Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (120972)	6/20/2005 6:05:33 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793820

lol I really think our Government, both Democrats and Republicans, MUST stop trying to buy votes, like the energy bill requiring ethanol in mgf of gasoline, farm subsidies bill,deeper tax cuts for rich vs lower middle class and elderly. laws that allow anyone to move all their money , assets to others or charities and then go on welfare. i believe the law right now is four years before being admitted to ltc medicaid if you transfer your wealth. People doing the above are way better off than any other countries social medical coverage. They get all the top medical benefits and no waiting periods for surgery etc.

To: KLP who wrote (120972)	6/20/2005 6:34:54 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 793820

karen this will give you complete details on fed ee benefit programs and costs. Federal Employees Benefits Programs Guide to Federal Benefits Programs for New Federal Employees opm.gov

To: KLP who wrote (120972)	6/20/2005 6:53:10 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793820

one that most probably no one who works for the Government can get turned down for... No, actually that's not the case. You have to qualify and, even when you qualify, your rates are based on your health. (As you fill out the application, they ask, for example, if you use one of those three footed canes. If you do, forget it.) My sense of this program is that it's the same as one you can buy on your own, it's just the the government organizes it and encourages participation by making it available and using payroll deductions for premiums. It's different from their approach to health insurance, which is treated as part of the compensation package. When the program was first offered just a few years ago, there were insurance companies advertizing to us feds that they could give us a better deal. I opted for the federal program primarily for the convenience of payroll deductions and because I though it might provide a layer of protection against any hanky panky by the insurance company when I got older and less able to look out for myself. With the plan you chose, did you have the ability to increase your payment for more coverage per day at a later time? Yes. Both of us were rejected for previous and present health issues.... I don't have a sense of how tough their screening is. I was already retired when the program started so I didn't pick up any stories around the water cooler. I know two people with controlled diabetes, one primary and one spouse, that were accepted. My bad. It was well hidden. I didn't notice it either until your question caused me to go back and look. If so, shouldn't the amount per person be applied evenly by the Feds I'm on shaky ground here as I don't know much about the details of this program. But I would speculate that what happens is at least in part a function of matching funds. I think that makes sense because otherwise states would have an incentive to go cheap and let the federal program carry the weight. Or one state may want to cover a lot of different needs with small payments and another state may opt to cover a few needs fully and not cover others at all. An obvious example of differences in coverage might be that some states may cover abortions or acupuncture and others not so, even though it's a federal program, individual benefits vary by state. Maybe with long term care, some states pay for home care and other pay only for nursing home care because they think that's a better use of their funds or because they don't have the resources to regulate or audit a lot of individual variations. I wonder if that will ever happen? I doubt it. I was struck the other day by this wording in a Post editorial: "Medicaid has evolved from a welfare program to a safety net compensating for some of the failings of the health care system." Once programs are considered "safety net" rather than "welfare," even the conservatives/Republicans support them. That label changes everything. washingtonpost.com