Congress to get Obamacare exemption

[abelenkpe]

Congress to get Obamacare exemption

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/congress-to-get-obamacare-exemption-report-2013-08-02?dist=tcountdown


LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) -- The White House has approved a deal that will exempt members of Congress and their staff from some of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, Politico reported late Thursday. Under the law, popularly referred to as Obamacare, lawmakers and their aides were required to source health insurance "created" by the law or offered through one of its exchanges, and without the subsidies they currently enjoy, the members of Congress would have faced thousands of dollars in additional premium payments each year, the report said. However, the Office of Personnel Management now plans to rule that the government can continue to make a contribution to the health-care premiums of the lawmakers and their staff, it said, citing unnamed congressional sources and a White House official. 

[cali]

1. not really. they'll get part of their premiums paid by their employer which happens

to be the Federal Government, just as millions of Americans get part of their premiums paid by their employers. This was a set up by republicans engineered by Senator Grassley.

[Capt. Obvious]

28. THAT MAKES ME ANGRY!!!111!!

[snappyturtle]

2. Well isn't that special!

The taxpayers are paying a big chunk of gov't employee premiums.

[pnwmom]

43. This is nothing new. The government has been paying this all along, just in a different form. nt

[snappyturtle]

47. I'm sorry but I think it is different. From the article:

Under the law, popularly referred to as Obamacare, lawmakers and their aides were required to source health insurance "created" by the law or offered through one of its exchanges, and without the subsidies they currently enjoy, the members of Congress would have faced thousands of dollars in additional premium payments each year, the report said.

[pnwmom]

48. That's what I'm saying! They have been getting subsidies,

and they will continue to get subsidies under the ACA.

[snappyturtle]

49. MY point was that it was 'special' that the WH altered ACA to do that!!!

Yes, they will get subsidies now that the WH has stepped in.

[pnwmom]

51. Otherwise they would have been penalized personally for voting for the ACA.

Does that make sense? Aren't we all better off -- doesn't the ACA have a better chance of success over the long run -- if the members of Congress are all stakeholders who aren't being penalized for their support of the bill?

[snappyturtle]

61. No they wouldn't have been penalized. They would have had to

deal with the ACA like the rest of us. If they continue under this
WH change to get the subsidies they were getting, it's better than
anything we have. My parents were both on gov't insurance. I lost
Mom last year so I'm fairly current. Their premiums were less than
I'm paying for Medicare parts A,B,F, and D and it was wonderful
coverage which I am eternally grateful for...just sayin' Congress is
getting a better deal than the rest of us. imho

[pnwmom]

62. They would have been penalized compared to what THEY were getting before.

And that wouldn't have increased the likelihood of any of them supporting the bill.

[Faux pas]

3. Yeah, heaven forbid they have same

responsibilities and we common folk. Whiny wimpy asshats. As far as the Prez enabling them

[Safetykitten]

4. Hey ACA fans...defend this.

[madokie]

8. So many times when things aren't as they seem we see this

citing unnamed congressional sources and a White House official.

So I'll wait to see what the official story is before I drag out the outrage

[Safetykitten]

13. Then when it is fact...*crickets*

[cali]

14. I'm not an ACA fan and I have no problem defending this. see post 1.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. Military personnel aren't going to be forced into ACA either.

They are "keeping their employer-provided insurance".

[snooper2]

21. why? ACA should be applied to those fuckers

I say no exception for them...

[cali]

22. this is a big fat stupid lie, but congrats on buying into it without researching

[snooper2]

24. I just got done reading your thread...but thanks for jumping my ass

I was going to kick your thread and say thanks for providing more accurate info but now I'll just surf YouTube some more instead

[cali]

25. I apologize. I shouldn't have jumped your ass as you put it

I just get so frustrated with people buying into anything that shores up their biases. I'm prone to that to, but I'm aware of that inclination and try to do my due diligence when it comes to stories that fit my confirmation bias.

[kenny blankenship]

5. And now it's PERFECT!

Exempting themselves from the shit pile they dumped on everyone else is the cherry on top that completes a PERFECT act of PERFECT CONTEMPT for the public.

[cali]

29. except that is a fucking stupid cheapass shit lie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023392290

[leftstreet]

6. Permanent Political Class = American Royalty

[Safetykitten]

7. Why yes, it is now.

[Cyrano]

9. As George Carlin said:

"It's a big club. And you ain't in it."

If you've never seen this Carlin clip, watch it and then down a bottle of Xanax with a pitcher of margaritas.

[cali]

30. It's a lie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023392290

[hfojvt]

38. as George Carlin didn't say "It's a big lie"

and you just stepped in it, got some on your shoes, and tracked up the house with it.

Pavlov dogs we are. Ring our bells and we snarl in anger.

[Octafish]

10. I'd LOL, but hypocrisy in government bothers me.

It's un-Democratic.

[NM_Birder]

11. It will exempt them from the outrageous cost the rest of us will shouder. The Affordable Care Act is

good enough for the masses, not the ruling class,...........nor their staff.

[sinkingfeeling]

12. Guess Congress really doesn't care about the deficit if they want an exemption.

"....the members of Congress would have faced thousands of dollars in additional premium payments each year, the report said." Let's see there are 535 members of the House and Senate times several thousand dollars each. That would come out to around $2 million a year that the tax payers get to pay instead.

[abelenkpe]

17. Does seem to go against the message of shared sacrifice

And necessary cuts for all.

[Auntie Bush]

55. Or the poor will get 2M less or it will come directly from the food stamp budget.

Oh wait...there is no food stamp budget...was removed from the farm bill.

[Safetykitten]

15. We need re-write in ACA spin control! We meant to do that!

[alittlelark]

19. W. T. F. ....?!?

How much deeper does this rabbit hole go?

[newfie11]

20. Cause it's for the peasants ya know

Not the kings and queens of congress who should be called jesters.

[cali]

23. Congratulations folks on buying into a big fat fucking stupid lie!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023392290

research. try it.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

34. Ah, please don't blame the victims

And curb your self righteous, crabby tone, too.

It is unbecoming of you, and DU.

Thank you

[JoePhilly]

26. More kneejerk outrage ... based on a RW lie.

[cali]

27. I don't think it's really based on a right wing lie

the whole contretemps, phony as it is, is almost as much congressional dems fault as it is congressional repukes fault.

[JoePhilly]

32. Before the passage of the ACA, the RW screamed that Congress would be "exempt".

Which they claimed was proof that it had death panels and other insane elements.

They were paying a semantic game, then. And this is basically a redux of the same little game.

And of course, many of the same folks who jump at any opportunity to respond in outrage about something the administration has or has not done, are doing so in this thread ... despite your rather valiant efforts to get them to knock it off.

Congressional Dems should have told GOP members to pass up their government health care, and instead go onto the open insurance market as individuals to prove that the market worked. But the Dems inability to flips this aspect of the PR debate is irrelevant.

[Thinkingabout]

31. For all of the non belivers, here is a story yoi can believe in

My friend was visiting in France, fell and broke her leg and ankle. Went to doctor, they took ex-rays, they put on a cast, gave her crutches, price she had to pay, equivalent to $36.00. We can not even go to the doctor for a visit for this amount. Guess what, she did not have to wait either like the lies told by RW's.

[ceonupe]

41. France also does not have entire industries

Built around our for profit health care system.

Our universities , hospitals and education system is heavily influenced by our for profit health care system.


There are so many entrenched intrests I don't see it ever changing in the USA.

Follow the money and I'm not just talking about what u pay to the doctor but also what u pay for medical school, undergrad, for profit colleges for the mid level providers and assistants/clerks.

There is so much money it's crazy.

I work in health care IT. Ill tell u this much it's not the single providers or even the 2 provider shops making tons of money. The owner groups of the large practices however wow they make serious bank. Because they have the efficiency and scale to maximize everything. So they are way more profitable than the small shops.

Maybe we should look at ways the government can help bring that scale and effiecency to all and maybe reduce cost

[Thinkingabout]

42. I have thought for years if the money paid for health care would actually go to the health care it

Would be going to the professionals who do the hard work and nit into executives pockets or for bribery money to Congress. BTW, my friend did not wait in long lines claimed by many.

[Control-Z]

33. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Congress uses exchange but continues to enjoy the same benefits package they've been entitled to. Employer pays part of their premiums. They will not, however, be entitled to any subsidies like the rest of us.

Seems ok to me. I don't remember ever reading or thinking that the ACA would require employers to stop paying a share of their employees' premiums.

[leftstreet]

37. Actually, employers will be penalized for expensive plans

Obamacare attempts to change this dynamic. Under the law, health plans that cost over $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family will have to pay an excise tax of 40 percent on every dollar that they exceed that cutoff beginning in 2018. As Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economics professor who helped design the law, explained to the New York Times, the tax is meant to reorient the way that employers approach their workers’ health problems and their associated costs. “It’s focusing employers on cost control, not slashing,” said Gruber.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/28/2064441/employers-obamacare-cut-wasteful-spending/

9: What is a “Cadillac Health Plan”?

The PPACA imposes a 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans. This new tax will apply to health plans valued in excess of $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. Those thresholds will grow annually by inflation plus 1 percent. The tax takes effect in 2018.
http://www.cpehr.com/affordable-care-act-obamacare-for-business

[BklnDem75]

35. Old recycled false claims that's been made since 2010

Q: Does the health care bill specifically exempt members of Congress and their staffs from its provisions?

A: No. This twisted claim is based on misrepresentations of the House and Senate bills, neither of which exempts lawmakers.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/congress-exempt-from-health-bill/


Q: Is it true that there are bills in Congress that would exempt members and their staffs and families from buying into “Obamacare”?

A: No. Congress members and staffers will be required to buy insurance through the exchanges on Jan. 1. But reportedly there is concern about whether federal contributions to premiums can continue without a change.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/congress-and-an-exemption-from-obamacare/

An Old Falsehood

Bogus claims about Congress being “exempt” date back to early 2010, when different health care bills were still being debated. Some Republicans claimed that Americans, except for members of Congress, would be forced into the government-run “public option” (which wasn’t part of the final bill that became law) or state-based exchanges (which are part of the law).

As we said previously, members of Congress get private health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which actually served as a model for the exchanges. Federal workers pick from among many health plans. The exchanges would operate in the same way — like a marketplace for those shopping for private insurance.

But some Republicans pushed the idea that if the exchanges were good enough for other Americans, they should be good enough for Congress. So, an amendment by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa was added to the Senate bill requiring that the federal government offer only health plans that were part of an exchange to members of Congress and their staffs. The law’s final language on this, written by Sen. Tom Coburn, says that: “the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act.”

[msongs]

39. congress/white house/cabinet should get NO health care plan paid by taxpayers nt

[AlinPA]

46. Agree...until every American gets it.

[liberal_at_heart]

40. But it's okay to force Americans struggling with poverty wages to pay additional premiums.

I have two problems with this. First, Congress always makes exceptions for themselves. They never have to follow the same rules we do, and second, why are premiums in the ACA more expensive than premiums Congress already has set up? Could it be because the government let the insurance companies help write the freakin law? Business as usual I guess. Nothing too surprising when you think about it. The question is how long are we going to allow them to do business as usual?

[pnwmom]

53. Americans with poverty wages will be able to move into expanded Medicaid programs

unless they are unfortunate enough that their governors have decided to reject free Federal money so they can do so. But blame the governors for that, not Obamacare.

What do you mean that the premiums in ACA are more expensive than "premiums Congress already has set up"? I'm not following . . .

[pnwmom]

44. Think about this another way. This helps to make all the members of Congress

personal stakeholders in the ACA working out.

[AlinPA]

45. Members of congress and their staff should get no government paid premiums until everyone

in America gets government paid premiums.

[tritsofme]

50. That sure makes for a nice soundbite. Not so good as public policy.

[AlinPA]

56. I believe that the public would approve of that policy.

[tritsofme]

58. Does that make it a smart policy? Lots of people believe lots of stupid things.

Punishing staffers and creating a brain drain on the Hill doesn't make any sense.

[AlinPA]

60. You are right; people do believe a lot of stupid things. Brain drain? There is a lot of money

in the parties to pay them all.

[tritsofme]

63. These are federal employees, they ought to be treated

the same as any other. They don't work for a party or a campaign. Many provide important constituent services. Beat up on the congressmen, sure, but I don't get beating up the staff.

[elleng]

52. Reasonable because,

like congressmembers or not, Federal Employees Health Benefits program provides the BEST 'exchanges' in the world, a model for the others,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Employees_Health_Benefits_Program

[AlinPA]

54. It still bothers me that congress and their staff get those Health benefits. They don't work for us

they work for their party. Let their political campaigns pay for it.

[elleng]

57. Yes but they also pay for the benefits.

I'm a retired Federal employee, still entitled to FEHB due to my husband's coverage, and we as a family always paid premiums, and still do. Our employer, the government, also contributes to our premiums.

congresscritters do not get their health benefits for free. But I understand your point; they DON'T work for us (many of them, anyway.) (Fortunately I'm pretty happy with my Senators and Rep, in Maryland.

[AlinPA]

59. I am limiting my statement to congress and their staff. They should get no taxpayer paid

premiums, even if they make some partial contribution.