Obamacare rollout status report: central place for updates

[FerrelGeek]

Based on their stellar track record in the propaganda department, how much of that is a lie? 95%?

Expert: Healthcare.gov Security Risks Even Worse After ‘Fix’

Their definition of success is getting enough people on the system so that the .gov gets access to all their private info.

Security? We don't need no stinkin' security!

If you're stupid enough to register on the site, you better go buy Lifelock.

 

[EagleKeeper]

ObamaCare is rejected by Reid for his staff.

Though the law requires members of Congress and their personal staff to sign up under the federal exchange, CNN reports that committee and leadership staff are not bound by the same requirements.

As Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson told CNN, "We are just following the law."

They wrote a get out of jail card free into the law - anyone ask themselves why?

Still, the decision seems to contradict an earlier statement made by Reid in September, when rumors were circulating that Congress was attempting to exempt itself from Obamacare.

"Let's stop these really juvenile political games – the one dealing with healthcare for senators and House members and our staff,” Reid said at the time. “We are going to be part of exchanges, that's what the law says and we'll be part of that."

You have the Elite (Congress) and then the royal elite(Senate Leadership/WH) who are again being shown to be hypocrites/liars



180 degree from his statements earlier.

 

[fskimospy]

ObamaCare is rejected by Reid for his staff.


They wrote a get out of jail card free into the law - anyone ask themselves why?




You have the Elite (Congress) and then the royal elite(Senate Leadership/WH) who are again being shown to be hypocrites/liars



180 degree from his statements earlier.

This Congress and staff exchange participation thing is simply beyond stupid. Due to political games being played by Republicans while the ACA was drafted, a completely untenable situation was created in which special additional restrictions were applied to congressional staff and no one else.

Everyone, from both sides, recognizes how dumb it was to force Congress to use the exchanges. Everyone. Can we stop playing stupid games with this shit and just repeal that part of the law? Anyone who has put even ten seconds of rational thought into it would see why it's a dumb idea.

 

[Daverino]

I suspect that the economy will take a hit from people having to pay more for health insurance and having less to spend on other things, just like was seen from high gas prices.

Many of my neighbors that don't work for self insured companies will be paying $100 to $350 a month more for their insurance.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/01/health-exchange-prices/3797039/

You can zoom in on the map to see what the average rates are for the city/county where you live.

What were they spending before? You say $100 to $350 more, but more than what?

Remember that insurance rates go up every year. . . The exchanges only went into effect two months ago and that phenomenon wasn't expected to change immediately.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

This Congress and staff exchange participation thing is simply beyond stupid. Due to political games being played by Republicans while the ACA was drafted, a completely untenable situation was created in which special additional restrictions were applied to congressional staff and no one else.

Everyone, from both sides, recognizes how dumb it was to force Congress to use the exchanges. Everyone. Can we stop playing stupid games with this shit and just repeal that part of the law? Anyone who has put even ten seconds of rational thought into it would see why it's a dumb idea.

What were these restrictions exactly?

 

[theeedude]

What were these restrictions exactly?

Large employers (50+ employees) are required to provide health insurance to full time staff directly. Congress is a large employer restricted from providing its staff with health insurance as required for all other large employers.

 

[fskimospy]

What were these restrictions exactly?

Currently, Congressmen and staffers have an employer based health plan, as do most jobs where highly qualified people work. The Grassley Amendment (inserted as a poison pill in the original legislation) explicitly bars the government from having an employer sponsored health plan for Congress or staffers. This means that they have to buy health insurance from the exchanges, but since most of the staffers make more than 400% of the federal poverty level they would get no subsidy. This effectively translates into a huge pay cut for everyone working for Congress.

There's no other employer in the United States that is prohibited by law from offering health care to its employees. It makes no sense.

 

[EagleKeeper]

This Congress and staff exchange participation thing is simply beyond stupid. Due to political games being played by Republicans while the ACA was drafted, a completely untenable situation was created in which special additional restrictions were applied to congressional staff and no one else.

Everyone, from both sides, recognizes how dumb it was to force Congress to use the exchanges. Everyone. Can we stop playing stupid games with this shit and just repeal that part of the law? Anyone who has put even ten seconds of rational thought into it would see why it's a dumb idea.

Why is it dumb for Congress and staff to have the same rules apply to them as the rest of the country.

What makes them so special to be exempt for the law of the nation?

Large employers kick employees off their plans, pay the fine; do not give the employees extra pay.

Why should the overpriced staffers and Congress be any different.
The item in the law for to remove the elite status that Congress has provided for itself.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Why is it dumb for Congress and staff to have the same rules apply to them as the rest of the country.

What makes them so special to be exempt for the law of the nation?

Large employers kick employees off their plans, pay the fine; do not give the employees extra pay.

Why should the overpriced staffers and Congress be any different.
The item in the law for to remove the elite status that Congress has provided for itself.

Because, you know man, like, they are special dude. They get special privileges.

...Special privileges of the short bus for anyone that thinks this isn't complete BS that they shouldn't abide by their own rules. There is absolutely no legitimate counter argument as to why they don't have to abide by their own rules.

If this isn't living proof that it's the liberal agenda to keep the rest of the animals out of the barn and stomp on them, I don't know what is.

 

[chucky2]

Currently, Congressmen and staffers have an employer based health plan, as do most jobs where highly qualified people work. The Grassley Amendment (inserted as a poison pill in the original legislation) explicitly bars the government from having an employer sponsored health plan for Congress or staffers. This means that they have to buy health insurance from the exchanges, but since most of the staffers make more than 400% of the federal poverty level they would get no subsidy. This effectively translates into a huge pay cut for everyone working for Congress.

There's no other employer in the United States that is prohibited by law from offering health care to its employees. It makes no sense.

But Congress isn't other private (or even public) employer in the US, it's Congress. Should not be what's good for the people be good for the people representing the people on the peoples dole?

This to me sounds like it should be a requirement built in, not a "poison pill". Keeps Congress honest: If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them and their cohorts.

Kudos to Grassley. :thumbsup:

 

[theeedude]

But Congress isn't other private (or even public) employer in the US, it's Congress. Should not be what's good for the people be good for the people representing the people on the peoples dole?

This to me sounds like it should be a requirement built in, not a "poison pill". Keeps Congress honest: If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them and their cohorts.

Kudos to Grassley. :thumbsup:

I am not sure what you mean when you say that Congress is not an employer. Congressional staff are employees of Congress. Kudos to Reid. :thumbsup:

 

[Fern]

Currently, Congressmen and staffers have an employer based health plan, as do most jobs where highly qualified people work. The Grassley Amendment (inserted as a poison pill in the original legislation) explicitly bars the government from having an employer sponsored health plan for Congress or staffers. This means that they have to buy health insurance from the exchanges, but since most of the staffers make more than 400% of the federal poverty level they would get no subsidy. This effectively translates into a huge pay cut for everyone working for Congress.

There's no other employer in the United States that is prohibited by law from offering health care to its employees. It makes no sense.

This reminds of what many are predicting will happen to many employees currently on employer provided plans. If the cost goes up enough employers will cancel the plan, pay the penalty and give employees a chunk of money to go buy their own plan(s). Congress can give their employees a chunk of money so they can go shop like the rest of us.

BTW: Self employed people with no employees cannot be in group plans either. Group plans means more than person. Those people just have to take some of the money they earn and go buy an individual plan. Here again, congressional employers will be treated like many others.

Oh, you made an awful typo: Using the term "highly qualified" in a sentence mentioning Congress and govt employees is laughable. Remember, these are the people who devised and drafted the damn bill.

Fern

 

[EagleKeeper]

Oh, you made an awful typo: Using the term "highly qualified" in a sentence mentioning Congress and govt employees is laughable. Remember, these are the people who devised and drafted the damn bill.

Fern

Highly qualified:
1) A term used for those that participated in a political campaign - high up in a campaign office structure.
2) Someone that is ideologicalyl aligned and may be a fresh out of college poly-sci student.
3) One who knows how to kiss butt.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

What were they spending before? You say $100 to $350 more, but more than what?

Remember that insurance rates go up every year. . . The exchanges only went into effect two months ago and that phenomenon wasn't expected to change immediately.

Most of my neighbors are going to be paying $100 to $350 more a month starting in January than they paid per month this year.


The most my insurance rates have ever gone up is $25 in year.

 

[boomerang]

When is Obama going to sign up? He said he was going to. Or was that just another lie from a pathological liar?

 

[spacejamz]

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/i-jus...ical-worker-finally-gets-insurance-2D11718146

We should all rejoice (unless you are one of the unlucky ones that don't qualify for a subsidy) that this couple now gets health insurance for only $3/month, right?

According to one of the the comments, their yearly deductible will be over $9K. Will they able to pay that?

What happens if someone cannot meet their deductible? Do they still get coverage/treatment? Are these costs of these unpaid fees passed on to those who can pay?

 

[glenn1]

Maryland is deciding whether to scrap its state exchange:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/op...change-20131217,0,7245719.story#ixzz2nn2KZ2MG

 

[chucky2]

I am not sure what you mean when you say that Congress is not an employer. Congressional staff are employees of Congress. Kudos to Reid. :thumbsup:

Congress is the Fed gov. The Fed gov passed ACA and made it the law of the land for all to follow. All should be following it, no exemptions (except perhaps religious, if that case could be made). So my point stands: What's good for the goose...

 

[fskimospy]

Congress is the Fed gov. The Fed gov passed ACA and made it the law of the land for all to follow. All should be following it, no exemptions (except perhaps religious, if that case could be made). So my point stands: What's good for the goose...

If you want the same rules to apply to everyone you should be against the special rules that applied only to Congress which Grassley added.

 

[theeedude]

Congress is the Fed gov. The Fed gov passed ACA and made it the law of the land for all to follow. All should be following it, no exemptions (except perhaps religious, if that case could be made). So my point stands: What's good for the goose...

Federal Gov is a large employer, other large employees have to provide their employees with coverage directly. What's good for the goose...

 

[chucky2]

If you want the same rules to apply to everyone you should be against the special rules that applied only to Congress which Grassley added.

I want Politicians and their minions required to use the same thing they expect all the masses out there to use. Since people who had employer provided coverage already had coverage pre-ACA, and the ACA (among other things) was to get people without such employer provided coverege on the exchanges, then I expect Congress to be using that same solution they deem good enough for these average joes for themselves and their staff.

If it's not good enough for themselves or their staff, then why did they deem it good enough for the people paying their salary and who they're representing?

IMO it's a good check on Politicians and their butt buddies: Write laws for us that are good enough for you to also have to follow. So in this case, letting them use their employer provided HC plan (which incidentally, we pay for) would be counter productive to that goal. I don't see what is complicated about this, I'd think it to be common sense, i.e. given these set of circumstances, would all the average joes that have to follow the law these Politicians enacted disagree with the Politicians and their minions having to follow it rather than be exempt because the Politicians voted themselves an awesome "employer" based medical plan. I think your 'Yeah let the Politicians and their sack carriers continue to enjoy their awesome benefits we pay for while we deal with their shitty implementation' vote would be in the single digits, if that. I will make what I'm sure is a correct prediction: You disagree.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Federal Gov is a large employer, other large employees have to provide their employees with coverage directly. What's good for the goose...

See above to eski. In this case, No.

 

[theeedude]

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/i-jus...ical-worker-finally-gets-insurance-2D11718146

We should all rejoice (unless you are one of the unlucky ones that don't qualify for a subsidy) that this couple now gets health insurance for only $3/month, right?

According to one of the the comments, their yearly deductible will be over $9K. Will they able to pay that?

What happens if someone cannot meet their deductible? Do they still get coverage/treatment? Are these costs of these unpaid fees passed on to those who can pay?

Why don't you ask what has been happening to them without Obamacare? You really think they are better off with no insurance than with a high deductible plan? They seem to think otherwise, and I am going to go ahead and assume they know their own situation better than you.

 

[fskimospy]

I want Politicians and their minions required to use the same thing they expect all the masses out there to use. Since people who had employer provided coverage already had coverage pre-ACA, and the ACA (among other things) was to get people without such employer provided coverege on the exchanges, then I expect Congress to be using that same solution they deem good enough for these average joes for themselves and their staff.

If it's not good enough for themselves or their staff, then why did they deem it good enough for the people paying their salary and who they're representing?

IMO it's a good check on Politicians and their butt buddies: Write laws for us that are good enough for you to also have to follow. So in this case, letting them use their employer provided HC plan (which incidentally, we pay for) would be counter productive to that goal. I don't see what is complicated about this, I'd think it to be common sense, i.e. given these set of circumstances, would all the average joes that have to follow the law these Politicians enacted disagree with the Politicians and their minions having to follow it rather than be exempt because the Politicians voted themselves an awesome "employer" based medical plan. I think your 'Yeah let the Politicians and their sack carriers continue to enjoy their awesome benefits we pay for while we deal with their shitty implementation' vote would be in the single digits, if that. I will make what I'm sure is a correct prediction: You disagree.

Chuck

Congressional staff already had employer provided coverage pre-ACA. You are saying that you want people with employer provided coverage to use a system for people without employer provided coverage. This is nonsensical.

They are using the same solution that they deem good enough for these average joes. Without the Grassley amendment employees of Congress would be treated identically to any other employee in America. Grassley changed that so that there would be special rules for Congress only. All WERE going to be following it with no exemptions, but you support changes to it that made it so that not all Americans would be treated similarly by it.

If your argument is that you DO believe Congress should be treated differently that's fine, but it takes a truly Orwellian twisting of language to cast a situation where one specific group is explicitly targeted for different treatment under the law and then say that it's being done so everyone is treated equally.

Common sense. You support special treatment for Congress, so just come out and say so.

 

[theeedude]

See above to eski. In this case, No.

I tell you what, I am OK with requiring Congress to buy insurance in the private market under Obamacare, under the condition that they will be required to buy it in the private market if Obamacare is repealed.

As you say:
"If it's not good enough for themselves or their staff, then why did they deem it good enough for the people paying their salary and who they're representing?"

It seems like GOP politicians were fine for decades taking government paid insurance for themselves while millions of their constituents went without insurance or had to get it in the unsubsidized private market.