Anonymous wrote:Hi ho hi ho, it’s back to work you go!!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Proposals to cut federal employee benefits are also under discussion. Among the changes are:

Increasing employee contributions to the federal pension system, projected to save $44 billion over a decade.

Eliminating supplemental pensions for retirees aged 57 to 62.

Basing pensions on the final five years of service, rather than the last three, reducing payouts.

Transitioning federal health insurance to a voucher model.-WHAT IS THIS?
-------------------------------------
Unions and collective bargaining
Efforts to weaken federal unions are central to the administration’s goals. A memo circulated by the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform outlines plans to limit collective bargaining rights, citing a 1978 law allowing exclusions for “national security concerns.”

Recommendations include restricting union protections at agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Defense Department.

Every employee would get a flat amount towards insurance instead of covering a percentage of whatever you choose the way it is now. Not sure if they would cover more for family plans or not.

Dh and I are both feds. It would be sweet if we both got vouchers. As it is, I don’t get any credit for not taking my work’s insurance at all.

What I have been reading doesn't sound like a voucher as in they give you X dollars and you go find your own insurance. Rather, everyone gets $X towards their federal insurance plan cost. Right now, the government pays 72% of the insurance premiums (up to a cap of $298 for self only coverage). So, for example, if you have BCBS, the government pays $298 a pay period for you, but if you have a cheaper plan like GEHA they pay $240. Under the new system, they'd pay the same amount for everyone, and employees would pay the difference. So, if they went by the current cap as the voucher amount, BCBS subscribers would keep paying the same, and GEHA subscribers would now save an extra $60/pp. If they went with a lower amount as the cap, then more people would see an increase and fewer people would see a reduction.

thanks for explaining

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stay on RTO EO please.

This is a thread about all executive orders. Don’t tell people what to discuss within that category.

This is the Jobs forum so should at least stick with EOs related to federal employment, not immigration, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Proposals to cut federal employee benefits are also under discussion. Among the changes are:

Increasing employee contributions to the federal pension system, projected to save $44 billion over a decade.

Eliminating supplemental pensions for retirees aged 57 to 62.

Basing pensions on the final five years of service, rather than the last three, reducing payouts.

Transitioning federal health insurance to a voucher model.-WHAT IS THIS?
-------------------------------------
Unions and collective bargaining
Efforts to weaken federal unions are central to the administration’s goals. A memo circulated by the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform outlines plans to limit collective bargaining rights, citing a 1978 law allowing exclusions for “national security concerns.”

Recommendations include restricting union protections at agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Defense Department.

Every employee would get a flat amount towards insurance instead of covering a percentage of whatever you choose the way it is now. Not sure if they would cover more for family plans or not.

You are right, and this is starting to happen with private companies. Look up “ICHRAs”. You get a flat dollar amount, go onto the exchange and pick whatever works for you. Companies that aren’t rotten to the core will kick in more for family coverage. Pricing is of course dependent on age and who you’re covering.

And of course they want to repeal the exchanges right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stay on RTO EO please.

This is a thread about all executive orders. Don’t tell people what to discuss within that category.

But it’s in the jobs forum; context clues.

Anonymous wrote:Stay on RTO EO please.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stay on RTO EO please.

This is a thread about all executive orders. Don’t tell people what to discuss within that category.

But it’s in the jobs forum; context clues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Proposals to cut federal employee benefits are also under discussion. Among the changes are:

Increasing employee contributions to the federal pension system, projected to save $44 billion over a decade.

Eliminating supplemental pensions for retirees aged 57 to 62.

Basing pensions on the final five years of service, rather than the last three, reducing payouts.

Transitioning federal health insurance to a voucher model.-WHAT IS THIS?
-------------------------------------
Unions and collective bargaining
Efforts to weaken federal unions are central to the administration’s goals. A memo circulated by the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform outlines plans to limit collective bargaining rights, citing a 1978 law allowing exclusions for “national security concerns.”

Recommendations include restricting union protections at agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Defense Department.

Every employee would get a flat amount towards insurance instead of covering a percentage of whatever you choose the way it is now. Not sure if they would cover more for family plans or not.

You are right, and this is starting to happen with private companies. Look up “ICHRAs”. You get a flat dollar amount, go onto the exchange and pick whatever works for you. Companies that aren’t rotten to the core will kick in more for family coverage. Pricing is of course dependent on age and who you’re covering.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stay on RTO EO please.

This is a thread about all executive orders. Don’t tell people what to discuss within that category.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's at the event at Capital One Arena right now. More signing shortly.

Sure … because it takes so long to sign something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Proposals to cut federal employee benefits are also under discussion. Among the changes are:

Increasing employee contributions to the federal pension system, projected to save $44 billion over a decade.

Eliminating supplemental pensions for retirees aged 57 to 62.

Basing pensions on the final five years of service, rather than the last three, reducing payouts.

Transitioning federal health insurance to a voucher model.-WHAT IS THIS?
-------------------------------------
Unions and collective bargaining
Efforts to weaken federal unions are central to the administration’s goals. A memo circulated by the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform outlines plans to limit collective bargaining rights, citing a 1978 law allowing exclusions for “national security concerns.”

Recommendations include restricting union protections at agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Defense Department.

Every employee would get a flat amount towards insurance instead of covering a percentage of whatever you choose the way it is now. Not sure if they would cover more for family plans or not.

Dh and I are both feds. It would be sweet if we both got vouchers. As it is, I don’t get any credit for not taking my work’s insurance at all.

What I have been reading doesn't sound like a voucher as in they give you X dollars and you go find your own insurance. Rather, everyone gets $X towards their federal insurance plan cost. Right now, the government pays 72% of the insurance premiums (up to a cap of $298 for self only coverage). So, for example, if you have BCBS, the government pays $298 a pay period for you, but if you have a cheaper plan like GEHA they pay $240. Under the new system, they'd pay the same amount for everyone, and employees would pay the difference. So, if they went by the current cap as the voucher amount, BCBS subscribers would keep paying the same, and GEHA subscribers would now save an extra $60/pp. If they went with a lower amount as the cap, then more people would see an increase and fewer people would see a reduction.

Since this is a cost-cutting measure, we can bet they'll have a low cap that will keep getting lower.