Trump

[canta_brian]

So whats he done today then?? combed his hair over the wrong way? this campaign of hate against a president has never been seen before, its pathetic to be honest, Clinton lost Trump is president get over it, continually bleating about it isn't going to change that.
You are all jealous, a rich successful man, who doesn't give a fuck about political correctness is the president of the USA, and you can't stand it, too bad.

Your lack of recent posting, combined with your posting history had me wondering if maybe you had been renting a van in the Rhondda over the weekend.

[morepork]

He's a fat sweaty ignorant cum stain that has a poor grasp of the English language. I am especially impressed with his grasp of Mendelian inheritance and cognitive systems neuroscience which he explains elegantly via the metric of inherited wealth. Genius.

Nowt to do with Clinton, with whom certain members of society appear disturbingly obsessed.

Trumps skinny frat boy son in law is fixing peace in the Middle East as we speak, so it should all be good pretty soon. As the Trumpet himself says, "We have, by far, the highest IQ of any cabinet ever". I mean, its all sorted. Right? Just like health care. Trump, as you'd expect, has his finger on the pulse. His plan is: "We have to come up, and we can come up with many different plans. In fact, plans you don’t even know about will be devised because we’re going to come up with plans, — health care plans — that will be so good. And so much less expensive both for the country and for the people. And so much better. With Obamacare, the deductible I don’t know if you’ve seen what’s gone on with the deductible. The deductible’s so high that unless you die a very vicious, horrible, catastrophic death, and it lasts a long time, you’re not going to get to use it because it’s crazy. It’s so high. Again, such a high barrier. We have to come up with a plan, a private plan other than for those that can’t do that."

What a champion.

[jared_7]

Whats flying under the radar is what he is doing to the transparency and accountability of the White House.

Was reading an article yesterday saying press conferences were usually held 4-5 times a week under previous administrations, since Trump returned from his overseas trip more than a month ago Spicer has only held 7 briefings total. When there are briefings, a lot of it is happening off camera.

All Trump seems to want to do is hold Fox News interviews (he has just attacked Muellers impartiality, a guy appointed by Bush FFS) and hold rallies for his fans. Its like he is still on the campaign trail.

[Digby]

I'm not sure it's flying under the radar as Spicer seems not to have the first idea what's going on in the Whitehouse nor what the President thinks, rather he's there to sporadically turn up at a briefing and claim the President's tweets speak for themselves.

[WaspInWales]

It is being noticed but the worrying aspect is that it is becoming accepted as the norm. If the press don't play nicely, they lose access.

It's astonishing to think that Mueller could be removed soon too.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[jared_7]

It is being noticed but the worrying aspect is that it is becoming accepted as the norm. If the press don't play nicely, they lose access.

It's astonishing to think that Mueller could be removed soon too.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

That's sort of what I meant. A lot of focus goes on the obvious stuff Trump is doing like the Muslim ban or the Comey stuff, but actually it is the slow erosion of other stuff that is scary

[Coco]

The Senate healthcare bill is finally published. Doesn't do much in the way of healthcare, other than eviscerate coverage for tens of millions, but on the positive side it's a massive tax cut for those struggling millionaires and billionaires.

Mayn't go anywhere as despite refusing any public scrutiny during the writing of the bill straight out of the blocks they don't have the votes. And really it deserves to fail for an approach to getting a bill onto the Senate floor that is shamefully undemocratic.

Can you elaborate on this?

...

1. Retains Obamacare's insurance subsidies. But starting in 2020 this assistance wouldn't be available for most of the working-class who now receive them, nor for anyone ineligible for Medicaid. See #2.

2. Cuts Medicaid more deeply than the House version by giving states an amount per person that grows more slowly than the growth in healthcare costs. This provision won't kick in for 7 years, well past senators' next reelection battles.

3. Ends the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion in 5 years -- gradually reducing the extra federal payments starting in 2021.

4. Continues to protect patients with preexisting conditions, but allows states to reduce insurance coverage to everyone, including people with preexisting conditions.

In other words, all cuts are made through the back door of delays and state waivers. It only looks like a kinder, gentler version of the House repeal of the Affordable Care Act -- but 7 to 10 years from now its result would be even crueler.

Those are Cliff notes.. Citation?
More people are uninsured now with Obamacare than before it started, and are getting tax penalties on top of it. It is unaffordable. Worse now for the working class and young adults than ever.

Each individual state will cover the costs after this, partly according to insurance policy costs in each state...each state is different. California's cap per person will be more than a person in say Kentucky. Healthcare costs across the board vary from one state to the next.

[Coco]

The Senate healthcare bill is finally published. Doesn't do much in the way of healthcare, other than eviscerate coverage for tens of millions, but on the positive side it's a massive tax cut for those struggling millionaires and billionaires.

Mayn't go anywhere as despite refusing any public scrutiny during the writing of the bill straight out of the blocks they don't have the votes. And really it deserves to fail for an approach to getting a bill onto the Senate floor that is shamefully undemocratic.

Can you elaborate on this?

Oh come one....

Let me guess... Porky you have insurance through work or spouses work, correct?

[Digby]

Can you elaborate on this?

...

1. Retains Obamacare's insurance subsidies. But starting in 2020 this assistance wouldn't be available for most of the working-class who now receive them, nor for anyone ineligible for Medicaid. See #2.

2. Cuts Medicaid more deeply than the House version by giving states an amount per person that grows more slowly than the growth in healthcare costs. This provision won't kick in for 7 years, well past senators' next reelection battles.

3. Ends the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion in 5 years -- gradually reducing the extra federal payments starting in 2021.

4. Continues to protect patients with preexisting conditions, but allows states to reduce insurance coverage to everyone, including people with preexisting conditions.

In other words, all cuts are made through the back door of delays and state waivers. It only looks like a kinder, gentler version of the House repeal of the Affordable Care Act -- but 7 to 10 years from now its result would be even crueler.

Those are Cliff notes.. Citation?
More working class are uninsured now with Obamacare, and are getting tax penalties on top of it. It is unaffordable. Worse now for the working class and young adults than ever.

I'm not remotely sold health insurance is the way to provide coverage at an individual level. Much better imo to have general taxation and general coverage, and whilst we don't hit the heights of the top 1% or so of US health coverage we're beating it elsewhere, and we're spending less doing it. All that said yes something should have been done about the huge spike to premiums which Obama allowed the insurance/hmo groups to gouge out of the system, but that something shouldn't be tax cuts for the rich and cutting healthcare for the poor.

[Coco]

...

Those are Cliff notes.. Citation?
More working class are uninsured now with Obamacare, and are getting tax penalties on top of it. It is unaffordable. Worse now for the working class and young adults than ever.

I'm not remotely sold health insurance is the way to provide coverage at an individual level. Much better imo to have general taxation and general coverage, and whilst we don't hit the heights of the top 1% or so of US health coverage we're beating it elsewhere, and we're spending less doing it. All that said yes something should have been done about the huge spike to premiums which Obama allowed the insurance/hmo groups to gouge out of the system, but that something shouldn't be tax cuts for the rich and cutting healthcare for the poor.

The rich are employers, business owners that are footing huge bills for this now...this includes workers comp insurance as well... Ungodly amounts they are required to pay out for employee care. They deserve tax breaks or cant affored to hire or keep people employed. I can only speak for California, but assume its outrageous for most states.

We have seen and heard what kind of service and care comes with socialized healthcare.. Most that are used to great speedy care dont want it. It sounds barbaric and cruel, to be honest. Waiting for care? Thats ridiculous... Unimaginable here.

Costs have skyrocketed... I make a good living and health premiums for me are about twice the cost of my mortgage per month. What is worse, is that with the affordable care act the way it is now... my coverage does not even cover ANYTHING until I have paid $12,500.00 out of my own pocket for services ( called a deductible ). So.. Here is how it breaks down for me personally now:

Ins. Premium $3,100.00 per month
Deductible for services $12,500.00 / yr

So all in all I pay $37,200.00 annually for premium, and then have to pay $12,500.00 out of pocket before this coverage I am paying for will even start paying any of my costs.

$49,700.00 annually.

Ridiculous.

[Digby]

$49,700.00 annually.

Ridiculous.

I agree. But I don't go from agreeing with that to agreeing with the Senate bill, rather the senate bill isn't simply ridiculous it's disgusting.

And as an aside if health coverage were paid out of general taxation with everyone working to insure everyone it'd free business from the absurd costs they have to meet, which would free up those monies for whatever those businesses wanted

[morepork]

Can you elaborate on this?

Oh come one....

Let me guess... Porky you have insurance through work or spouses work, correct?

My employer matches a portion of my insurance contribution, yes. Spouse doesn't come into the equation at all. If I was married to you I'd make you pay for pet insurance. This latest iteration of an alternative to the affordable healthcare act superficially retains, at least temporarily, the more humane aspects of AHCA in the form of coverage for pre existing conditions, but utterly fails to make good on promised reductions in cost burden for the majority of citizens by passing the buck to speculation on a state-by-state level. The AHCA totally bitched out on providing a public option and so in effect reinforced the monopoly of a painfully privatised system. I acknowledge that. However, the proposed alternative is a none too subtle tax loophole that has nothing to do with preserving the wellbeing of the nation's tax payers and is all about untethering the most vulnerable from having a say in a core function of an elected government. Long term viability requires investment in an arena that provides an as objective and informed framework as possible, a context that is only possible if vested interest is regulated. This puppet show is a prelude to vested interest suiting up for a raid on the public purse. Do you really believe that promoting an environment that leaves patients at the mercy of what is essentially an ideological whim justified by a profoundly inappropriate set of financial metrics is a recipe for long term viability?

Fuck


That


Noise.

[morepork]

$49,700.00 annually.

Ridiculous.

I agree. But I don't go from agreeing with that to agreeing with the Senate bill, rather the senate bill isn't simply ridiculous it's disgusting.

And as an aside if health coverage were paid out of general taxation with everyone working to insure everyone it'd free business from the absurd costs they have to meet, which would free up those monies for whatever those businesses wanted

Don't complicate this with logic.

[morepork]

Coco....many, many people are not "used" to speedy health care. The myth of high income supporting the health of the masses needs dispelling. State employers pick up the tab in the main and you should fucking know it.

[Coco]

Coco....many, many people are not "used" to speedy health care. The myth of high income supporting the health of the masses needs dispelling. State employers pick up the tab in the main and you should fucking know it.

Wait... One insult at a time man... Hold on.. Let me read ffs.

[morepork]

Coco....many, many people are not "used" to speedy health care. The myth of high income supporting the health of the masses needs dispelling. State employers pick up the tab in the main and you should fucking know it.

Wait... One insult at a time man... Hold on.. Let me read ffs.

Keep up beatch!

[Coco]

Oh come one....

Let me guess... Porky you have insurance through work or spouses work, correct?

My employer matches a portion of my insurance contribution, yes. Spouse doesn't come into the equation at all. If I was married to you I'd make you pay for pet insurance. This latest iteration of an alternative to the affordable healthcare act superficially retains, at least temporarily, the more humane aspects of AHCA in the form of coverage for pre existing conditions, but utterly fails to make good on promised reductions in cost burden for the majority of citizens by passing the buck to speculation on a state-by-state level. The AHCA totally bitched out on providing a public option and so in effect reinforced the monopoly of a painfully privatised system. I acknowledge that. However, the proposed alternative is a none too subtle tax loophole that has nothing to do with preserving the wellbeing of the nation's tax payers and is all about untethering the most vulnerable from having a say in a core function of an elected government. Long term viability requires investment in an arena that provides an as objective and informed framework as possible, a context that is only possible if vested interest is regulated. This puppet show is a prelude to vested interest suiting up for a raid on the public purse. Do you really believe that promoting an environment that leaves patients at the mercy of what is essentially an ideological whim justified by a profoundly inappropriate set of financial metrics is a recipe for long term viability?

Fuck


That


Noise.

It cant possibly sustain itself forever. I am sure it works to a degree, but mediocre assembly-line type care, and long waits just for an appointment or a surgery that is needed, is not what most people want here in the U S of A. In and of itself, that would also be excluding people that need care, Porky. THAT, my oh-so-snarky friend, is what most people view as the "long term viability" - crappy. There has to be some sort of compromise, it shouldnt be difficult.

[Coco]

Coco....many, many people are not "used" to speedy health care. The myth of high income supporting the health of the masses needs dispelling. State employers pick up the tab in the main and you should fucking know it.

*eyeroll* Get off your liberal high horse mister.

State Employers? Really?

Directly from the NCSL website:

2/1/2017
All 50 states provide health insurance coverage for their state employees.

Most have done so for decades. However, the amount of coverage, who is eligible to enroll, and the portions paid by the state employer and by the individual worker always have varied from state to state.
In the past five years these state benefit plans have attracted much more attention among legislators, governors and policymakers. Often, this is because:

Rapidly rising commercial premiums are impacting state budgets;
State fiscal pressures are leading to more proposals to increase employee share of costs;
Co-payments and deductibles are on the rise in many places, separate from the established premiums.

A few general facts about state employee health plans, based on several national surveys: 1

State government employees covered by employer health insurance totaled 5,281,911 in 2013 (compared to 5,331,393 in 2010.)
Local government employees similarly covered totaled 13,804,380 in 2013 (compared to 14,273,847 in 2010), as reported by the AHRQ 2013 MEPS Survey III.B.1 [Source updated 12/30/2015]

For the state employees surveyed above:
81.8% had a choice of 2 or more plans
100.0% could choose a managed care plan
96.5% could choose a mixed provider plan
45.4% could choose an exclusive provider plan
3.2% could choose a conventional indemnity plan
56.1% of plans had a waiting period
[Source: AHRQ/MEPS 2013]

An earlier commercial survey projected that states provided coverage for about 3.4 million state government employees and retirees. When their covered dependents and family members were included, the total was about seven million people.

State and local employee health plans cover about 10 percent of the total U.S. workforce and hold more than 20 percent of the nation’s total pension assets. (CPR Report, 10/2014 & Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, 9/2009)

The average state and local employee tends to be older and more expensive to insure compared to private sector employees.

In 2013, six states paid 100 percent of the premium for employee-only coverage. (CPR Report, 10/2014)

Nearly all full-time state workers were eligible for coverage (97%), and take-up was high across most plans, averaging 91%.
74% of part-time state employees had the option of electing health benefits (compared to 48% nationally.)

In state employee plans, 37% of workers were in HMOs, 42% in PPOs, 16% in POS plans and 5% were in conventional indemnity coverage. However, Indemnity plans enrolled a majority of retirees in the Midwest, Northeast and South.

State employer retiree or "post-employment benefits" (OPEB) liabilities and funding progress are featured in a November 2014 report from Standard & Poor’s that contains information about each state’s actions. This research suggests that 32 states now hold some amount in trust, though the amounts are generally quite small, as 93 percent of state liabilities remain unfunded. Also a December 2014 issue brief from National Association of State Retirement Administrators and the Center for State and Local Government Excellence highlights the relative distribution of state OPEB assets and unfunded liabilities. [added Dec. 2014]

State and Federal employees have luscious wide spreading coverage, for their families too! Those of us in the private sector are not so lucky.

So how much do you think the private sector picks up, Porky?

[Coco]

Oh come one....

Let me guess... Porky you have insurance through work or spouses work, correct?

My employer matches a portion of my insurance contribution, yes. Spouse doesn't come into the equation at all. If I was married to you I'd make you pay for pet insurance. This latest iteration of an alternative to the affordable healthcare act superficially retains, at least temporarily, the more humane aspects of AHCA in the form of coverage for pre existing conditions, but utterly fails to make good on promised reductions in cost burden for the majority of citizens by passing the buck to speculation on a state-by-state level. The AHCA totally bitched out on providing a public option and so in effect reinforced the monopoly of a painfully privatised system. I acknowledge that. However, the proposed alternative is a none too subtle tax loophole that has nothing to do with preserving the wellbeing of the nation's tax payers and is all about untethering the most vulnerable from having a say in a core function of an elected government. Long term viability requires investment in an arena that provides an as objective and informed framework as possible, a context that is only possible if vested interest is regulated. This puppet show is a prelude to vested interest suiting up for a raid on the public purse. Do you really believe that promoting an environment that leaves patients at the mercy of what is essentially an ideological whim justified by a profoundly inappropriate set of financial metrics is a recipe for long term viability?

Fuck


That


Noise.

If we were married, and you made me buy my own 'pet' insurance, Id have killed you already and buried your body inside your manual roll up windowed SUV, and tossed your invisible cell phone in there with you.

[jared_7]

Those are Cliff notes.. Citation?
More working class are uninsured now with Obamacare, and are getting tax penalties on top of it. It is unaffordable. Worse now for the working class and young adults than ever.

I'm not remotely sold health insurance is the way to provide coverage at an individual level. Much better imo to have general taxation and general coverage, and whilst we don't hit the heights of the top 1% or so of US health coverage we're beating it elsewhere, and we're spending less doing it. All that said yes something should have been done about the huge spike to premiums which Obama allowed the insurance/hmo groups to gouge out of the system, but that something shouldn't be tax cuts for the rich and cutting healthcare for the poor.

The rich are employers, business owners that are footing huge bills for this now...this includes workers comp insurance as well... Ungodly amounts they are required to pay out for employee care. They deserve tax breaks or cant affored to hire or keep people employed. I can only speak for California, but assume its outrageous for most states.

We have seen and heard what kind of service and care comes with socialized healthcare.. Most that are used to great speedy care dont want it. It sounds barbaric and cruel, to be honest. Waiting for care? Thats ridiculous... Unimaginable here.

Costs have skyrocketed... I make a good living and health premiums for me are about twice the cost of my mortgage per month. What is worse, is that with the affordable care act the way it is now... my coverage does not even cover ANYTHING until I have paid $12,500.00 out of my own pocket for services ( called a deductible ). So.. Here is how it breaks down for me personally now:

Ins. Premium $3,100.00 per month
Deductible for services $12,500.00 / yr

So all in all I pay $37,200.00 annually for premium, and then have to pay $12,500.00 out of pocket before this coverage I am paying for will even start paying any of my costs.

$49,700.00 annually.

Ridiculous.

It is ridiculous.

Have you been to Germany? Or Switzerland? Or Norway? Or the Netherlands? Or Denmark? Wait times? Not likely.

There are multiple ways to skin the socialised healthcare cat, the NHS is just one and you aren't going to find an argument that it, in its current form, isn't seriously flawed. But its still not "barbaric and cruel", whats "barbaric and cruel" is 30 million uninsured left to rot and die if they get sick, or 700,000 people a year filing for bankruptcy due to healthcare costs. It also provides the best competition the private insurance industry can ever face - a single payer. My full private health insurance in the UK costs £3000 a year, its exactly the same as what you get in the states, no deductibles, and that includes a free Starbucks drink and a free movie ticket every week

Obamacare was always flawed but it also faced over 100 amendments before it passed which eroded a number of aspects, making it even more half arsed. Its the half-arsedness that has fucked you. What you want is a single payer competitor to the private companies and watch your costs plummet. One of my favourite quotes is an Einstein one "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". If you seriously think making the free market for health insurance "more free" is going to fix this mess then unfortunately you're as deluded as the caricatures I see on TV.

[Coco]

I'm not remotely sold health insurance is the way to provide coverage at an individual level. Much better imo to have general taxation and general coverage, and whilst we don't hit the heights of the top 1% or so of US health coverage we're beating it elsewhere, and we're spending less doing it. All that said yes something should have been done about the huge spike to premiums which Obama allowed the insurance/hmo groups to gouge out of the system, but that something shouldn't be tax cuts for the rich and cutting healthcare for the poor.

The rich are employers, business owners that are footing huge bills for this now...this includes workers comp insurance as well... Ungodly amounts they are required to pay out for employee care. They deserve tax breaks or cant affored to hire or keep people employed. I can only speak for California, but assume its outrageous for most states.

We have seen and heard what kind of service and care comes with socialized healthcare.. Most that are used to great speedy care dont want it. It sounds barbaric and cruel, to be honest. Waiting for care? Thats ridiculous... Unimaginable here.

Costs have skyrocketed... I make a good living and health premiums for me are about twice the cost of my mortgage per month. What is worse, is that with the affordable care act the way it is now... my coverage does not even cover ANYTHING until I have paid $12,500.00 out of my own pocket for services ( called a deductible ). So.. Here is how it breaks down for me personally now:

Ins. Premium $3,100.00 per month
Deductible for services $12,500.00 / yr

So all in all I pay $37,200.00 annually for premium, and then have to pay $12,500.00 out of pocket before this coverage I am paying for will even start paying any of my costs.

$49,700.00 annually.

Ridiculous.

It is ridiculous.

Have you been to Germany? Or Switzerland? Or Norway? Or the Netherlands? Or Denmark? Wait times? Not likely.

There are multiple ways to skin the socialised healthcare cat, the NHS is just one and you aren't going to find an argument that it, in its current form, isn't seriously flawed. But its still not "barbaric and cruel", whats "barbaric and cruel" is 30 million uninsured left to rot and die if they get sick, or 700,000 people a year filing for bankruptcy due to healthcare costs. It also provides the best competition the private insurance industry can ever face - a single payer. My full private health insurance in the UK costs £3000 a year, its exactly the same as what you get in the states, no deductibles, and that includes a free Starbucks drink and a free movie ticket every week

Obamacare was always flawed but it also faced over 100 amendments before it passed which eroded a number of aspects, making it even more half arsed. Its the half-arsedness that has fucked you. What you want is a single payer competitor to the private companies and watch your costs plummet. One of my favourite quotes is an Einstein one "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". If you seriously think making the free market for health insurance "more free" is going to fix this mess then unfortunately you're as deluded as the caricatures I see on TV.

Who in the hell is feeding you this bs? Everyone gets coverage here, states pay for patients that cannot pay, and absolutely nobody gets turned away... Free clinics, community clinics and mobile clinics pick up the slack. If so many people have truly had to file for bankruptcy because of healthcare costs, it would be very interesting to me to find out how or why they were not covered by their local or state help (available right at the hosputal too... Convenient ).

No, im not delusional Jared, but I do have many years of something called life experience... In the United States....do you?

Your insurance sounds heavenly. Have you ever had to use it for surgery or something that required hospital overnights?

[Spy]

As Jared says, Obamacare is a patch on a flawed system. Healthcare costs are disproportionately incurred by older and unhealthier people (obviously). To cover a population cost-effectively requires the young and healthy to buy-in. I hear your ridiculous healthcare costs, Coco, and it's similar to what I've heard from other professional, business owning Americans. It's an absurd level of cost. But the fault is not really Obamacare per se, it's that the underlying system is expensive, and not getting the funding from younger and healthier Americans. The more expensive it gets, the more younger/healthier citizens drop out. Consequently the healthcare gets more expensive for the remaining older/sicker cohort, causing yet more younger/healthier people to drop out, and so on. The Republican bill won't change this.

The benefit of a universal health care system is that it's compulsory for everyone to pay into it. Spreads the risk and the cost thoughout the population. And there's no doubt that every other developed nation achieves similar health outcomes for far less cost than the US. The US is way off the scale in terms of $/outcome.

Did you know the US spends more PUBLIC money per capita than all but 2 OECD nations? The US spends more public money on healthcare than Sweden, FFS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita That's without even having a proper public health care system. Something is wrong there.

Damned if I know how you get from where you are to where Sweden is though.

[Spy]

Who in the hell is feeding you this bs? Everyone gets coverage here, states pay for patients that cannot pay, and absolutely nobody gets turned away... Free clinics, community clinics and mobile clinics pick up the slack. If so many people have truly had to file for bankruptcy because of healthcare costs, it would be very interesting to me to find out how or why they were not covered by their local or state help (available right at the hosputal too... Convenient ).

No, im not delusional Jared, but I do have many years of something called life experience... In the United States....do you?

Your insurance sounds heavenly. Have you ever had to use it for surgery or something that required hospital overnights?

As I understand it, most of those free clinics are dependent on doctors actually giving up their time and working for free. ie charity is required to cover the shortcomings in the system. Is that the case? If so, that's not a good thing.

Re surgery, my son broke his arm badly 2 weeks ago. Compound fracture of radius and ulna. Drove him to nearest hospital where he was stabilised, then transferred to paediatric hospital. 2 nights in hospital, surgery, specialised paediatric orthopaedic care. Cost = zero (other than the tax I pay as a citizen). That's how it should work.

[morepork]

Coco....many, many people are not "used" to speedy health care. The myth of high income supporting the health of the masses needs dispelling. State employers pick up the tab in the main and you should fucking know it.

*eyeroll* Get off your liberal high horse mister.

State Employers? Really?

Directly from the NCSL website:

2/1/2017
All 50 states provide health insurance coverage for their state employees.

Most have done so for decades. However, the amount of coverage, who is eligible to enroll, and the portions paid by the state employer and by the individual worker always have varied from state to state.
In the past five years these state benefit plans have attracted much more attention among legislators, governors and policymakers. Often, this is because:

Rapidly rising commercial premiums are impacting state budgets;
State fiscal pressures are leading to more proposals to increase employee share of costs;
Co-payments and deductibles are on the rise in many places, separate from the established premiums.

A few general facts about state employee health plans, based on several national surveys: 1

State government employees covered by employer health insurance totaled 5,281,911 in 2013 (compared to 5,331,393 in 2010.)
Local government employees similarly covered totaled 13,804,380 in 2013 (compared to 14,273,847 in 2010), as reported by the AHRQ 2013 MEPS Survey III.B.1 [Source updated 12/30/2015]

For the state employees surveyed above:
81.8% had a choice of 2 or more plans
100.0% could choose a managed care plan
96.5% could choose a mixed provider plan
45.4% could choose an exclusive provider plan
3.2% could choose a conventional indemnity plan
56.1% of plans had a waiting period
[Source: AHRQ/MEPS 2013]

An earlier commercial survey projected that states provided coverage for about 3.4 million state government employees and retirees. When their covered dependents and family members were included, the total was about seven million people.

State and local employee health plans cover about 10 percent of the total U.S. workforce and hold more than 20 percent of the nation’s total pension assets. (CPR Report, 10/2014 & Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, 9/2009)

The average state and local employee tends to be older and more expensive to insure compared to private sector employees.

In 2013, six states paid 100 percent of the premium for employee-only coverage. (CPR Report, 10/2014)

Nearly all full-time state workers were eligible for coverage (97%), and take-up was high across most plans, averaging 91%.
74% of part-time state employees had the option of electing health benefits (compared to 48% nationally.)

In state employee plans, 37% of workers were in HMOs, 42% in PPOs, 16% in POS plans and 5% were in conventional indemnity coverage. However, Indemnity plans enrolled a majority of retirees in the Midwest, Northeast and South.

State employer retiree or "post-employment benefits" (OPEB) liabilities and funding progress are featured in a November 2014 report from Standard & Poor’s that contains information about each state’s actions. This research suggests that 32 states now hold some amount in trust, though the amounts are generally quite small, as 93 percent of state liabilities remain unfunded. Also a December 2014 issue brief from National Association of State Retirement Administrators and the Center for State and Local Government Excellence highlights the relative distribution of state OPEB assets and unfunded liabilities. [added Dec. 2014]

State and Federal employees have luscious wide spreading coverage, for their families too! Those of us in the private sector are not so lucky.

So how much do you think the private sector picks up, Porky?

Fuck all relative to what it makes off privatised health. Why do you insist that biological authority is the sole preserve of the private sector? Fucking madness. Why do you also assume that my perspective has no "private sector" reference? Are you privy to some aspect of the biological consequences of aging that the rest of us are not? Do you have a metric that refutes the benefits of preventative health care in favour of this ambulance at the foot of the cliff? You want private hospitals? Fine, take that option and let the rest of the country have the luxury of an alternative.

[morepork]

Have a little look into the origins of the NIH, the FDA. These prescient interjections into the narrative are examples of the benefit of objectivity and scientific literacy. You throw that away and you are FUCKED.