Momentum grows in senate for national health option similar to Federal Employees Health plan

[Politics_Guy25]

This is the first alternative to the public option that I've heard of since the debate began that is remotely palatable to me. What do you think of this idea? It certainly would provide an awesome additional health care plan to those that the priviate insurers would discriminate against or gouge. It is certainly 10,000 times better than a triggered co-op which is utterly laughable.

The public option opponents are deadset against anything that opens the door to single payer but this plan could hold us over and do a lot of good until there is a bullet proof senate majority for a strong p.o. Here are the details.

What do you think?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30255.html

But the real talk of the weekend was the emergence of a new proposal that underscored how far Democrats are moving from their original vision of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private companies — and just how big an obstacle to a bill the public option has become.

There appeared to be serious consideration of creatng a national health plan similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. It would be administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the federal plan for members of Congress, and all of the insurance options would be not-for-profit.

[Teaser]

1. better than a weak public option

worse than a strong one.

altogether, not bad considering what weenies many senators are.

[Politics_Guy25]

3. And a winner politically as well

If we can end up with this as the final measure in the senate bill and prevent Stupak from being added, this bill would be tremendous.

[elleng]

2. I've been waiting for something like this FOREVER.

HOWEVER, all of the insurance options in the FEHBP are FOR profit. We employees have choices and can change our selections every year, and the plans do compete with one another for our 'votes.'

[regnaD kciN]

4. My wife is on that plan...

It really offers no benefit over private large group policies. Even with her (federal) employer picking up more than half the tab -- which most decidedly would not be the case for ordinary people on the plan -- she still pays more than $500/month out-of-pocket. Without the employer subsidies, I suspect the cost would be just about the same as you'd get relying on the mercies of the "free market" we have now. :-(

[elleng]

5. As to the monthly premium,

there are choices, as in good, better, best 'coverage' and lower, medium, high premium. It IS
a large group.

[regnaD kciN]

12. Indeed...but don't count on it being any better than the choices available at a large corporation...

...except that you get to pay the entire premium yourself, instead of having your employer or the federal government pick up most of the tab.

Most people hear "federal employees health plan," and envision something like the VA, where health care is available to all for free (or practically free). Sorry, but that's not what it's about. It's a large-group insurance plan with a for-profit insurer, just as if you worked at Ford, Microsoft, or Monsanto, except with you footing the entire bill.

[elleng]

14. I know; I was a federal employee for 20+ years.

There's a huge amount of info in this 'debate' that people are unaware of/ignore/don't/can't understand.

[dflprincess]

6. "Insurance for more instead of health care for all"

that's what one of the DFL's candidates for governor is calling what's going on in Washington. And he's right.

[annabanana]

19. We are on that plan. It is ONLY "affordable" if 1/2 the premium

is picked up by an employer. It is only a "choice" of seriously flawed private insurers. I wish more people understood this.

[bluestateguy]

7. Acceptable to me

Much better than the BS about "co-ops" and triggers.

[ecstatic]

8. I'd take the fed employee plan over a public option any day

Based on what I've seen of the public options available today (Medicare/Medicaid). Just as long as it's not through Kaiser.

[annabanana]

23. Read up downthread...

It is NOT any kind of relief...

[ecstatic]

9. Just fyi, I don't think the fed plans cover abortion though

I could be wrong.

[Motown_Johnny]

10. I am pretty sure we won't get any federal funds for abortion, even indirectly

We need to attack that problem through Planned Parenthood and other such entities for the foreseeable future.

[Motown_Johnny]

11. I am not against it. It would be better than losing everything.

[regnaD kciN]

13. Sorry...but it really IS "losing everything"...

...in terms of an affordable alternative for the insurance we'll now be legally-required to buy.

[elleng]

15. Its a bit early to jump to such a conclusion,

as they appear to just have begun to discuss it. We have NO IDEA how they'd deal with 'affordability.'

[annabanana]

20. If all they do is open "what Federal employees get" to everyone,

it is really not much improvement.

[andym]

16. Lieberman is against a public option because it is a foot in the door for single-payer

From the article:
“No!” Lieberman told reporters. “That’s exactly what I’ve been saying to my colleagues who are pushing for the public option. This bill has so much good in it, and it does so much good — it’s deficit neutral and all the rest. Why are you insisting on getting a foot in the door for single-payer?”

----------------
That's why many of us DO want a public option....

[andym]

17. Jacob Hacker hates the new FEHP idea

From the article:

Jacob Hacker, a Yale University professor who originated the public option concept, posted a blog item on The New Republic website titled “You Call This a Compromise?” He said the latest crop of alternatives, including the plan modeled after the federal employees’ health program, represent “abandonment of the public option altogether.” It appears to be nothing more than a new kind of insurance exchange, which is already in the bill, he said.

And Timothy Jost, a health-law expert at Washington and Lee University School of Law, wrote on POLITICO’s Arena that replicating the federal employees’ health plan “was the dumbest idea yet.” Nonprofit insurance plans currently dominate the market, and they haven’t reduced the cost of insurance, he wrote.
------------------

I think they would need to do more than just create a bunch of non-profits, they would have to
1)set premium rates,
2)set medical reimbursement rates (Medicare +5?)
3)define a reasonable set of basic health coverage requirements

[snot]

18. I need to know: what will it cost ME, what will and won't it cover, etc.

I'm on the brink NOW; I can't wait 'til 2014.

[annabanana]

22. Here's a link. .It'll tell you EXACTLY what you'd "get".

Keep in mind that the prices are just "your share" of the premiums, with an equal figure being picked up by the employer:

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/index.asp

[AllentownJake]

21. I just laugh this is the best we can do with 60 senators

GOP had 60 senators we'd all be serfs right now.

[Toots]

24. Except Government employees and Congress do not have to pay any of their own money

We would be expected to pay the "going rate" and that should just keep going up up and up..

[annabanana]

25. excuse me?

We pay $500 per month for our portion of the premium.

If you're actually interested, here's a link to the PDF for premiums of the various private plans that Gvoernment employees choose from.

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/nonpostalhmo2010.pdf

If you're not interested, don't spout off.