6:18 pm, May 28, 2015

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 40
       

  • Health Premiums
    Bud
    I'm retired.Changed my coverage from family to self.Wife who is also a fed retiree did same.We paid family rates for 36 years.We had 3 children.We're happy to have had the family coverage.Insurance is a pooled resource of money from premiums.I could argue for lower FEHB rates since I have Medicare just like people with no kids argue for different family rates.If everyone had their way you'd wind up with about 10 different premium rates.There is no viable answer here.Just keep it the way it is,self or family,period.This argument reminds me of people arguing to change the old GS system to locality pay,pay banding,etc.What did that accomplish other than muddying the waters
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Good points but...
    Moderate
    You make good points, but then FEHB should not reduce payouts for those eligible for medicare by what the medicare payout would be. That would be my argument for a reduced premium for seniors. Remember that for family coverage, BX still gets about $16000-17000 whether you are 65 and older, or under 65. Why should BX reduce the payout and force us to take medicare?
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Charge more for families with more kids!
    Taxpayer Too
    What about the people that have a half a dozen kids or more and they pay the same as a family of 3. I've worked with a couple of people that have their share of children. One fellow worker has 7 children and the other has 10. Both are paying the same as I did when I was married with 1 child. The options should be changed to something like 4 and under people pay one amount 5 to 8 people pay a higher premium and over 8 an even higher rate. My ex is a retired fed. employee. When I first started with the govt we both had our own insurance which was cheaper then getting our insurance together. Most federal employees don't have that option. The insurance should be prorated according to the number of people in each family.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • It's Not Fair!!!
    Putt-Putt
    Some of the commentators sound like six year-olds on the playground "It's not fair!!!". Just remember the little diddy "What's for me thee may not be fair for me". Group medical insurance is not about fairness, it's about shared risk. And don't throw in that Medicare argument. I pay medicare tax each paycheck which offsets retirees' premiums and I get absolutely no benefit from it (maybe I will when I retire, but my prediction is both SS and Medicare will be means tested by then and since I have that "cushy" pension and was disciplined enough to save the max in my TSP since day one I'll see not one red cent of SS or medicare). At least when retirees' pay FEHB premiums they get to use the insurance. Like Contrarian says, it's the Me geneneration - "I want mine, and forget the rest of you".
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Shared Risk??
    Taxpayer Too
    This shared risk you speak of, does that mean that I should share the costs for a family of 12 when I'm in a family of 3? Why would I want to share with a family that has 9 more family members then my family? And why should I have to pay for someone to go through 9 more pregnancies then myself? If you feel this is fair then you cover the extra costs!!!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • FEHB
    Bud
    T/pT-You can argue this issue 20 ways from Sunday.The average US family is 2-3 kids.So those with more get a benefit.Less than 2-3,you're penalized.That's life.I paid family for 36 years with 3 kids.Didn't care,because I was thankful for the insurance.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Thankful?
    Spanky
    Maybe you were thankful 36 years ago! But I am positive the plans aren't even close to what we have 30 years ago. Perhaps it hasn't happened to you or a loved one yet, but with the current standard plans, any critic life illness will bring you and your mid-level wealth to poverty! I am not talking about a simple surgery or illness.. but a critical one... the loopholes in most of the standard plans will bankrupt the average worker in a crisis! 30 years ago that would be very rare! And it is normally the ones with the huge families justifying that is all washes out! Got a mirror Bud?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Premium issues
    Moderate
    Good points Bud. We cannot complicate the system with basing the premiums on the number of kids. I have 3 also, with one going off my policy next year and the other one on for awhile. I guess my point is that I should not be "forced" to pay for medicare by FEHB reducing its payouts by the payments medicare would pay while still collecting the same premium from myself and the government.----Putt-Putt, you can predict what will happen, but you do not know. Medicare part B premiums are means tested to a large degree, but that is it. If and when your scenario happens, then you made a point. You may not benefit greatly from medicare except for the fact that FEHB discriminates against seniors.----Spanky, thank you for almost civility. Bud makes some good points. I agree with some and disagree with others. But he is reasonable. Your comments may or may not be true depending on your wealth. Your insurance coverage should pay the full amount of the cost of the illness after a few thousand dollars of your payouts. If you have the high deductible coverage, then it would be rather expensive if you got a catastrophic illness. However, even that has its limits. Rob, I believe you have more knowledge in this area than I do. I hope I am correct that you are the own who has this type of coverage. If I am wrong please forgive. Got a mirror to Bud is not appropriate, Spanky.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • FEHB enrollment options
    Jeremiah
    I find it refreshing that a NARFE spokesman would argue for retention of the current two-tier FEHB enrollment option premium structure. As the NARFE membership is made up amost entirely of current or soon to be Federal retirees, who are also largely no longer have dependent children coverable under the FEHB (even with the increase in coverable age to 26), it would seem axiomatic that NARFE would instead argue for a single enrolloee plus one option, as this would most likely benefit many if not most of the ir members. The reasons for his stance can debated, but the logic of the rationale for the existing FEHB family option coverage process, which spreads the risk and costs over a large group, makes eminent sense to me - and I am an FEHB-covered retiree paying for family coverage for myself and my wife, our four kids having long ago left the nest.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }