Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 47
Page 3 of 4
Page 3 of 4
"We're going to open it (the FEHB) up to everybody"
Total Comments: 47
Page 3 of 4
Page 3 of 4
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.6985 | +0.0013 | +3.41% |
| F | $11.9771 | +0.0022 | +0.39% |
| C | $9.2069 | +0.5468 | -44.40% |
| S | $9.9674 | +0.5424 | -49.63% |
| I | $12.1847 | +0.7026 | -50.79% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $10.9552 | +0.5238 | -39.94% |
| L 2030 | $11.2418 | +0.4750 | -35.43% |
| L 2020 | $11.6629 | +0.4168 | -29.95% |
| L 2010 | $13.1223 | +0.2434 | -15.12% |
| L Income | $12.3256 | +0.1516 | -8.50% |
November 23, 2008
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
© 2008 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opening Up FEHB
DFAS
Fri May 2, 2008 3:56 PM
Post Reply
HR Manager Retired, I'm out for my own interests too, and that is one reason I agree with you that the current system must be reformed. It's unsustainable and places a crushing burden not only on individual citizens, but on the entire economy; companies are leaving the U.S. not only for cheap labor, but because they can't afford the health-care costs.
That said, I don't think dumping the entire uninsured population into FEHB is the answer. I'd be more inclined towards a system similar to the Japanese system: everybody is required to have insurance (the insurance companies are, I believe, required to be non-profit), and the government subsidizes premiums for the poor on a sliding scale based on income, or lack thereof. The system seems to work pretty well--despite their high smoking rates, the Japanese are a pretty healthy population.
Opening the FEHB to Everyone
DOS
Fri May 2, 2008 6:47 PM
Post Reply
It's a bad idea and besides it won't be opened to everyone because Congress participates in the FEHB just like the rest of us and they are not about to give up any of their benefits. Members of Congress were outraged when they had to give up their free parking at Washington National Airport after someone leaked it to the news media. As long as its their benefit there is no way they will let it change.
Re: Opening the FEHB to Everyone
VHA California
Thu May 8, 2008 5:06 PM
The difference between FEHC and the congressional
FSIS
Sun May 4, 2008 8:47 PM
Post Reply
If there is uniform health care it isn't here yet. To open up this care to the population will only make it more expensive for the employees and increase the support for the other people who can't afford it now. We will continue to pay for Medicare and Medicade as well with government monies which will further erode any kind of a living that we work hard to achieve through our continued Federal employment. There is fraud that needs to be addressed as well as the incompetitance of the care givers as well. The emergency rooms are filled with people who don't first go to their doctor and in the case of the illegals they don't have doctors they just clog the system and take advantage.
FEHB for everyone
DLA
Tue May 6, 2008 9:13 AM
Post Reply
I have worked for my benefits. Hillary wants to give our benefits to those who have never worked or are here illegaly. NO WAY
Health Care Financing
Army
Tue May 6, 2008 10:34 AM
Post Reply
I've got a better idea, Hillary. Why don't you get out of politics and do what you do best - get into fiction full time. You could donate all the proceeds from your book sales to the national health care crisis. And we would all be better off for your efforts. Who knows, you might even get Bill a decent legacy out of the effort.
Mrs. Clinton is wrong
USDAFS
Wed May 7, 2008 9:32 AM
Post Reply
I have to disagree with Mrs. Clinton's idea that the FEHB should be open to everyone. Those Americans who are under-insured could receive the opportunity to pay for better health benefits, but, I totally disagree that those with no insurance - welfare types who can't and will not pay for insurance should receive the same insurance and benefits that we work and pay for out of pocket. I can see current premiums going through the roof and the allowable coverages hitting rock bottom. I don't want to compromise what we currently have for personal health care with a wide spread "give away" from the candidates just to earn votes.
The best scenario I have in mind is that of our HONORABLE VETERANS. Their health care is isolated and they must travel, in some cases, half a day to receive treatment and medical exams at a specified Veterans facility and see a physician at that facility. I would like to see the non-insured and illegals deal with health care this way; give Veterans a break.
Re: Mrs. Clinton is wrong
DOD
Wed May 7, 2008 10:35 AM
Now, consider: Is the housewife, who receives no pay or benefits for her work, a "welfare type"? (I wouldn't want to live like that, but this is what society has decreed for milennia, and the socioeconomic apparatus is still running.) After you think carefully, suppose we're talking a house husband - is he a "welfare type" or is his work just somehow more worthwhile? If this work is legitimate, consider what happens when the breadwinner dies. Does the housespouse suddenly become a worthless moocher?
Health Care
USDA
Wed May 7, 2008 10:00 AM
Post Reply
One of the reasons people work for the Federal government is for the perks, not the cash. Health insurance is one such item. The only reason to open it up to the general public is so the Federal government can go twice as fast into debt. It's bad enough now with illegal aliens sucking up our tax dollars, heavens only knows how much more the courts would force the Federal government to throw even more cash at them.