The 2016 Postal Service Reform Act (H.R. 5714) proposes shifting postal retirees’ primary health care coverage from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) to Medicare. Proponents call this a consensus proposal for integrating the FEHBP with Medicare. It is not. The proposal’s impact on both postal retirees and taxpayers could be substantial. For taxpayers, the House bill would shift unfunded postal obligations to Medicare, which is already burdened by an enormous 75-year unfunded obligation. The bill also perpetuates 100 percent wraparound supplemental insurance, which provides “first dollar” coverage and “free” medical care. This arrangement drives excessive Medicare use, and thus imposes ever higher costs on both Medicare beneficiaries and taxpayers. Postal annuitants would be forced to enroll in Medicare Part B while continuing premium payments to the FEHBP if they want to maintain any FEHBP benefits or choice among FEHBP plans. Paying two premiums instead of one is an unforeseen and unbudgeted cost to these retirees. It is long past time for Congress to address FEHBP issues that affect all enrollees, not single out postal annuitants. Congress needs to consider a wider and more sensible range of options to deal with the underlying problems. These options would solve postal financial problems while reducing, rather than increasing, costs.
Share on Facebook
Follow on Facebook
Add to Google+
Connect on Linked in
Subscribe by Email
Print This Post
I CONCUR WITH THE WRITER. THIS WOULD GREATLY INCREASE MEDICARE COSTS
WHILE AT THE SAME TIME SHAFT THE POSTAL RETIREE TO PAY EXTRA FOR NO
ADDITIONAL COVERAGE OR BENEFITS, THAT THEY NOW HAVE UNDER JUST BELONGING TO THE FEHBP. ONLY BENEFIT WOULD BE FOR THE FOOLS IN CONGRESS, POSTAL MANAGEMENT AND THE IDIOT PRESIDENT OF THE NALC WHO SAYS THIS WOULD BENEFIT THE RETIREE IN THE LONG RUN BY POSSIBLY REDUCING THEIR PREMIUMS IN FEHBP AS WELL AS ACTIVE CARRIERS BY MAYBE. 10 %, WHILE ACTUALLY INCREASING THEIR COSTS BY WHATEVER MEDICARE PREMIUM IS AT THAT TIME OR DOUBLE IF MARRIED. HOW DOES THIS SAVE US MONEY WHEN IF MARRIED WE WOULD SAVE MAYBE $15.00 IF SINGLE OR $35.00
IF MARRIED AND BOTH OVER 65 AS IS THE CASE. WHILE PAYING AN ADDITIONAL
PROJECTED $140+.IF SINGLE AND $280+ IF MARRIED. DO THE MATH. CONGRESS AND UNION LEADERSHIP ESPECIALLY NALC THINKS WE ARE IDIOTS!
Disgruntled – thank you for your comments – we agree. In the future please do not post in all caps.