Yikes! Postal employees retiring required to take Part B at 65. All feds next?

[DeniseNJ]

Added some info and changed title for clarity that I'm just talking about retirees, not current working feds.
One of the important benefits of federal employment is that our health insurance does not require us to take Medicare Part B at retirement, like almost all other insurances do. In 2025 postal employees retirees will be required to take Part B at 65 and pay those premiums.  This is huge.

How long before they require, with only a couple of years notice, that all fed retirees have to take Medicare?  Medicare premiums right now are about $170 per month per person.  Lots of people are waiting to retire just for the insurance!  I really feel this is huge.  Anybody else freaking out?

ETA: To clarify, this is for people who retire and then when they turn 65 they get to decide if they want Part B or not.  Now postal feds who retire, I think starting 2025, when they turn 65 they will have to take Part B.  Normally, FEHB doesn't give you a premium discount if you have Medicare but they pay for your copays and deductible.  It looks like some will start to give them a discount if they have Part B.  With all things Medicare, it's complicated.

Beginning in January 2025, the new law will require all newly Medicare-eligible USPS annuitants and their Medicare-eligible covered family members to enroll in Medicare Part B to maintain their postal health coverage.

So it won't apply to ppl either already retired or already 65 by 2025, but it applies to ppl who retire and turn 65 starting in 2025.  Basically current retirees are grandfathered in.

[mistymoney]

at 65? or all ages?

[DeniseNJ]

at 65? or all ages?

Just 65.  Basically, you retire and, at 65 instead of deciding to keep your own insurance, which is way better than regular fehb and cheaper, you then have to take Medicare Part B.

[DeniseNJ]

https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2022/03/postal-reform-measure-could-affect-all-federal-retirees-health-benefits/362995/

I'm confused. Is this for still employed Feds or those who are already retired on retiree medical insurance since medicare part B is usually for the 65 and older crowd?

This is going to be for future postal retirees when they turn 65.  I believe it starts in 2025. Some FEHB plans will cut them a break on premiums.  Currently, most FEHB plans don't lower premiums if you take Medicare,  but they act as secondary and pay copays and deductibles with premiums still on you.  Maybe that will change.

Looks like trying to reduce the cost of FEHB for working feds and the gov't, while also increasing the number of folks relying on and paying for Part B.

From NALC site--

The new legislation would not change a current postal annuitant’s right to decide whether they want to enroll in Medicare. Nor would this right to decide about Medicare change for any active postal employee who retires before January 1, 2025, or for any active employee at least 64 years of age as of January 1. 2025.

[Catbert]

Maybe Congress won't screw with FEHB for the rest of government employees since they get their health care through FEHB and get the advantage of not needing Medicare Part B.

[lifeisshort123]

I’ll be a bit countercultural here seemingly, but I think all federal employees should have to be on Medicare Part B.  I think it would enhance the state of Medicare for the country if those who are affecting policies have to play by the same rules. 

Frankly, Medicare should be fully funded, so that when you retire there are not additional premiums for the core Medicare products (A & B), and should also include Dental and Hearing.  Government should also work to decrease the need for Medicare Advantage/Supplement policies, which are often not that much cheaper than an Obamacare Policy for someone near, but not at 65 (with subsidies).

Not trying to cause a fight, just my opinion.  I don’t like Government playing by rules that the rest of us are not able to.

Or, require my (and every other) employer to cover my healthcare in retirement based on whatever the formula and benefit structure is that the federal government uses, and make Medicare an insurer of last resort.

[Cranky]

Yeah, I’m just fine with rolling federal retirees into Medicare.

[Sibley]

I’ll be a bit countercultural here seemingly, but I think all federal employees should have to be on Medicare Part B.  I think it would enhance the state of Medicare for the country if those who are affecting policies have to play by the same rules. 

Frankly, Medicare should be fully funded, so that when you retire there are not additional premiums for the core Medicare products (A & B), and should also include Dental and Hearing.  Government should also work to decrease the need for Medicare Advantage/Supplement policies, which are often not that much cheaper than an Obamacare Policy for someone near, but not at 65 (with subsidies).

Not trying to cause a fight, just my opinion.  I don’t like Government playing by rules that the rest of us are not able to.

Or, require my (and every other) employer to cover my healthcare in retirement based on whatever the formula and benefit structure is that the federal government uses, and make Medicare an insurer of last resort.

^ this.

In the past, the justification for the remarkably better benefits that governmental employees received (including pension) was that the pay was lower than the private sector. Well, that may or may not be true anymore, but what is true is that society has changed. There are distinct negatives involved in having Federal employees get a different benefit than the rest of the country.

Also, Congress should get exactly the same health care and retirement options as the general public. Don't like the options? Improve them.

[elysianfields]

I’ll be a bit countercultural here seemingly, but I think all federal employees should have to be on Medicare Part B.  I think it would enhance the state of Medicare for the country if those who are affecting policies have to play by the same rules. 

Frankly, Medicare should be fully funded, so that when you retire there are not additional premiums for the core Medicare products (A & B), and should also include Dental and Hearing.  Government should also work to decrease the need for Medicare Advantage/Supplement policies, which are often not that much cheaper than an Obamacare Policy for someone near, but not at 65 (with subsidies).

Not trying to cause a fight, just my opinion.  I don’t like Government playing by rules that the rest of us are not able to.

Or, require my (and every other) employer to cover my healthcare in retirement based on whatever the formula and benefit structure is that the federal government uses, and make Medicare an insurer of last resort.

In the past, the justification for the remarkably better benefits that governmental employees received (including pension) was that the pay was lower than the private sector. Well, that may or may not be true anymore, but what is true is that society has changed. There are distinct negatives involved in having Federal employees get a different benefit than the rest of the country.

Federal employee here.  Here's an article from just two days back: Federal Salaries Lag 22.5 Percent Behind Private Sector, Report Finds

For context, in general Feds with less education are paid more than their peers in the private sector, but Feds with more education (PhD, JD, MS, MA) tend to make less than they would elsewhere.  In short, it's still true.

As for health care, if the US wants to continue with our wacky private health insurance system instead of Medicare for all, I believe it would be more equitable and easier on employers if the federal government offered FEHB to everyone.  We should decouple employment from some of its fringe benefits, such as health insurance, tax-advantaged retirement savings plans, flexible spending plans, transit pass plans.  This would allow employers to focus on their core mission, rather than managing these sorts of plans, or simply not offering them to so many employees at the bottom of the pay scale.

Here's an example of how it could work: Finland is a Capitalist Paradise

[lifeisshort123]

I am a strong supporter for decoupling employers from the health insurance equation.  As I recall, John McCain ran on this idea as a part of his healthcare reform strategy in the 2008 election.  Essentially, your employer would pay you a higher salary, and you in turn would be able to use that money to buy health insurance policies of your choice directly in pre-tax dollars. 

As I recall, there were issues with the amount of dollars that were able to be spent pre-tax, and I don’t think anyone gave too much thought to the policy as he was heavily favored to lose the election.

Regarding the report, I read it the other day.  It sounds like they are likely to get a very high raise this year, which will help some (but not bring them anywhere close to parity).

I would be curious how government salaries (with benefits included) compare to non-profit positions as well as for-profit positions.  I wonder if the disparity would be decreased.  The idea of government service, to me, has much in line with non-profit service work.  People who are not interested in amassing tremendous wealth, but who are interested in bettering their city, state, or nation in an area of interest.  I think about private school vs. public school teachers for instance.  Generally speaking, in the states I am familiar with, the public school teachers have significantly better wages, benefits, career assurances, and post-employment income and benefits.