Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excellent observations. The underlying point of this thread is like the people who whine about the cadillac plan that members of Congress get, never mentioning that they simply get the same range of health insurance choices that all federal government employees get.
And the post office may feel that if they get out of that particular pool, they can bring their costs down.
The Post Office used to have their own plans that were excellent. The Mail Handler's was one of them. These plans were not accessible by the regular federal workforce, yet now they are and, I hear, the plans are not what they used to be.
do you really think obamacare will save people money? heck, they didnt even bother reading the bill they signed. it will cost boatloads of money for something that the federal goverment should not even be involved with.
Considering that Govt funded health care all over the Word is less expensive per capita than the USA and the USA has not got a proper Govt funded health care, i'm not sure where anyone here can formulate a idea that a Govt. funded health care here is more expensive than the present private health care ideal.
When Australia, for example, wanted to create a National health care, they had all the same outcries that we have here from the insurance companies, Doctors, people who could afford or had good insurance cover of how a UHC would be too expensive and bad for everyone....... guess what...... the Prime Minister of Ausralia said enough is enough and created a NHS and now Australians are doing great with their health care and not regretting creating a UHC at all.......... same with the rest of the industrialised world.
If the rest of the World is saying that the best way for health is a UHC then they must realise something that America refuses to see......
America is now like the triangle player in a orchestra who thinks the rest of the orchestra is playing out of tune.............
“If provided the authority to do so, we believe that we can provide our employees and retirees with the same or better health coverage for significantly less cost, ” said Postmaster General and CEO Patrick Donahoe during his testimony to the House Oversight Committee.
Wow! That's a huge indictment of the failure of the USG to efficiently and effectively administer social services, such as insurance coverage. And we want Obamacare for what reason exactly? Leave it to a cash-strapped quasi-public entity to expose the USG for the failure that it is in this arena.
I wonder where the liberals are on this thread? Clearly this doesn't fit in with their government-sponsored healthcare meme.....is that why they're quiet?
Wow! That's a huge indictment of the failure of the USG to efficiently and effectively administer social services. Leave it to a cash-strapped quasi-public entity to expose the USG for the failure that it is.
I wonder where the liberals are on this thread? Clearly this doesn't fit in with their government-sponsored healthcare meme.....is that why they're quiet?
Hopefully if SCOTUS overturns the affordable health care act this will encourage the millions who now know that a real health system is needed here, to make their voices heard and a proper Govt. funded UHC will be created........... This health act is not what Obama wanted but had to do it this way to get congress to pass the bill, that has ideas from the right in it anyway. Now if it gets overturned America will see the only option will be a Govt funded single payer option with NO mandates but a tax to fund it.
Well done Repubs for taking away the other options (we know the present insurance based health care here isn't a option anymore) and putting a UHC on the map.............
Wow! That's a huge indictment of the failure of the USG to efficiently and effectively administer social services, such as insurance coverage. And we want Obamacare for what reason exactly? Leave it to a cash-strapped quasi-public entity to expose the USG for the failure that it is in this arena.
I wonder where the liberals are on this thread? Clearly this doesn't fit in with their government-sponsored healthcare meme.....is that why they're quiet?
Not so fast. This has nothing to do with government-RUN health insurance but has everything to do with an employer providing a broad array of health plans to choose from. The goverment does not RUN their employees health insurance. They have chosen many, many different plans that range from BC/BS, to Aetna, to United. It contracts with those private insurance companies, foots the bill for the employer portion of the premium, and the employee pays their share. Just like EVERY private company does.
The Post Office feels they can branch off, possible narrow it back down to one or two plans, as they historically used to do, and manage a smaller pool. They may be correct that their employer costs will be cheaper as a result. Or they may be 100% off base. However, if you narrow down the amount of plans you offer to one or two, you can probably save a great deal of money across the group.
Hopefully if SCOTUS overturns the affordable health care act this will encourage the millions who now know that a real health system is needed here, to make their voices heard and a proper Govt. funded UHC will be created........... This health act is not what Obama wanted but had to do it this way to get congress to pass the bill, that has ideas from the right in it anyway. Now if it gets overturned America will see the only option will be a Govt funded single payer option with NO mandates but a tax to fund it.
Well done Repubs for taking away the other options (we know the present insurance based health care here isn't a option anymore) and putting a UHC on the map.............
So the failure of the USG to efficiently and effectively administer health insurance programs is evidence that the United States Government should administer health insurance programs?
Not so fast. This has nothing to do with government-RUN health insurance but has everything to do with an employer providing a broad array of health plans to choose from. The goverment does not RUN their employees health insurance. They have chosen many, many different plans that range from BC/BS, to Aetna, to United. It contracts with those private insurance companies, foots the bill for the employer portion of the premium, and the employee pays their share. Just like EVERY private company does.
The Post Office feels they can branch off, possible narrow it back down to one or two plans, as they historically used to do, and manage a smaller pool. They may be correct that their employer costs will be cheaper as a result. Or they may be 100% off base. However, if you narrow down the amount of plans you offer to one or two, you can probably save a great deal of money across the group.
That's exactly my point. The USG currently administers a health insurance program for it's employees. The Post Office has decided that the program is too costly and too inefficient for their budget. With Obamacare, the United States Government is involved in the creation and administration of healthcare exchanges to facilitate the expansion of insurance to citizens.
If the Post Office deems the current USG involvement in healthcare insurance for federal employees to be efficient or effective, why should we believe that the healthcare exchanges under Obamacare will be any different? How long will it take before an entity steps forward and proclaims that healthcare exchanges administered by the Federal Government are not as efficient as programs that didn't have government interference?
That's exactly my point. The USG currently administers a health insurance program for it's employees. The Post Office has decided that the program is too costly and too inefficient for their budget. With Obamacare, the United States Government is involved in the creation and administration of healthcare exchanges to facilitate the expansion of insurance to citizens.
If the Post Office deems the current USG involvement in healthcare insurance for federal employees to be efficient or effective, why should we believe that the healthcare exchanges under Obamacare will be any different? How long will it take before an entity steps forward and proclaims that healthcare exchanges administered by the Federal Government are not as efficient as programs that didn't have government interference?
I think you and the OP are stretching this point to suit your agenda.
I believe that EVERY large company would tell you that health insurance is costly and inefficient. These companies don't *do* anything to administer health care. Just like the government doesn't *do* anything with their federal healthcare. They aren't doing anything to make it efficient or inefficient. You are placing blame where it is not appropriate. I know you really, really, really want to jump on the bandwagon but try to stay objective.
The whole thing, at this point, has NOTHING to do with Obamacare. Not sure why that is being dragged into this.
The bottom line is that the Post Office thinks it can manage their cost better by:
1. managing a smaller group of employees
2. narrowing the plans available
Number 1 could either work in their favor or backfire based on the risks of the group.
Number 2 will definitely work in their favor.
As much as you want it to be, this is not a denouncement of "how the government runs healthcare" because the government does not run healthcare for its employees--private companies do--they just pay the bill.
So the failure of the USG to efficiently and effectively administer health insurance programs is evidence that the United States Government should administer health insurance programs?
Your logic is very odd.
So you think that the Companies here have a proper Govt funded health care option that they can use?
We can see how the medicare/aid etc plans, which are half hearted efforts to have some kind of health plan funded by ourselves through contributions is failing because it is NOT like a UHC but a band aid trying to heal a heart attack............ get real here........... UHC's work and work well all over the world, without discrimination or bankrupting citizens or countries.
The present insurance based greed driven health system here fails millions, costs fortunes and is now proven to be a awful way to administer health care......... Taiwan created a great Govt. health care system in ONE year and looked at all of the UHC's around the World and took the best from each and disgarded the worst.... they even said they looked at America's health system to see what NOT to do when they created their health system........ that alone speaks volumes about the health system here. Taiwan now has a great health system..... pity we can't say that .....
America's insurance based health care is now the "poor relation" in the world's health care.............. Nothing to be remotely proud of.... unless we are idiots!
I think you and the OP are stretching this point to suit your agenda.
I believe that EVERY large company would tell you that health insurance is costly and inefficient. These companies don't *do* anything to administer health care. Just like the government doesn't *do* anything with their federal healthcare. They aren't doing anything to make it efficient or inefficient. You are placing blame where it is not appropriate. I know you really, really, really want to jump on the bandwagon but try to stay objective.
The whole thing, at this point, has NOTHING to do with Obamacare. Not sure why that is being dragged into this.
The bottom line is that the Post Office thinks it can manage their cost better by:
1. managing a smaller group of employees
2. narrowing the plans available
Number 1 could either work in their favor or backfire based on the risks of the group.
Number 2 will definitely work in their favor.
As much as you want it to be, this is not a denouncement of "how the government runs healthcare" because the government does not run healthcare for its employees--private companies do--they just pay the bill.
Health exchanges under Obamacare are essentially a collection of health insurance companies providing insurance to citizens under government administration. That's the "government intervention" piece to Obamacare....mandating insurance and governing its requirements.
The FEHB is a collection of health insurance companies providing insurance to federal employees. These same insurance companies will have the same requirements as the insurance companies that participate in healthcare exchanges. Additionally, the USG (specifically OPM) sets minimum standards in order to be an FEHB insurer (which is governing its requirements). Those minimum standards have ever-increasing costs. The USG is in effect creating a cost burden on the insurers, thereby creating an additional cost burden on employers and employees. The Post Office is pointing out that these cost burdens have created a strain on their budgets.
This is EXACTLY what Obamacare is destined to do. How can you NOT see the similarties and how can you so easily dismiss that this will NOT happen when/if Obamacare is in full effect?
All you've basically said is that the USG is not an insurance company, so therefore it has no control over the costs. I disagree.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
