This explains why some Leadership and Committee Staffers exempted themselves from the Obamacare bill. Was puzzled at the time but no more. Looks like they didn't bother to tell their bosses that they would no longer be part of the Federal Employees Healthcare Benefit Program (FEHBP). The devil is in the 'fine print' turned out to be true and the best reason not to pass something you have not read.
Hot Air in their coverage asked
In other words, theoretically the law kicks them out of the federal health plan now in order to force them to join insurance exchanges … that don’t exist yet. Looking forward to tomorrow, when we’re inevitably told that they meant to do that. Exit question for lawyers: Who would have standing to sue to force the federal health plan to drop Congress now? Any citizen, or is it more refined than that?
We would think that any member of FEHBP would have standing. Since this was such an interesting question, we decided to do some research on where members of Congress are concerned not only FEHBP but also for pensions since we have been hearing some pretty ridiculous numbers thrown around.
Some interesting facts that busted myths you read on the Net have come to light. First of all you hear that after a Congressman (three terms) or Senator (1 term) they qualify for this huge pension. That is not the case. They are treated like any other civil service employee -- they are vested just like those in the private sector.
Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. (My Note: They become vested in the retirement plan after five years of full participation, but do not receive health benefits unless they fully retire. Being vested means they receive a small pension when they reach a certain age but being fully retired means they also have health benefits they can continue and pay for like they were still in Congress)
They are vested at five years like all Federal employees. The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.
Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.
According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.
Source: Info.com
Where the rumors have gotten started that FEHBP is free is anyone's guess. We pay $365 a month for the family plan under Blue Cross/Blue Shield. We are still trying to figure out when the free comes into play. Check out a United Auto Worker's health benefits and see how much they pay. Does the UAW pay $20 co-pay to visit a doctor each time? How about prescription coverage? If you check the difference, you will find out you want the UAW plan not the FEHBP.
Members of Congress pay the same amount that any Federal Employee pays for their insurance plan and none of them are free. Where this all got started that Congressional Health Benefits were free is beyond us as they have always been the same as any Federal Employee. It gets irritating to hear people proclaim they want the 'Cadillac benefit' plan of Congress and the Federal Employees without any facts.
Walton Francis, a federal benefits wizard and principal author of Consumers' Checkbook's Guide to Health Plans for Federal Employees and Annuitants, says that in general, out-of-pocket costs for prescriptions, co-payments and other items excluding premiums are roughly equivalent for federal and private employees.
Premiums in each plan, whether for government workers or the civilian work force, are driven by factors such as the number of employees, dependents and retirees enrolled, the ability to choose doctors outside a network, and the ages of beneficiaries. The federal government's work force is slightly older, and some of its more popular health plans like the standard Blue Cross policy have to spend more for patient care -- and charge more for premiums -- to pay for the higher number of claims, according to Francis.
But members of Congress get no preferential treatment, experts in and out of government say.
"They pay the same premiums, they get the same benefits and they get the same choices," said Mike Orenstein, spokesman for the Office of Personnel Management.
Source: Cleveland.com
What started out as a post to make fun of Democrats for missing this part of the Obamacare bill because they didn't read the fine print has turned into a post defending members of Congress against what I am reading on blog after blog that they already get 'free' healthcare (not true) and huge pensions after a few years (not true).
It took some time to find the original article that started all of this as most blogs were going with the Hot Air title, but below you will find the article that started this all. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Democrats did not read this bill before voting and thus the bill should be repealed and start over so everyone knows that is in the bill. The Republicans as the "Party of NO" were correct the Democrats were passing this bill because they could ram it through not because it was a good bill. Obama and the Democrats should be ashamed but don't expect any apology anytime soon.
The mantra must be on November 2, 2010 -- "Repeal and Replace" because that is the only sane thing to do with a bill that is so huge and so bad.
Baffled by Health Plan? So Are Some Lawmakers
ROBERT PEAR
April 12, 2010
WASHINGTON — It is often said that the new health care law will affect almost every American in some way. And, perhaps fittingly if unintentionally, no one may be more affected than members of Congress themselves.
In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.
For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.
The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?
The law promises that people can keep coverage they like, largely unchanged. For members of Congress and their aides, the federal employees health program offers much to like. But, the report says, the men and women who wrote the law may find that the guarantee of stability does not apply to them.
“It is unclear whether members of Congress and Congressional staff who are currently participating in F.E.H.B.P. may be able to retain this coverage,” the research service said in an 8,100-word memorandum.
And even if current members of Congress can stay in the popular program for federal employees, that option will probably not be available to newly elected lawmakers, the report says.
Moreover, it says, the strictures of the new law will apply to staff members who work in the personal office of a member of Congress. But they may or may not apply to people who work on the staff of Congressional committees and in “leadership offices” like those of the House speaker and the Democratic and Republican leaders and whips in the two chambers.
These seemingly technical questions will affect 535 members of Congress and thousands of Congressional employees. But the issue also has immense symbolic and political importance. Lawmakers of both parties have repeatedly said their goal is to provide all Americans with access to health insurance as good as what Congress has.
Excerpt: Read More at NY Times
Raw Story 
Posts
