Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.2102 | +0.0011 | +0.69% |
| F | $13.6263 | -0.0136 | +2.19% |
| C | $13.8822 | -0.0041 | +5.03% |
| S | $18.1185 | -0.0839 | +10.07% |
| I | $18.5861 | -0.1653 | +0.26% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $16.2757 | -0.0497 | +4.10% |
| L 2030 | $16.0266 | -0.0418 | +3.66% |
| L 2020 | $15.7897 | -0.0336 | +3.06% |
| L 2010 | $15.4792 | -0.0113 | +1.70% |
| L Income | $14.1011 | -0.0086 | +1.59% |
« Previous | Next »
Sharing The Wealth: Options for Reducing Government Expenses in Health Care and the Impact on Federal Employees
« Previous | Next »
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
| Mobile
© 2010 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Retiree's health premiums
Army
Fri Mar 6, 2009 8:49 AM
Post Reply
It is hard enough to make ends meet when on a fixed income. Increasing premiums for retirees is not the answer. However, I do agree with the sliding scale for those who retire in the future and can plan for that. I do however believe there should be some consideration for disability retirees who have to retire early due to health. Might want to make the scale less hurtful to their pocketbook.
Pro-rata government share of premiums for retirees
HUD
Fri Mar 6, 2009 8:50 AM
Post Reply
For retirees working less than 20 years, a reduction of the government share by some percent seems fair.
Re: Pro-rata government share of premiums for retirees
VA
Sat Mar 7, 2009 4:11 PM
let me guess ... you have over 20 years of service ?
Cutting Governement Contributions
IRS
Fri Mar 6, 2009 9:08 AM
Post Reply
This is ludicrous! I am a single income person. I am 60 years old. I have worked for the government for 21 years and have faithfully added to my TSP. Since I am a TSP person and will need to count on Medicare to retire (that is if Medicare is still solvent), if I am able. I am virtually in a pickle and will probably need to work until I die. I have a hard time paying my health expenses now, after my insurance has paid their portion. If I am made to pay more premiums you will see me go into bankruptcy…
Reducing the Federal Budget
DOE
Fri Mar 6, 2009 9:25 AM
Post Reply
How much would the Budget be reduced if we reduced the number of Representatives and Senators by half and required them to work at least 30 years before they became eligible for retirement and all the other benefits? We might streamline things a bit, and MAYBE they could maybe even get a budget passed in a timely fashion.
Chess Game
DOD
Fri Mar 6, 2009 9:31 AM
Post Reply
There is a strategy at play, which goes at least 3-4 moves into the future. By giving FEHB a thousand cuts, they can shift resources into a national healthcare plan. Essentially, this done at the expense of federal workers. They may just outright demolish FEHB & quickly shift the entire USA population, into a national healthcare model based FEHB & all get about a 75%, or lower, subsidy. When it's all over, feds will look around dazed & enraged!!
FEHB
Air Force
Fri Mar 6, 2009 9:36 AM
Post Reply
There are better ways to reduce government costs than those mentioned. I am totally opposed to ruining FEHB by opening it up to non-government employees or to change to a voucher system. Government employees should be able to just keep their government health plans and not have to use Medicare; so the law would have to be changed to keep from having Medicare as the first payer. Raising costs for retirees with fewer than 20 years would be OK, but employees who retire with over 42 years should never have a reduction in the perentage the government has been paying. Any changes made must not affect retirees or those with over 40 years of service. A parallel health care system should be set up to be like FEHB but not the same. There should be regional health plans set up for non-government folks. Retirement age should be raised to be in line with Social Security retirement ages. In this time when people live longer, 55 is much too early to have paid retirement.
Vouchers
Dept of Labor
Fri Mar 6, 2009 9:56 AM
Post Reply
Listen, a voucher system will not work. It doesn't work for schools and it sure in the hell will not work for health insurance.
Health insurance premiums are based on a complex formula of pools of potential customers and the risks associated with their various demographics. As low risk customers are siphoned off from that pool, the remaining customers become much more costly to cover their care.
Sure for the few individuals who are better than average health wise may benefit, the remainder will pay higher premiums to cover the higher costs of coverage so no real savings will seen.
Here is a way to cut costs and improve coverage, require the government to pay 80% of the premium cost and employees pick up 20%. Use the power of the combined pool to negotiate lower fees for service and better prices for presciption drugs like the VA can now.
A single payer system is the only way to truly cut costs and reduce administrative overhead. Any other option is just a more of the same.
Re: Vouchers
DOD
Fri Mar 6, 2009 4:22 PM
Re: Vouchers
DOL
Sun Mar 8, 2009 5:51 PM