[lbo-talk] Federal employees plan? was AP: White House appears ready to drop 'public option'

Left-Wing Wacko leftwingwacko at gmail.com
Mon Aug 17 18:00:04 PDT 2009


On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Max Sawicky<sawicky at verizon.net> wrote:
> If the uninsured had an option similar to what Federal employees have,
> it would not be the end of the world.  It would help a lot of people
> who can't get
> coverage now because they did not get insurance and acquired preexisting
> conditions, or because they work for companies that provide no insurance.

Ok,since Max brought it up and because I am a Federal employee, I will take this opportunity to address some of these misconceptions about the great options that Federal employees have.

First, its almost exactly like what any other employee of a private sector company has. Your employer pays part of the premium to a private insurance company, and part comes out of your salary.

Now the difference is that I can choose from about 20-30 different plans from about 40 different private corporations. I think probably from any health insurance company that operates in Arizona in my case.

They of course all vary on what the gov. and the employee pays, what the plans cover, and what the yearly deductibles and copays are etc.. And let me tell you, CHOICE SUCKS!

I chose what I could afford, and I am still getting clobbered with bills all year to take care of my sickly spouse. All I want is something that charges me little and covers the essential health needs. And doesn't pay executive's million dollar salaries and another guy's stock dividends. Single payer!

And there is absolutely no equality built in to the Federal employee insurance system. If a person is management level, GS-12+ then they can choose the gold plated plan of their choice, and a nice chunk of change comes out of their salary. Likewise a GS-4-5 can choose the same plan and an equally large chunk of change will be deducted from their much smaller check.

So I am sure those Congressmen/women and Senators who make make 100 thou. plus a year can choose the best insurance in the world and their deduction doesn't hurt a bit. Not so much for the lesser Federal employee like yours truly.

There is a young woman who cleans the facilities where I work. She is disabled and has many health problems, and she works full time, and she also works at the local Walmart to make ends meet. I'm guessing she opts for the best insurance she can choose from because she needs it, and I am betting it takes out a significant amount out of her take home pay.

So no, there is not from each according to his ability, to each according to his need for Federal employees.

Oh, and FYI, there are significant numbers of Federal employees who work for the Forest Service, Nat. Park Service, BLM etc. who work as seasonals and are not provided health insurance. All those wild-land fire fighters who fight fires protecting the private property of the wealthy who have vacation homes next to public lands, I am betting at least 90% of them are seasonals who are not provided health insurance from the Federal govt..

So really, giving people the options that Federal employees have, while better than nothing, still is an undue burden on low wage workers and doesn't necessarily help our overall circumstances of gross inequality in this country. And what about the unemployed? And the blood sucking health insurance corp. parasites will still get rich off the system.

Single payer, the best and only solution that American's can't pull their heads out of their assess to demand.

Sheldon


>
> The sticky part absent any public option (and does anybody know what a
> "coop" would look like?) is coverage for those with low wages.  Since many
> workers make low wages, it is hard to shoehorn in a mandate on the firm.
> You need big subsidies, relative to the worker's wage level.  The other sticky
> wicket is very small firms who will escape the mandate, and the impact that
> might have on firms just above the cutoff -- downsize and contract out to get
> under the ceiling.
>
> I'm also hearing of provisions to gouge "savings" out of Medicare and Medicaid
> that could entail benefit cuts which will affect those currently
> covered, all for
> the sake of bogus 'fiscal responsibility' reasons.
>
> Once the exchange is set up, it's possible that pressure to control subsidies
> and premiums in general will lead to the addition of a public option, as well as
> efforts to jawbone medical providers to keep prices from increasing as much.
>
> Getting a near-universal system is a necessary prelude for raising the ratio
> of good care to expenses.  No matter what happens this fall, this will not
> be over.
>
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list