Quote:
Originally Posted by Muncle
Boom, you know I never disagree with you nor question your information, and I really do neither now. It's just that I often hear people raving about extravagant retirement benefits and health care that congress gets and it irks me --- not the supposed perks but the raving. Congressmen and Senators have the exact same health care benefits as every other federal employee, be they Secretary of the Interior or a typist at the local Social Security Office. That is The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/
No doubt, this is a good program. My premiums (& the congressman's) are very reasonable and the coverage is pretty good -- our dental options suck and drug benefits vary. By comparison, most unions and many private companies are much cheaper. One big benefit we have is that if we've been in the program for the last 5 years before retirement, we can stay in the program in retirement.
Yes, the government pays a large portion of our premiums, but like the Civil Service Retirement Plan, the FEHB helped compensate some of those minuscule cost-of-living adjustments and often miserable working conditions. Should the FEHB be open to the public? In my opinion, not at the cost we pay. That would just be a kick in the testicles of longtime feds. However, as part of an overall reform, could the gov't create an FEHB-type program for the un- and under-insured? Most definitely. The problem for so many people is that they do not have a group available for health insurance. Under this new system, the gov't could create a massive insurable group that would likely attract a large number of insurers. Prices would naturally be lower than for the individual trying to get a solo policy. And whether the gov't should pay part of those premiums and how much ---- who knows?
` |
Munc!
I am joyously spinning around in my new desk chair! Yes! Did you see that sentence of yours that I put in red! Too often I feel like I am speaking some bizarre tribal clicking language when I start talking about middle ground.
Why are there so few people who can see that a big part of the problem is the lack of access, even for people who are ready, willing, and able to pay. And then there are so many who, if they can see it, they just think, "Who gives a rat's behind. I got mine." It is way too easy for politicians to push the same old, same old button of socialized medicine, get the knee-jerk reaction they are looking for, and then just sit back and do nothing.
And I do see what you mean about the compensation in benefits to federal employees. It's the thing about giving up something to get something. Like contract negotiations. Federal employees were giving it up all along in their careers to get those benefits so it would not make economic sense for others to be able to buy in at the cost of someone who had worked all those years. I understand. Good point, Munc.
Like I keep saying, the people I know are not looking for a free ride. The people I know just want to be able to buy a "ticket to ride." But good groups are not available out there for so many. And to heap insult upon injury, if they can find a plan, they so often do not get what they pay for.
Anyway, I very much like what you said here. Hey, I think a big part of the problem is now solved. Do you still have any DC phone numbers so we can call up there and let them know?
Oh and I am so happy to see that you never disagree with me or question me. You have no idea how relieved I am to know that. Oh, Munc, I sure would never, ever want to try to play Jane Curtain to your Dan Aykroyd.
Boomer