11:07 am, May 30, 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.

  • 5

  • Health care
    My biggest concern is the threat to healthcare. If you think people are struggling with bills now, what if they have to pay 100% of their health care through the exchanges, or get a voucher that doesn't increase with the cost of premiums? To me this is the biggest financial risk, especially at the age of the average Fed. And what about retires? Civil service can't opt in to the drug coverage for Medicare, if thay already opted out? Congress seems to be making big deals out of nothing, why? To set up bigger slams to the pay and benefits of hard working Feds?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Affordable Care
    Linda: If that's your biggest fear then you may be in good shape, it's a red herring and vouchers will never happen. Single payer will happen first and you ought to love that.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Medical care
    If forced into exchanges, I suspect the government will still pay a major portion, as will private employers. This year, I suspect we are safe as there isn't sufficient time for congress to make the changes. As to single payer, no, that will not be lovely. No nation has single payer, including Canada, which tried it. Due to the extreme wait for specialists and surgery by specialists, their Supreme Court struck down the single payer law. At present, the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan now have private hospitals, doctors and clinics that accept insurance and cash. I've posted on this about three or four times.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • So they want to cut everything
    Cutting current pay by increasing contributions, cutting future pay by reducing COLs, cutting healthcare, great plan to force the government to go all contractor where they can pay any price they want for labor without any government oversight. Not sure how that really helps the public any, but they are the ones that make the rules. I am not sure going over to an Obamacare type system would affect anyone much. It would still require the employer, the US government, to contribute 65% of premiums, or pay a penalty that leads to the voucher of equivalent value. 65% is about what the government covers now, so I am not sure how it changes much. It just makes a mountain of more paperwork for someone to do to implement the program. Increasing contributions to CSRS that ended about 25 years ago will likely just rush some people out the door a bit quicker. If you can't get out before the high 5 rule kicks in, it just means you will stay for 2 more years to get your high 5 instead of the 3 that is the current rule. Well, many in my office had their high 3 about 5 years ago, so it may not have near the impact on costs Congress thinks it will. Also, they may want to think about the fact that the people you are screwing over are also the ones you are asking to implement the program. If that doesn't give you pause, it should.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Something "new" but not new
    I heard a rumor that sequestration could produce a ceiling of 21 furlough days at the IRS for the next fiscal year. If even 1/2 of that is true, then one can write about an additional reduction of pay AND benefits because ones sick and annual leave accruals will be affected as well as a substantial reduction in salary.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }