderstood what this man said. He’s merely stating that he’s already in an insurance program thru his employer and wants to stay there….geeze. What’s the big deal, government employees pay premiums just like nongovernment employees.

    • Retired Fed says:

      President Obama has stated that if you like your current health insurance policy, you can keep it. Meaning that as long as you have a health insurance policy, you won’t have to get insurance on the exchange. That was part of the deal. As long as they offer us the current FEHB plan, i see nothing wrong with the IRS or any other group wanting no part of Obamacare as long as they have their own plans.

    • Mike53 says:

      The IRS employee should be treated as all other non federal employees are treated under the ACA law, just as Retired Fred posted below. And that is, if they have a plan in their current employment that they are happy with, they can choose not to participate in the ACA which is not designed to cover people who already have acceptable affordable plans – whether you are a federal employee or an employee of AT&T or anyone else. These people who say federal employee should be required are missing the whole point of the law and trying to change it to something it is not designed to do. Also, IRS enforcement of the law is pretty strong language. An IRS employee will not have the same enforcement authority with regard to ACA penalties that the he/she has might have in their job as and IRS collector.

  9. Harriet Scott says:

    Why do they keep picking on federal employees and millitary retirees?

  10. Super_Babysitter says:

    Sure just bend us over the table a little more.

  11. jjbling48 says:

    Mr. Obama you need to climb down from your high horse and stand on level ground with the middle class folks and listen to what we have to say about your ObamaCare. This is a Train wreck disaster to ruin the middle class and those small businesses that keep this Country sound. OOOO my brother’s and sister’s only three 1/2 years to go……..

    • Thermon Donnelly says:

      The exchanges were never intended to replace existing insurance coverages. The exchanges are meant to provide affordable coverage to those who do not have existing coverage, and to provide a more robust provider option to those who have to purchase insurance but do not have existing coverage through an employer. The continued campaign to misrepresent “Obamacare” is just that, a misrepresentation of the benefits created by the new “law”.

      • chriscolo says:

        But doggone if people don’t believe everything they read! Wish more folks would do their due diligence and research this stuff as you have. There’s more misinformation in the media than true information, on a good day!

  12. Daniel Steinborn says:

    Mandinka suggests that the FEHB is considered a “Cadillac” plan. Actually, it’s not. A Cadillac plan under the Affordable Care Act is one that would cost over $27,500 per year for family coverage. The Service Benefit Plan, the most popular plan offered by the FEHB, costs roughly $16,000 per year for 2013.

    Federal employees are not eating at the public trough. They are working as public servants earning a living that includes employer subsidized health insurance. It’s worth noting that every Bureau of Labor Statistics analysis of Federal Employee compensation (total compensation) for the last several decades has concluded that civilian employees’ compensation is roughly 20 to 30% lower than compensation for comparable work in the private sector. Thus, one would be more correct to state that the public has been receiving the services of these public servants at bargain basement prices.

  13. Reside says:

    More and more companies are converting to part time or temp workers so that they do not have to pay benefits, including healthcare. Therefore, more and more people are uninsured or underinsured. There are also more people than ever collecting some sort of state/govt handout which includes ‘free’ healthcare. If millions of federal workers are forced into the new national health care program, their premiums will help to pay for everyone else. This will likely decrease the quality of healthcare currently enjoyed by federal employees.

    • RETVET03 says:

      “More and more companies are converting to part time or temp workers so that they do not have to pay benefits, including healthcare.”

      Simply not true. The number is about 4% and even that is not clearly attributable to the ACA; for instance our current economic environment aka “the Great Recession”, thanks to our insurance and banking industry. Converting to a larger part time workforce is not necessarily less expensive either.

      “There are also more people than ever collecting some sort of state/govt handout which includes ‘free’ healthcare.”

      Sure, thanks to the fact many of their jobs have been shipped to China so all we have here is McJobs. No healthcare is “free”. If somebody without insurance shows up at the emergency room, they WILL be treated. And who pays for that? I would say “you guessed it” but clearly you have not. Those “handouts” as you call them, allow people to get preventive healthcare which is far, far, far and away less expensive than the emergency room. Yes we still have to pay for it, but I’d choose the less expensive option.

      “If millions of federal workers are forced into the new national health care program, their premiums will help to pay for everyone else. This will likely decrease the quality of healthcare currently enjoyed by federal employees.”

      The “premiums that will help pay for everyone else” will be made by those who can, but choose not to, purchase health insurance. People who are already paying are a wash; you’d just be moving the same dollars from one place to another. The only way any additional money gets added is by bringing in “new” people. Probably the biggest portion of those are the twenty-somethings who are not likely to have health issues and who risk not having the insurance.

  14. Soonershooter says:

    All civilian federal employees should be in the Aff. Care Act, no exceptions or waivers. If it’s good enough to be law, and good enough for the citizens of America, then civilian federal civil servants can be a part of it.

    • Lipan says:

      Yep, watch for it everyone. It’s mentalities like this that get socialist governments going. Watch in 30 years or so, the Constitution won’t look anything like the founding fathers invisioned. No sense of freedom of choice at all. People like this one here will cause us to loose it. The system will become so large and overpowering that we will have no choice but to go along with it or simply do without.

      Yep, here it comes. Enjoy!!!

    • RETVET03 says:

      Well obviously the ACA covers everybody so I have no idea what you’re talking about…

    • Eva B says:

      The AFC was created to supposedly help those who could not afford health insurance. As a hard working federal employee, I can afford and do pay for my insurance and my employer also pays a part. I didn’t write the AFC nor do I want it. I am a citizen of America but that doesn’t mean that I have to be a part of the AFC.

  15. Daniel Steinborn says:

    There would be no substantive benefit to shifting either active employees or annuitants from FEHB to policies available under the new health insurance exchanges. It is important to remember that large employers (over 90% of which already provide health insurance to full time employees) are not required to obtain employee health insurance from one of the new exchanges. The insurance they offer is required to meet standards articulated in the Affordable Care Act and the implementing regulations. The FEHB operates just like a large employer plan that provides several health insurance options for employees. Thus federal employees and annuitants are already being treated just like private sector employees who work for large companies.

  16. Doc Sanchez says:

    Just a quick reminder to the Obama-bashers: Obamacare was Romneycare originally…
    FEHBP should be left alone and federal Workers allowed to continue to pay for our own health care under FEHBP. This is a classic case of, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” ACA is for Americans who cannot afford anything else. I fork out $10K annually for my family’s health insurance under FEHBP. Congress, leave us federal Employees alone. Go find a blind spider to steal flies from or something…heartless so & so’s…

    • Rambo1957 says:

      Romney, as Governor of Massachusetts, gave his constituents what they wanted. That is what they are elected to do. If you recall, the people of Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to the Senate in response to the health care debate. I did a quick check on the premium page of the OPM website. There are plans that cost over $10,000 per year. There are less expensive options available in each state. Would it not be worthwhile to look into changing carriers?

  17. aWatcher says:

    I think that the President, his family, staff, etc, along with the VP and his staff and family, all liberal democrats in Congress, their families and staffs, along with anyone who voted for it, pushed it, touted it or otherwise worked to effect it, should be required to enroll and it should be their ONLY option. If it is so wonderful, let them use it and prove it. Only then should it be considered as the only option for other federal workers. As a federal worker who DID NOT support Obamacare, I am appalled that the IRS (who are charged with enforcing the utilisation of it) may not be required to enroll and that Congress is not required to enroll.

    • Fed Up! says:

      I’ll be glad to give up my FEHBP and get a policy through an Obamacare exchange -it would likely be the same or similar anyway. As long as you also give up your health insurance all together and never show up at an ER expecting to be helped for nothing.

      • Retired Fed says:

        If you go on Obamacare, will you still the Federal government’s contribution? Or will you pay more for it because you won’t?

    • RETVET03 says:

      Another red herring….

  18. jhenjoh says:

    By all means we should be included. I mean, it seems the vast majority of federal employees supported the election of Obama, and the ACA, then where is the queston? Sauce for the goose.

  19. PublicCitiZen says:

    Really Ralph?
    Of course the FEHB plan should continue, and employees should have access.
    The ACA (Obamacare if you prefer) was set up to insure people who do not have insurance.
    Not to kick anyone off of their health plans, nor to reduce employer sponsored benefits.
    The congressional mandate was an attempt to derail the bill that failed.
    Any further attempt to force federal employees on to exchanges is just more political posturing.

    • MikeJ21235 says:

      Exactly! This article was written to get everyone in an uproar. The poll is absolutely stupid.

    • HRGuy71 says:

      I am quite certain the legislation to do away with the FEHP was not written by the company that runs this website and that the OPM experimental program to move retirees into medicare was not devised by the website either.

      You can, of course, just decide to put your head in the sand and blame others for what is going on. Chances are, it will not happen but to deride a news item that makes you aware of it seems very short sighted–or worse.

      • PublicCitiZen says:

        I wasn’t deriding the article. I was making fun of the question.
        Nor did I blame Ralph for the legislation.
        And since the comment section is for commenting, it is hardly burying my head in the sand to offer my opinion of the legislation.
        Just as you commenting on my comment, rather than offering an opinion of the legislation, isn’t short-sighted or worse.

    • mandinka says:

      Of course it should continue because you pay next to nothing for it and the taxpayers are on the hook for ever expanding premiums as OPM continues to add coverage. At a minimum taxpayers coverage should end when a retiree hits 65 and is Medicare eligible

      • fed employee says:

        I disagree. If there is additional coverage as you suggest, I don’t see it and it certainly comes with significant added costs to the enrollee.

      • Rhubarb says:

        Taxpayer coverage ends when a retiree hits 65? Who is paying for the Medicare?

  20. robert says:

    Obamacare is just a means to get big corporation out of ever having to pay for there portion of insurance. Yes, corporation are going to pay some. But, in the long run they would rather contribute 10-15% than the current 70-75% they are now paying. Obama has a plan to line his pockets with corporate contributions for the rest of his life and the underlying is that large corporate companies will never have to do anything with insurance for the employees. Its all a big hoax!!!

    • enigma1083 says:

      Your logic is as flawless as your grammar.

    • mandinka says:

      Agreed and the taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay the lions share of premiums for feds

      • angeleyesih says:

        Then why don’t you take that up with the lawmakers who made things this way instead of bashing the federal employees who had nothing to do with making it this way?

      • dj says:

        Why not? Everything the federal government gets is paid for by taxpayers. And, federal employees are taxpayers so they not only pay for health insurance premiums through their pay checks they help to pay for it through the federal income taxes they pay.

  21. Lee_Lucas says:

    If the truth about Obummercare had been known, no Fed with any brain cells would have voted for this guy. Here we go, down the drain.

  22. mandinka says:

    FEHBP should be open to all americans as part of the exchange run by the federal govt. Based on Obama math rates will go down if its opened up

  23. Comrade1917 says:

    Federal employees are more equal than others and need to keep their FEHBP … peasant taxpayers deserve Obamacare.

    • Doc Sanchez says:

      You infer that ACA is somehow a lesser quality health care program for “peasant taxpayers.” I am a peasant taxpayer who happens to work for the Veterans Affairs department. Comrade, as a federal Employee I pay $10K annually in health insurance premiums for my family’s medical care…it is no free ride, Sir. If ACA would save us money, federal Workers would consider enrolling in it, but this should not be mandatory.

      • Comrade1917 says:

        But, but, Comrade Obama says ACA is so wonderful!

        However, some animals are more equal than others … it’s as simple as that.

        In the old USSR, bureaucrats and communist party members received better healthcare than the peasants. Same rule applies in the USSA.

        • Fed Up! says:

          Exactly. The 1% can afford to have any insurance or hospital-doctors-procedures they want and those who can’t afford individual private plans only get help in the ER on your dime, if its not too late and they’re already dead.

      • mandinka says:

        the only way to make ACA work is to force feds into the program

  24. Rich says:

    So….. what happened to “if you like what you have, you can keep it” ?
    Just another Obama smokescreen ?

    • Jake McDougall says:

      That is what I was wondering as well

    • RCarr says:

      You should note that the congressmen who are sponsoring the bill are both republicans. Its an attempt to start dissatisfaction with the program.

      • Hopeisnot_A_Plan says:

        Start dissatisfaction with Obamacare? Over 70% of Americans are against it being implemented. I think the dissatisfaction already exists.

        • Corporationsarepeopletoo says:

          Yes, 70% hate Obamacare right from Fox News Friends and family. Yes why should Insurance companies have to put someone on their policy with a pre-existing condition or why should my children be on my policy until they are 26. Yes 70% of Americans absolutely hate this. People if Fox News states it don’t you know it has to be true. Don’t you realize the GOP care about the people. And if I hear the GOP cares more about Corporations I’m going to go mad. Don’t you people realize Corporations are people too. They just don’t care about profits, they care about the people and that they have a living wage.

    • RETVET03 says:

      Why don’t you write Senator Grassley and find out?

    • Doc Sanchez says:

      Note RCarr’s comment below. Obama’s original program DID allow taxpayers to “keep what you have.” It’s the Republicans whose bill modifies this, and as noted elsewhere here, the Republicans merely want to create an issue out of a non-issue in order to sabotage ACA. Their plan has nothing to do with improving the lot of uninsured Americans; it’s about old-fashioned BS Washington politics–which always leaves the taxpayer behind.

    • Angela says:

      I have a “high deductible” plan. I have been researching that and because plans are now going to be forced to provide a minimum level of services, these plans may be going away. Not sure if this will apply to FEDS or not. So, I have something low cost that works for me and I can save up to pay for my own expenses in a tax advantaged health care savings account–seems about right that Obamacare can’t let that live!!

    • Fed Up! says:

      Nothing has happened to it. The R-TP proposes otherwise every other day, and on the other day they try to totally abolish Obamacare. Like cow methane they contribute only to global warming.

  25. $31427826 says:

    I have a major problem with Rep. Dave Camp and Forbes Magazine on this issue. The ACA was passed and enacted (albeit not the most popular plan) to essentially insure people who were uninsured, not to redistribute insurance plans and people. Federal employees already have an insurance plan that most desire to keep. To enact legislation to prevent that is targeting a specific group of people, namely federal employees. Since I and other federal employees are being “targeted” and harassed by other federal employees of the government (Congress) I DEMAND AN IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION INTO THIS. I DEMAND THE IG AND ATTORNEY GENERAL PROCEED WITH A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. I WANT TO SEE JAIL TIME FOR ALL OF THESE HARASSING CROOKS IN CONGRESS.

    • Pat Fucile says:

      Yet you want to give a pass to all the IRS crooks who are harassing conservatives.

      • $31427826 says:

        First comes the crime, then comes the crook. No crime reported yet, let the investigation play out. I seriously doubt there will be any crimes here. Remember the Tax Reform Act of 1998 that seriously hampered IRS collections because thousands complained that IRS was heavy handed and Revenue Officers stopped collecting back taxes because of Section 1203(b)? Congress then starts crying where have the tax collections gone. Turns out there were only 6 valid complaints in over one thousand.

        • mandinka says:

          complaints are on the rise after the IRS took collections back inhouse and rates are much worse

          • $31427826 says:

            WRONG as usual. Why was the contracting out stopped? Because the idiot contractors were not following the law.

          • Angela says:

            That and they weren’t doing as an effective a job as our in house collections.

          • mandinka says:

            have you looked at what is outstanding now?? Its almost double where it was in 2008

          • Angela says:

            Could it be that the worsening economy has caused millions of Americans to be unable to meet their tax obligations? Wouldn’t that be more likely?

          • mandinka says:

            How could there be a worsening economy. We’ve had 50 months of job growth or don’t you believe the messiah. And no the economy has nothing to do with it. Its because feds are unaccountable and get paid whether they collect 1 dime or not. Not the same for contractors

          • Angela says:

            If by messiah, you mean Obama–this Reagan republican certainly isn’t supportive! I also happen to be an federal employee. We’re not ALL democrats! I am ashamed by the scandals within the IRS and call ’em like I see ’em but tell me what can the IRS collect from when citizens drop out of the workforce to join disability (etc) at the rates they have since 2008? People can’t find jobs so they drop out of the work force and get on ss or disability while owing large sums and you have the classic blood from a turnip argument. I challenge any private company to have greater tools at their disposal than the federal government for debt collection. Try owing them and you will find that out! But if you don’t have any money, there’s nothing from which to collect.

          • mandinka says:

            No because Obama wanted to end out sourcing to please his union thugs

          • $31427826 says:

            No they’re not. Stop blowing wind.

          • mandinka says:

            Really have you looked at what is uncollected now VS 2008??

        • Pat Fucile says:

          There were a lot more than six valid complaints involving the IRS harassment of conservative groups.

          • $31427826 says:

            Section 1203(b)

            IRS Non-Retaliation Policy

            Section 1203 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA ’98), created a statutory provision requiring termination of IRS employment for misconduct. Section 1203(a) provides that the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue shall terminate the employment of any employee of the Internal Revenue Service if there is a final administrative or judicial determination that such employee committed any act or omission described under subsection (b) in the performance of the employee’s official duties. One of the acts described in subsection (b) is retaliation.

            Section 1203 (b)(6) provides that:

            Violations of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Department of Treasury regulations, or policies of the Internal Revenue Service (including the Internal Revenue Manual) for the purpose of retaliating against, or harassing, a taxpayer, taxpayer representative, or other employee of the Internal Revenue Service.

            is an act or omission requiring termination.

            IRM Section 6.751.1.1 addresses administrative disciplinary matters. Exhibit 6.751.1-1 is the Internal Revenue Service Guide for Penalty Determinations. Violations of RRA ’98, Section 1203 (b)(6) is included in the Guide for Penalty Determinations. This Exhibit shows that the penalty for a First Offense for an RRA ‘98 1203 (b)(6) offense is removal.

            Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 2012-12-13

            Harassment of a taxpayer is a serious event resulting in termination. Don’t just sling the word around like the other bull that you sling. Tea party groups all cry, that’s all they do, cry about Dems, cry about RINOs cry about IRS, cry about DOJ etc. The Regs 1.501(c) were brand new in 2012 and the Cincinnati office was seeking guidance on how to proceed given the new Regs. (which you do not know the difference between the Regs and the IRC) and the Citizens United case.

          • cforlife1109@gmail.com says:

            501(c) groups were not new and Dems have been using them for years. It was not challenged until Conservative groups got on the band wagon and attempted to do the same. THEN IRS wanted to check more closely. Hummmm.

          • Pat Fucile says:

            Wow you sure do like posting irrelevant strawman’s don’t you.

        • Hopeisnot_A_Plan says:

          So is six valid complaints ok with you? If you were one of the six you would not think so.

      • $31427826 says:

        No just the crooks in Congress

      • StackRat says:

        Apples and oranges.

      • RCarr says:

        I think there is a big difference in scrutinizing non profits, and sending people out on furloughs, and changing Federal health plans to set Obamacare in the negative light.

      • MikeJ21235 says:

        Conservatives spend their lives thinking of ways to harass those that don’t think or live as they do. They don’t like the way we want to live then move to Texas.

        • Pat Fucile says:

          You are kidding right? Michelle Obama’s wanting to limit kids food in school. Or the liberal push to monitor what we eat in general. How about Bloomberg’s “no trans fats, no big sugary drinks, etc.” We won’t even talk about the liberal politically correct banning of certain words because it might be offensive to somebody. And yet those same liberals think it’s perfectly ok for other liberals to refer to women as the C word as well as other derogatory names. I could go on and on about what liberals are doing to everybody. But I’m sure you’ve got your blinders so firmly on there is no way you would ever admit the truth.

          • $31427826 says:

            I do not like government mandates. That being said this country needs to eat better and get fit because it is causing health issues driving up the cost of health insurance. Get educated on sugar, it is no good, diet drinks, kill rats, what does it do to humans. Maybe we could offset this and do a fat tax to help pay for insurance, you know if you biggie size it, tax it an extra 20 cents.

          • Pat Fucile says:

            Learn to read. I never said any of those thing were good. But it is not the role of the federal government to make our choices for us. Like I told Fed Up!, women can choose abortion and we’re told to mind our own business because it’s their own body. You don’t see the hypocrisy in telling us what we can eat? By the way, the scientific studies where rats get killed by diet drinks like the study on saccharin is faulty because the danger posed to rats seems to be a product of their physiology: rat urine reacts with saccharin in a different way from ours. We won’t even talk about the shear volume they feed to rats, much more than a human would ever ingest. And for the record, I never have stated what I do or don’t eat. But I’m sure you’ll come up with some insulting comment because you can’t read.

          • mandinka says:

            and bottle water is bad for the environment so it should have a liquor style tax on it adding $1 to its cost

          • Fed Up! says:

            Whats your insurance company Pat? I’d like to shift the burden I pay for obese kids, adults and smokers to you because you are willing to pay for their “freedoms” to eat crap and support corporate profits.

          • Pat Fucile says:

            You don’t get it do you. It is not up to the federal government to tell us what we can or cannot do. Women can choose abortion and we’re told to mind our own business because it’s their own body. You don’t see the hypocrisy in telling us what we can eat?

          • Fed Up! says:

            It you that don’t get it. The gumint ain’t tellin you what to eat. FDA makes recommendations, Michelle Obama makes her recommendations, she passes no laws. You can make your choices if you want ten big macs and deep fat fries for lunch. If taxpayers pay for kids meals at schools do you think they should pay for a high cholesterol, high sugar diet or subsidize cigarette companies? Your insurance company raises their rates to cover “high risks” and you pay for it and healthy taxpayers pay for it. Don’t make me pay for your ER visits. But I’ll put you in for a Darwin Award after you don’t make it out of the ER.

          • Pat Fucile says:

            Well since Fed Up!’s next comment has been showing as awaiting moderation for over 8 hours now and won’t let me reply to it yet, here is my response:

            Oh, I understand what you’re saying about eating properly, health, and insurance risks. You are indeed missing my point. Michelle Obama’s Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2010 (she pushed for the law) is indeed telling what kids can have to eat in school. This isn’t even an issue if the taxpayers are paying for it. These rules apply to kids whose lunch is paid for by their parents. But a good chunk of the kids are refusing to eat it and bringing lunch from home instead. In fact, in one case, the school lunch person took a child’s lunch that was brought from home because in her estimation, it didn’t fit the right requirements. Bloomberg was most certainly telling people what people could eat, why else would he be banning things in NYC? This also isn’t an issue of what I do or don’t ingest. Your puerile remark about a Darwin for me was unwarranted since I never mentioned what I ate. This all boils down to an individual’s right to choose. Apparently, for people like you, the right to choose only pertains to abortions. People have the right to make good or bad decisions on their own. If you think the government has right to tell people what they can or can’t eat, you don’t believe in a free society, you believe in a dictatorship.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

            http://www.washingtontimes.com

          • Hopeisnot_A_Plan says:

            Actually, as Americans were have the right to eat what we want, drink what we want, poop when we want, etc. Liberals are the only ones trying to tell everyone else what they can and cannot do. I would be frustrated with an administration that required everyone to eat a dozen donuts a day, so why would I not be frustrated with an administration that tries to force what we can eat?

        • Fella says:

          I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you talk about the pot calling the kettle black…..

        • Arcturus6 says:

          Really Mike? Move to Texas? Sounds good to me, sinceI live in Texas now and wish we would exercise our constitutional option of secession! You can have Obama and his group of malcontents who want to shape the world into some hideous remake of “1984!”

        • mandinka says:

          I agree that Feds who make on avg $130,000 a year look down their noses at taxpayers

          • Eva B says:

            Where did you get this figure? Average usually means somewhere in the middle and no where in federal payrolls do I see more employee salaries on the higher side. Most employee salaries are on the low side. That’s why they’re called employees, not managers.

    • RETVET03 says:

      I agree with the “problem”. But the real problem seems to be “us” as a whole. Until people start taking some initiative to get “truthfully” informed there is no way they could understand that this whole issue is a manufactured crisis. Now just who was it that inserted that provision in the ACA that required Congress to use the exchanges? Gee, when one finds out then the puzzle is solved, and it even explains how this bill is connected to it. Clearly sabotage. No honor, no ethics, no integrity. Makes me want to vomit.

    • gholfdude says:

      It’s hard to know what the ACA was “for” when no one had a chance to read it…and who could read it? It’s way too long, complex, and self-contradictory.

      • Soonershooter says:

        Not true, you could easily read this after it was passed by Congress and signed into law by POTUS. If it is good enough for Nancy Pelosi, it should be good enough for the rest of us.

  26. TheRealOldFed says:

    The healthcare exchanges were largely modeled on FEHBP to give those who are uninsured the opportunity to have good, affordable healthcare insurance. That is who these exchanges were set up for, not Federal employees who ALREADY HAVE INSURANCE through FEHBP. Language in the PPACA specifically said that if you already had healthcare insurance, you wouldn’t lose it. So why, yet again, should Federal Employees be the target of more legislation? Leave us alone, or there will be no one left to run the Federal gov’t. I will be retiring, as will everyone I know that is eligible. Enough of being the public’s football.

    • Hopeisnot_A_Plan says:

      If that were the case Congress could have just expanded Medicaid. No my friend, it was a complete takeover of the healthcare insurance industry to make us all even. Cadillac health plans are to be taxed, which has nothing to do with the uninsured. You were suckered OldFed and eventually all Feds will be included in the exchanges. And it will be done to you by the Dems.

      • RsubG says:

        Do you have any idea what Obamacare is? Obviously not since you don’t think companies are allowed to provide insurance to their employees. You could go get BCBS from the exchanges. The exchanges are just there so people get a fair shake when they want to buy insurance (hence they are UNINSURED) and are supposed to create competition between the different insurance providers since an UNISURED person will be standing there with multiple options!

        • RETVET03 says:

          Exactly. I bet most of the people here couldn’t even name three, much less one, provision of the ACA. Of course they’re too proud or stubborn to go to Wikipedia. If they did, facts might get in the way….

          • Duncan Duhnut says:

            Yikes! I looked and it is much worse than I thought.

          • RETVET03 says:

            Hey, you’re entitled to your opinion. It is a huge bill. Legitimate beefs on both sides. I just wish people would look at what beef they have so we could be talking specifics rather that talking points from ideologues.

          • Hopeisnot_A_Plan says:

            Like one of the Democrat authors of the bill that now describes it as a train wreck waiting to happen?

          • RETVET03 says:

            And maybe he describes the sky is mauve for all I care. On the other hand, he could explain exactly what provisions he has a problem with and why.

          • Hopeisnot_A_Plan says:

            I assume that you also fell for the Amway pitch and sold Amway at some time in your life. Maybe you should go back to Wikipedia to see what problems he has with the implementation.

          • RETVET03 says:

            Amway? The conservative darling of the free market! All those individuals pursuing the American Dream by way of multi-level marketing; it’s the DIY version of Walmart!

            You go ahead and assume all you want. That way you can easily dispute any source without having to invest any energy into discovering any relevant facts, esp. those that might not support your ideological viewpoint. It’s so much easier to tune the dial to a radio talk show host and put your brain on autopilot.

          • mandinka says:

            Nether can peelosi or reid or obama

          • Hopeisnot_A_Plan says:

            Wikipedia is your source of information on ACA???

          • RETVET03 says:

            It’s a source, at least a starting point. I don’t have a problem with it.

    • mandinka says:

      Because its a Cadillac plan and the taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it

      • Jake McDougall says:

        FEHBP is most certainly not anywhere close to being a Cadillac plan!

        • HRGuy71 says:

          Actually, the most popular health insurance plan in the federal program qualifies as a cadillac health insurance plan. Most of my colleagues do not realize how well we fare with overall salary and benefits–this is apparently one example.

          “A group of unions released a report (PDF) today showing that the so-called “Cadillac” tax on higher-cost health insurance plans would, after three years, begin to hit the most popular health care plan within the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) — ultimately impacting 48 percent of all federal employees and nearly 3.8 million people.”

          http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50

          • mandinka says:

            HR you have more patience than I do with these low information posters. I refuse to post links because they can’t or won’t read

        • Fella says:

          “Cadillac plan” is not a plan itself, it’s a dollar threshold. I’ve seen it, but I’m sure somebody knows more than I about it. I want to say $10,500 paid by an employer a year for a single person?

      • $31427826 says:

        “Because its a Cadillac plan and the taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it.” That’s right, SHOULD.

    • RCarr says:

      Funny, the Dems didn’t sponsor the bill, the Repubs did. So it will be done to you by the Repubs is a more accurate statement.

      • Hopeisnot_A_Plan says:

        The Republicans do not have enough votes in Congress to pass a bill by themselves. If it becomes law it is because Dems support it also.

Top