How much does the fed gov spend (its contribution) on its employees' healthcare insurance?
827291
Very little.  I dont know the actual percentage, but I can tell you as an ex federal employee I had $126.00 withheld per paycheck for health insurance.  I don't consider that a small amount.
201422
Federal payments for healthcare via the Medicaid system totaled 275billion in 2003 which are the most recent numbers I have.  It’s also important to remember in terms of tax dollars being spent you can about double whatever the Feds spent in matched state funds. Medicaid expenditures were rising at a rate of about 10% per year between 01-03.\n\nHope that helps,\nArmus
327156
And your not, just another mentally deficient, me, type repuglican. Do not worry about tomorrow, never mind that the kids and grand kids will have to pay this debt, and more importantly the interest. Do you realize that the interest on a 3 trillion dollar debt is enough to fund health care for each individual in the country, oh that's right you have health care and it don't matter to you. I bet I am closer to "right" then you are.
106309
The US spends twice per capita what other industrialized countries do and yet only we do not cover all our people.  When we decide we want to get real value for our money we can get care for all Americans and resolve other aspects of the present crisis.\n\nHealth care should be like public education (K-12) a right enjoyed by all Americans.
42633
Yes. If people get sick or hurt they need something to fall back on. Plus it helps the employer too. People with health insurance can get back on their feet faster and, if the stay home briefly, don't get others sick. On top of which you probably can deduct this expense from the company's taxes.
1042838
Health insurers are in a really tough business these days.  They face significant and unpredictable liability costs, huge amount of regulations at both the State and Fed level.  \n\nIn your place, I would stay away from investing in such companies.  You'd be a lot better off investing in an index mutual fund. \n\nIf you need clarification, contact me through "Answer" and I will edit my response.
879592
Wow! I'm amazed by the bias and misunderstanding evidenced in the answers so far. . . I have lived in a country with "socialized medicine" (Denmark) so I know something about it.  To answer the question, I believe that the U.S. may now be the only western country without a national socialized health-care system.  \n\nAs some mentioned here, in socialized medicine, taxes or other federal and state revenues would pay for our individual medical costs.  But to assume that this would automatically be a big hardship for the taxpayer shows a misunderstanding of the way such a system works and the options in the set-up that we would need to consider.  \n\nThere are many ways to pay for socialized health care, and they don't always involve raised taxes.  For one example, consider this: right now, our tax dollars are wasted to an enormous degree on the pet projects of various legislators - projects that most of us do not know about and wouldn't care to be paying for!  I would like to see some of this "pork-barrel" spending done away with (and I believe that we are moving in that direction as people educate themselves about it and demand change) - that would go a long way toward funding things like a national health-care system.  Other forms of government waste exist also, where funds would be better spent on insuring all our citizens.\n\nThe biggest thing that would worry me personally about such a system, and that may be much of the reason why we don't yet have it in the U.S., is that its establishment would necessarily require some level of federal-level regulation.  Americans (myself included) have a traditional distaste for too much government control on the federal level.  \n\nBut in this case, federal regulation and the meddling that would come with it,  may be a necessary evil that we need to consider - because the alternative is to keep going along the path we are on, in which with every year we see fewer employers able to insure employees, the costs of individually-purchased policies grow more outlandish, and the numbers of uninsured citizens increase by thousands.\n\nI think that it is telling that we are the last free-world, western, civilized nation to NOT be insuring ALL its citizens.  In America, we believe that citizens have a birth right to some things - like education and social security.  I believe we need to start believing as a nation that everyone has a right to be treated when they are ill without it bankrupting them.  It's really a right to LIVE.  It seems elementary that we would want to keep all our citizens healthy, not just the wealthy and lucky.  Something is going to have to give, and soon. \n\nMac at ASKEW\nhttp://askew.blogharbor.com
149584
50% of the costs are paid by the Federal Government.\n\nMedicaid is Budgeted 12.45 billion in increase of 746 million.
862655
I receive public assistance - food stamps and medicaid thanks to government spending.  Government spending also pays for the public transportation that I ride.
830842
In 1936, the federal government published an informational pamphlet on Social Security.  It stated:   \n\n"…and finally, beginning in 1949, 12 years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year.  That is the most you will ever pay."\n\nhttp://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssb36.html\n-----\n\nHELL YES !!!\nBut I guess I'm just too stupid to take care of myself, so politicians will do it for me.  Yep, I'm too stupid to save my money properly.  Yep, I'm too stupid to buy the proper insurances to protect myself from unforeseen events.  Yep, I'm just too stupid.\n\n.
1122175
It all depends on your situation.  Some people are benefited by Medicare part D, and some people are harmed by it.  I work with a lot of people that are harmed by it.  In fact with the hundreds of people I have assisted with Medicare part D, I can think of 2 people that were helped by it.  \n\nI have seen people automatically enrolled in a plan that does not cover their meds, or worse, they were automatically enrolled in a plan that made them ineligible for their health insurance.  I have seen people in two plans, because when they enrolled in a plan that covered their meds, the plan the government enrolled them in did not dis-enroll them. I have seen people that did not have to pay co-pay in the past because they had very low income now having to pay the co-pays, unless their pharmacy decides to waive it. I have seen people that are only supposed to be charged a $1-$3 co-pay be charged a $40.00 and higher co-pay because their plan "did not know the individual was eligible for the low income subsidy", even though the individual provided that information to the plan. I have seen people that were denied their meds by their pharmacy because they could not pay the $40.00 co-pay, per prescription, when they should have only been charged the $1.00-$3.00. The people I work with can't even afford the $1.00-$3.00 so they surly can not afford $40.00. Then thier is the issue of the $250.00 deductable, which I won't go into.  I have seen people on hold for minutes to an hour trying to contact their plan to get the problems worked out.  Sometimes we could get it fixed wit one call some times it took more than one call.\n\nIn some cases I have seen people that have not been able to get their prescriptions filled because the wrong plan (the plan that does not cover the prescription) is showing up on the individual’s record and not the new plan.\n\n I have seen BUCKETS of mail (so much mail even our post office commented to me on SEVERAL OCCAISIONS "boy you guys have been getting a lot of mail") come in relating to Medicare part D for people I work with. I work with a small sliver of the population and if they are getting this much mail I cringe when I think about how many trees are being killed to make all of this paper. Much of this mail is junk mail because 1/2 of it is from plans that people should have been dis-enrolled from, the other 1/2 is from the plans that they should be in. All the Tax payer money that is going RIGHT IN THE TRASH CAN, makes me ill when I think about it.\n\nFrom my perspective, Medicare part D is a Disaster.  For some people though it does help. I am happy for the people that it helps, but for the people I work with it has been a huge thorn in thier side.
690409
I dont know. I really dont know. How would you find out? Government statistics? Not a good vote-getter! Even if you go back to previous governments , its still pretty hard to judge how scrupulous they were.They , of course , 'justify' the expense - 'defending freedom' , a 'cost-effective' health service,an aging population affecting pensions ( gosh , an aging population , that must have come as a surprise!). Bit of a rant here , but I feel that you understand!
527677
Most people don't pay a part A premium because they have enough work credits.  Part B premiums are $88.50 per month in 2006.  If you get a Medigap (supplemental insurance) or a Part D (prescription drug) plan, those premiums will be in addition to what comes out of your check.  Part D premiums on average are around $25.
705551
You are only partially correct.\n\nThere is no federal law in the US requiring employers to offer health insurance to their employees.\n\nMassachusetts just passed a law that says by a certain date, all citizens have to have insurance and if you don't get it from your employer, you'll have to buy it yourself.  In other words, you'll be forced to buy it on your own if your employer doesn't provide it.\n\nIF your employer does offer coverage, there are a few things they must do.\n\nFirst if it is an employer under 50 employees, they'll have to provide you a policy with all the mandates required by your state.  Some states have few benefit mandates.  Many have a lot.\n\nIf your employer has more than 50 employees, they can offer a policy under a law known as ERISA which lets the employer opt out of state mandated benefits, taxes and high risk pool surcharges.  ERISA only mandates two benefits (maternity coverage for employers with more than 15 employees) and reconstructive breast surgery after mastectomy).  Other than those two....large employers can carve out any benefits they want.  So, not only are they not required to even give you health insurance in the first place, but big companies can give you health insurance that doesn't really cover anything.
489024
I've been at the same non-profit health care organization in D.C. for seven years. I have five weeks vacation, six sick days, two personal days, full health care coverage, full dental, a traditional defined benefits package (equal to my highest salary when I retire) AND a 401(k) with matching contributions, two life insurance policies, a long-term care policy (that I pay for, but at a ridiculously low rate), a severance package if I'm let go equal to two months salary, long-term disability insurance, an office of my own, subscriptions to newspapers and magazines of my choice, and a kick-ass boss.\n\nYou should work here.
686433
make health insurance a government-subsidized program, with employers FORCED to provide full medical benefits for people working 30 or more hours a week for them.
67798
Everyone in the U.S. that works and pays taxes should know they're having money taking out of their check to pay Medicare/Medicaid.\n\nAttached is a link about Medicare/Medicaid.  \nThere probably are state and city assistant programs avaliable too.