Congress’s Exemption from Obamacare

[cubby1223]

It's just ridiculous to believe congress is going to receive poor heath care regardless of how they obtain the insurance. And it really doesn't matter if it's subsidized by the taxpayer or not - all their salaries are paid for by the taxpayer, doesn't matter if the money goes from the tax payer directly to the insurance company, or has the middle step of going from the tax payer to the members of congress to the insurance company. In the end it's the exact same result.

 

[Darwin333]

"Politico reported that several Democratic senators have asked staff to draft legislation that would deny federal health subsidies to anyone who votes for the Vitter plan, even if Vitter’s plan doesn’t become law."

I can't imagine that this is even remotely legal. I don't care what you think of Vitters bill but it should be criminal to introduce a bill that attempts to directly punish people for voting one way or the other on a Congressional Bill. That would be like passing a bill that says "If you vote for a Republican you are no longer eligible for any government assistance".

And personally, I think every law that Congress passes should apply to Congress. If they don't think its good for them then how the hell can they think its good for me?

 

[Darwin333]

How many times are you going to peddle this exemption as something it isn't?

What exactly is it? Is the article wrong about Vitters bill? Is the article wrong about the retaliatory bill written with the direct intent and language to punish anyone who votes for Vitters bill regardless if it passes or not?

 

[Darwin333]

The employer contribution is the same contribution they are recieving right now. Either you can raise their pay to compensate for the loss, or let them recieve the same amount they would recieve if Obamacare wasn't inacted.

Would you also like your employer to stop contributing to your healthcare coverage?

Members of Congress ran to be "public servants" and the VAST majority of them are rich and some are even wealthy. They spent millions upon millions of dollars to get that position and are currently paid $174,000 at the minimum.

I don't think they will miss any meals if we take away their insurance subsidies. Millions of normal Americans have lost their employer paid insurance or employer subsidized insurance so please forgive me if I don't shed a tear if they do to.

If they dislike the new terms of their jobs they are perfectly free to either resign or at the very least not seek reelection. Wanna make a bet on how many would not seek reelection or resign due to losing their insurance subsidies? If you think even a single member will do so I will wager as much as you are willing to risk.

 

[dank69]

Members of Congress ran to be "public servants" and the VAST majority of them are rich and some are even wealthy. They spent millions upon millions of dollars to get that position and are currently paid $174,000 at the minimum.

I don't think they will miss any meals if we take away their insurance subsidies. Millions of normal Americans have lost their employer paid insurance or employer subsidized insurance so please forgive me if I don't shed a tear if they do to.

If they dislike the new terms of their jobs they are perfectly free to either resign or at the very least not seek reelection. Wanna make a bet on how many would not seek reelection or resign due to losing their insurance subsidies? If you think even a single member will do so I will wager as much as you are willing to risk.

The bill is more about their staff than the congressmen themselves.

 

[cubby1223]

Members of Congress ran to be "public servants" and the VAST majority of them are rich and some are even wealthy. They spent millions upon millions of dollars to get that position and are currently paid $174,000 at the minimum.

I don't think they will miss any meals if we take away their insurance subsidies. Millions of normal Americans have lost their employer paid insurance or employer subsidized insurance so please forgive me if I don't shed a tear if they do to.

If they dislike the new terms of their jobs they are perfectly free to either resign or at the very least not seek reelection. Wanna make a bet on how many would not seek reelection or resign due to losing their insurance subsidies? If you think even a single member will do so I will wager as much as you are willing to risk.

You're looking at this from a perspective that only works if we are the bosses, we are the decision makers.

We are not. Congress is.

 

[dank69]

What exactly is it? Is the article wrong about Vitters bill? Is the article wrong about the retaliatory bill written with the direct intent and language to punish anyone who votes for Vitters bill regardless if it passes or not?

All I'm concerned with is what it isn't, and what it isn't is an "exemption from Obamacare."

 

[cubby1223]

All I'm concerned with is what it isn't, and what it isn't is an "exemption from Obamacare."

I don't understand what you're arguing. People are saying they don't like the subsidies going towards government officials purchasing health insurance.

Is your disagreement that government officials are not actually getting any subsidies, or is your disagreement with the label describing this as an "exemption"?

 

[cubby1223]

ex·emp·tion
/igˈzem(p)SHən/
noun
noun: exemption; plural noun: exemptions

1.
the process of freeing or state of being free from an obligation or liability imposed on others.
"exemption from prescription charges"
synonyms: immunity, exception, dispensation, indemnity, exclusion, freedom, release, relief, absolution More
"exemption from the road tax"

the process of exempting a person from paying taxes on a specified amount of income for themselves and their dependents.
noun: personal exemption; plural noun: personal exemptions

an item or amount exempted.
"a series of exemptions from the partnership tax rules"




I guess for the sake of those in this thread who woke up just a little extra pissy this morning, what if the claim were made that congress was exempt from portions of Obamacare?

 

[dank69]

I don't understand what you're arguing. People are saying they don't like the subsidies going towards government officials purchasing health insurance.

Is your disagreement that government officials are not actually getting any subsidies, or is your disagreement with the label describing this as an "exemption"?

My disagreement is that this isn't an exemption from Obamacare. They still have to participate in the exchanges.

 

[fskimospy]

Hasn't this been debunked enough times at this point? The exchanges are not made for people with employer subsidized insurance. For political reasons people decided to include congressional staff in the exchanges where their health care could no longer be subsidized, in effect giving them all a large pay cut. This legislation reverses that pay cut.

This is not difficult to understand. If you think that removing a special penalty levied only on congressional staff is "exempting them from obamacare" I can't help but think that you might not be looking at the issue honestly.

 

[boomerang]

Yes, the title of your post matches the misleading title of the article. So which is it? Did you not realize that the article didn't support the title or did you purposefully continue the cycle of propaganda?

Oh wait wait wait, you are surprised that Senators are acting this way towards one another and THAT is the sole purpose of this thread. LOOOOOOLLLLLLLL. Because the partisan divide isn't larger than it's been in recent history. Congressmen haven't been at each other's throats for the last 5 years. I'm sure it's all really fresh and exciting for you.

You're awfully excitable.

 

[dank69]

You're awfully excitable.

Do you get that impression because I use caps for emphasis? Would it have been better if I used this in place of LOOOOOOLLLLLLLL?:

 

[First]

It's not an exemption.

FYI.

 

[boomerang]

Do you get that impression because I use caps for emphasis? Would it have been better if I used this in place of LOOOOOOLLLLLLLL?:

Negative on the caps. Hmm, no, I don't think it's better, I think it has the opposite effect. But I wanted to respond so that it was saved for all eternity.

 

[dank69]

Negative on the caps. Hmm, no, I don't think it's better, I think it has the opposite effect. But I wanted to respond so that it was saved for all eternity.

Hmm, so if it wasn't the caps, what about my post made you think I was excited?

 

[werepossum]

This should be used as a case to fix the system.

Fire every single one of those crooks. Democrat, Republican, Tea Party, Liberace Party...whoever. Fire them all. Impeach them, recall them, whatever it takes.

Our country is broken because of these people acting like this. They no longer represent us, they only serve to divide us.

I don't think it's quite that bad. One cannot use the exchanges if one's employer subsidizes one's health insurance. For political reasons Congress wanted to be seen using the exchanges just like everyone else, even though they have very generous benefits provided via the taxpayer, so they put themselves and their staffers in the exchange. However, to use the exchange they cannot be subsidized. Now Congress has put itself in a very tough position; it doesn't want to admit that Obamacare isn't all roses and unicorns, but at the same time it doesn't want to publicly vote itself and its staffers a big raise to make up the money they will lose. Consequently they are trying to have their cake and eat it too, preferably on the sly but legislatively if they must.

Rudder read the title, rudder didn't read the thread, Rudder didn't read the article, Rudder will now tell everyone who will listen IRL that Congress wants to exempt themselves from Obamacare. Thread mission accomplished.

Except he didn't say any of that. And actually, Congress DOES want to exempt itself from Obamacare, or rather from the more onerous provisions. Can't use the exchanges if your employer subsidizes your health care. Congress wants an exception so that they can continue having the taxpayers subsidize their health care, but also crow about how they are using the exchanges just like everyone else.

 

[werepossum]

"Politico reported that several Democratic senators have asked staff to draft legislation that would deny federal health subsidies to anyone who votes for the Vitter plan, even if Vitter’s plan doesn’t become law."

I can't imagine that this is even remotely legal. I don't care what you think of Vitters bill but it should be criminal to introduce a bill that attempts to directly punish people for voting one way or the other on a Congressional Bill. That would be like passing a bill that says "If you vote for a Republican you are no longer eligible for any government assistance".

And personally, I think every law that Congress passes should apply to Congress. If they don't think its good for them then how the hell can they think its good for me?

Agree completely. However, this is a bit of a special situation. The staffers actually had very good health insurance paid for by us, but had it taken away to give political cover. "See, Obamacare is so great we're all going on it."

I have some sympathy for the staffers since losing their subsidized health care was all Democrat politics. Conversely, I don't think staffer ought to be a lifelong career either, so I'm not sweating if they decide to leave en masse over this. Term limits for all. Either way, there should NOT be special exceptions made.

 

[dank69]

I don't think it's quite that bad. One cannot use the exchanges if one's employer subsidizes one's health insurance. For political reasons Congress wanted to be seen using the exchanges just like everyone else, even though they have very generous benefits provided via the taxpayer, so they put themselves and their staffers in the exchange. However, to use the exchange they cannot be subsidized. Now Congress has put itself in a very tough position; it doesn't want to admit that Obamacare isn't all roses and unicorns, but at the same time it doesn't want to publicly vote itself and its staffers a big raise to make up the money they will lose. Consequently they are trying to have their cake and eat it too, preferably on the sly but legislatively if they must.


Except he didn't say any of that. And actually, Congress DOES want to exempt itself from Obamacare, or rather from the more onerous provisions. Can't use the exchanges if your employer subsidizes your health care. Congress wants an exception so that they can continue having the taxpayers subsidize their health care, but also crow about how they are using the exchanges just like everyone else.

Rudder didn't say any of what? Please quote what I said he said.

And of course by "onerous provisions" you mean "provisions inserted that place special restrictions on them that are not placed on anyone else."

 

[werepossum]

Rudder didn't say any of what? Please quote what I said he said.

And of course by "onerous provisions" you mean "provisions inserted that place special restrictions on them that are not placed on anyone else."

Below.

Rudder read the title, rudder didn't read the thread, Rudder didn't read the article, Rudder will now tell everyone who will listen IRL that Congress wants to exempt themselves from Obamacare. Thread mission accomplished.

Rudder said none of that. He said only what is absolutely true - that Congress seeks to exempt themselves from one of the onerous provisions of Obamacare, not the bill in its entirety.

If one uses the exchanges, one cannot have employer-subsidized health insurance, period. This is an onerous burden for anyone whose employer cannot or will not provide health insurance, yet is still willing to provide some level of subsidization. Congress is seeking to eat its cake and have it too by being on the exchange (i.e. in Obamacare), but also having the taxpayers pick up the tab.

 

[woolfe9998]

Below.


Rudder said none of that. He said only what is absolutely true - that Congress seeks to exempt themselves from one of the onerous provisions of Obamacare, not the bill in its entirety.

If one uses the exchanges, one cannot have employer-subsidized health insurance, period. This is an onerous burden for anyone whose employer cannot or will not provide health insurance, yet is still willing to provide some level of subsidization. Congress is seeking to eat its cake and have it too by being on the exchange (i.e. in Obamacare), but also having the taxpayers pick up the tab.

The problem with your analysis is that the Grassley amendment said that Congress and its staff can no longer use the federal employee health plan, which their employer (the federal government) paid for about 70% of. Which other Americans besides Congress have been thrown out of their employer based health plans and forced to use the exchange instead? Sure, everyone else has to abide by the "no subsidies if you use the exchange rule" but no one else but Congress is forced to use the exchange instead of their existing employer based insurance.

 

[woolfe9998]

My disagreement is that this isn't an exemption from Obamacare. They still have to participate in the exchanges.

It's probably most accurate to say that it is an exemption from a part of it - the part which says no one using the exchange can receive a subsidy from their employer - in order to make up for the fact that ACA singles them out to lose their employer based insurance which it doesn't do to anyone else. Essentially all this "exemption" does is level the playing field by correcting a disadvantage already imposed.

 

[werepossum]

The problem with your analysis is that the Grassley amendment said that Congress and its staff can no longer use the federal employee health plan, which their employer (the federal government) paid for about 70% of. Which other Americans besides Congress have been thrown out of their employer based health plans and forced to use the exchange instead? Sure, everyone else has to abide by the "no subsidies if you use the exchange rule" but no one else but Congress is forced to use the exchange instead of their existing employer based insurance.

I'd say rather a lot of employees have lost their employer-provided health insurance for various reasons, but in this case the reason was pure political cover. The only reason to put Congress and Congressional staffers into Obamacare was to be able to say "See, we're going to be on it with you." Now that they are on it, they are seeing a big downside and are attempting to erase the downside without losing the political cover.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'd say rather a lot of employees have lost their employer-provided health insurance for various reasons, but in this case the reason was pure political cover. The only reason to put Congress and Congressional staffers into Obamacare was to be able to say "See, we're going to be on it with you." Now that they are on it, they are seeing a big downside and are attempting to erase the downside without losing the political cover.

Let's not forget whose political stunt the "Grassley amendment" came from. This was the GOP demogaguing the issue with a pure populist argument. I do blame the dems who voted for that amendment because they shouldn't have caved. They probably thought they were being politically clever by accepting it. However, I disagree with you stating that the dems somehow concocted this for political cover.

I also think it's absurd to single out congressional staffers to lose their existing insurance. If it was only the Congress critters, as in, the people who were responsible for voting on the bill, it wouldn't bother me so much.

 

[werepossum]

Let's not forget whose political stunt the "Grassley amendment" came from. This was the GOP demogaguing the issue with a pure populist argument. I do blame the dems who voted for that amendment because they shouldn't have caved. They probably thought they were being politically clever by accepting it. However, I disagree with you stating that the dems somehow concocted this for political cover.

I also think it's absurd to single out congressional staffers to lose their existing insurance. If it was only the Congress critters, as in, the people who were responsible for voting on the bill, it wouldn't bother me so much.

The Dems voted for it as political cover. Grassley maneuvered them masterfully; either they agreed to live with what they mandate for everyone else, or they admit they want a double standard where they pass one set of laws for the peons whilst maintaining a higher set of standards for themselves. As for the staffers, the decision at the time was that committee staff were more or less permanent federal employees, whereas Congressional staffers were adjuncts to the Congresscritters themselves. Hard to argue with that point, I think, given that Congressional staffers come and go with their own particular Congresscritter. I can support that decision because I do not think that "service" in D.C. should be a way of life.