Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Here’s Why Federal Workers Don’t Want Obamacare

Posted 11 months ago on Aug. 17, 2013, 10:11 a.m. EST by LeoYo (5843)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here’s Why Federal Workers Don’t Want Obamacare

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/heres-why-federal-workers-dont-want-obamacare.html/?a=viewall

By Meghan Foley

August 17, 2013

“If the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court, along with all their staffs, are required to go under Affordable Healthcare Act, I would not object,” read one response to a survey conducted by FedSmith.com, a portal for information regarding issues — like the Affordable Care Act — that impact federal workers. “But if it’s not good enough for the heads of the 3 branches of Government, it isn’t good enough for the rest of us.”

There were more than 800 written responses in total, a great majority of them expressing the same idea: Federal employees are not pleased at having the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program replaced by Obamacare.

The underlying complaint running through a majority of these opinions was that members of Congress, Capitol Hill staff, and Obama administration appointees will not be affected by potential Obamacare flaws — like premium hikes — as much as the average American.

“When they ‘live it,’ they will know how to improve it,” another respondent wrote.

The survey of 2,500 federal employees and retirees found that 92.3 percent of them believe workers and retirees should keep keep their current health insurance and not be forced to purchase coverage through the exchanges. Only 2.9 percent thought the opposite. The preference for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program was even more obvious when survey respondents were asked whether they think federal employees should carry their health insurance into retirement, as is the current policy, or enroll in Medicare; 96.1 percent said the current system should not be changed.

When Congress first passed the health care reform, known colloquially as Obamacare, three years ago, attached was an amendment requiring all lawmakers and their staffs to purchase health care insurance via the online exchanges. This meant lawmakers would lose the generous coverage they were granted under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program – where the government subsidized as much as 75 percent of the premiums.

It was written into the bill in the first place on the theory that if Congress was going to make Americans live under the provisions of Obamacare, those who authored it should, as well. But because the language of the amendment contained no guidance on whether the federal contributions toward their health plans was allowed, Congress began to worry.

However, the Office of Personnel Management, with President Barack Obama’s consent, ruled August 7 that Congress members and staff would continue to receive the federal contributions toward their health insurance costs.

In April, Michigan Republican Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, introduced legislation that would shift all federal employees from FEHBP to the exchanges. “If the ObamaCare exchanges are good enough for the hardworking Americans and small businesses the law claims to help, then they should be good enough for the president, vice president, Congress, and federal employees,” said Camp’s spokeswoman in a statement.

And now that the Office of Personnel Management has made its decision regarding benefits for Congress, all other federal workers are becoming more worried.

The National Treasury Employees Union — which includes employees of the Internal Revenue Service — asked its members in late July to write to their representatives regarding their concern about Camp’s legislative efforts. “I am a federal employee and one of your constituents,” began one letter. “I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.”

The argument is that pushing federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would be unfair. “It would be unjust to change the rules after I have spent the majority of my working life in a public service career that is not as lucrative as the private sector when the career decision to forgo private sector lucre now was in large part made in response to the promise that benefits would be much better for public service employees when they retire,” wrote another respondent. “I relied upon and take action in response to the promises that were made, so not living up to the promises amount to a fraud that changed my entire career path.”

25 Comments

25 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

I fail to see the problem here. So, what precisely is your problem with this?

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5843) 11 months ago

“If the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court, along with all their staffs, are required to go under Affordable Healthcare Act, I would not object,” “But if it’s not good enough for the heads of the 3 branches of Government, it isn’t good enough for the rest of us.”

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

Do the Federal employees have insurance or not?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5843) 11 months ago

Did I answer your question or not?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

No copy pasta man. You won't be happy until you have destroyed any benefits for the job that they do. They already have insurance, do they not?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5843) 11 months ago

On the contrary but you just go on ahead and keep thinking you know what makes me happy. When the Executive, Judiciary, and Legislature, give up what they have to accept what everyone else will have or extend what they have to everyone else, then I'll be closer to something that one might consider to be happy.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

It's a familiar game. Verbally strike out to those that hold the power while screwing those that do the jobs but do not hold the power. It's repetitive.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5843) 11 months ago

Just as repetitive as the elite justifying benefits for themselves while telling everyone else they should be happy for what they have.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

There are a lot of dipshits. You aren't one of them. You know and understand precisely that when you talk as if you are going after the ones that hold power that they won't be the ones that take the hit. You know this is true.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5843) 11 months ago

Talking about going after the ones in power was never a subject of those concerned. Fairness and Equality are. Federal employees don't want to lose what benefits they've had and have worked for when others aren't going to have to do the same. If the Affordable Care Act isn't good enough for the members of Congress, why should it be considered good enough for other federal employees and Americans in general? It's the same old elitism that justifies having what others are denied.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

As the head of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Dan Esty is covered under a state government plan.

Greenberg’s campaign declined to answer questions about the fundraising letter.

But Norm Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said Greenberg’s attack on the ACA was politically astute, especially if that attack includes the IRS, which is under fire for its investigation of conservative groups.

“It’s a double whammy,” Ornstein said. “If you are trying to raise money from conservatives, combining their hatred for Obamacare with their hatred of the IRS is a real win, but it has nothing to do with what’s real or true.”

Like all other federal workers, IRS employees receive insurance coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).

But Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., has introduced a bill that would force federal workers to purchase insurance from state health exchanges that, under the ACA, will start operations Jan. 1.

The union representing IRS workers, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), cried foul, saying federal employees want to keep the coverage they have.

But that’s not the same as asking for an exemption from the ACA. Under the law, if you have a qualified plan, you don’t have to buy a policy from the exchanges. And large employers like the federal government — defined in the law as employers with more than 100 employees — aren’t allowed onto the insurance exchanges until 2017, and then only if a state allows them in.

The exchanges are aimed at helping uninsured people purchase insurance. But, since Camp’s bill is far from becoming law, no one is forced to use the exchanges to purchase insurance, with one exception. http://www.ctmirror.org/story/2013/08/13/esty-opponent-joins-gop-efforts-distort-obamacare

[-] -1 points by summerbummer (-33) 11 months ago

I am withholding judgement until the ACA is fully implemented. If a significant number of employers that are currently providing healthcare insurance and picking up more than half of its cost decide to pay the "tax" instead and toss their people into the exchanges, then I will have a problem with fed employees keeping their insurance and/or getting a 75% taxpayer funded subsidy of their premiums.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

Why?

[-] 1 points by summerbummer (-33) 11 months ago

If the end result of aca is the loss for most workers of their employer subsidized health insurance, then I see no reason why federal employees should continue to enjoy such a benefit.

As to giving up a better paying job to work in the public sector, that may be true for the upper echelons, but show me any avg joe that wouldn't be thrilled to have a .gov job today?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

So, I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. You have advocated the destruction of the unions in the private sector and now that you are miserable...................you want everyone else that has been just trucking along to be just as miserable as you.

[-] 2 points by summerbummer (-33) 11 months ago

Excuse me GF, but when have I advocated for the destruction of unions? And how can you possibly infer that I am "miserable"? Actually, I am quite content in this life, having "retired" at 44 and having my former private sector employer still picking up 1/2 my health insurance (lost dental tho and that sucks). I am hardly a "misery loves company" kind of woman, either.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

[-] -1 points by summerbummer (-14) 11 minutes ago

If the end result of aca is the loss for most workers of their employer subsidized health insurance, then I see no reason why federal employees should continue to enjoy such a benefit.

As to giving up a better paying job to work in the public sector, that may be true for the upper echelons, but show me any avg joe that wouldn't be thrilled to have a .gov job today? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink


That indicates misery and, frankly, whining. Insurance coverage from private employers began to fall in the 90s. The EPI notes significant declines starting in 2000. Before the ACA.

Private sector unions fell dramatically. Those were the lookout scouts for the workers, those that made sure that there were benefits. So, attempting to look at the Federal employees because you don't think that it is fair .............after destroying the benefits of private workers and end those benefits simply because there is a kick rock factor implies you're miserable and you want everyone else to be miserable too.

You're a multiple ID cockroach. So, don't think that your little create a character shit works with me.

[-] -2 points by ladisia (-44) 11 months ago

Obamacare to end health plan used by 100,000 New Jerseyans

http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2013/08/affordable_care_act_to_end_hea.html

Remember though, "You can keep your health plan if you like it! " - The Barackster

[-] 2 points by shooz (17835) 11 months ago

It's agenda 21!!!

You should run and hide, before the commies and gays find you!!!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 months ago

or your momma's drones

[-] 1 points by shooz (17835) 11 months ago

Nope.

She's been gone since long before drones.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 months ago

sorry to hear that

drones was one of my first super villain game scenarios back in the 80s

-the Mechanic-

I used model planes of smaller size though

[-] 2 points by shooz (17835) 11 months ago

I like to play Civ V from time to time.

I always aim for a peaceful win....................:)

[-] -2 points by ladisia (-44) 11 months ago

No one with any brains wants Obamacare. 3,000 page bills passed at 2am that no one reads.

Time to give it a mercy killing by defunding it.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

Stupid idiot Republican lies are driving me crazy. On the one hand they're out there marching to 'burn Obamacare cards' and on the other, we have Grover Effing Norquist disingenously claiming Republicans aren't doing anything to hinder implementation of the ACA and that "the idea that Republicans have not been trying to help is wrong."

STFU and sit down, Grover. Because no one is going to take that seriously, especially after there have been 40 votes in the House to repeal it, Ted Cruz and the Gang of Libertarians is setting off on a Texas bus tour Monday to convince all those old Medicare recipients the government should shut down rather than appropriate funds for it, and we have FreedomWorks shouting out to all Young Libertarians in Love to burn, burn, burn those fictitious Obamacare cards. http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/stupid-republican-tricks-obamacare-edition