Even in Chicago where I live at least 70,000 employees reside and are the largest employer in the area.
As far as I know, the new bills being considered exempt federal employees as Obama famously declined to decline the federal coverage.
In my humble opinion, this could be an explosive avenue of attack on the plans if it were to be highlighted by Limbaugh and Hannity and used in the debate and conversations about the whole issue.
IMHO
...
The problem for any federal employee is that if he or she has a "life change" (marriage, divorce, relocation) he has to "change his coverage" ~ and can "change his policy".
However, the only policies federal government employees can sign up with are the private sector plans that exist in his or her area (or the state they live in). As Obamacare takes hold there will simply be fewer and fewer such plans and federal government employees will find themselves tossed into the same insurance exchange as everyone else.
Theres really no substance to something called an "exception for federal government employees" ~ it's just noise coming from Obama's bowels and means nothing.
The 65% premium support here is pretty steep for a guy with no income other than unemployment. While an employee he had 75% covered by his agency (or 90% if postal). There will be some who sign up for it ~ but most won't be able to afford it.
But too good for the hoi polloi.
Thanks for the post. This comes up all the time.
My understanding is that many states like Maryland forbid employers or consumers from buying health insurance from out of state companies. Anyone know how this affects ferderal employees? Seems like I only have one health insurance option at work and they have dozens. Anyone?
"More importantly, HIT will reduce medical errors; for instance, from misread, handwritten prescriptions and emergency care medical decisions made without complete and accurate information. Since privacy and security considerations are central to Federal HIT implementation plans, patient records will be protected from inappropriate disclosure."
I have mixed feelings on this. My brother-in-law was recently in for a minor procedure and just before starting the anesthesia, the nurse said he was having his cancerous urinary bladder removed. Panic stricken, he started to check himself out of the facility, but the Dr. cleared up the mistake (misread notes on his chart) and convinced him to continue.
These records contain you life and we've seen everything from inappropriate access by employees (Joe the plumber), to Chinese and Russians hacking into high security Pentagon systems and our electric grid. The 1st scenario is most likely.
But it sure would be nice to have all of my medical records, charts, tests, prescriptions, financials, etc. in a centralized, readable, searchable, authoritative electronic file system.