More bullshit. No, the Congress isn't trying to exempt itself from the ACA

[cali]

repuke cheap crap and dem stupidity created a problem and the President himself, in an unusal move stepped in. Let me further point out that no other portion of the federal government was placed in a position where their employer- the federal government- couldn't continue paying part of their premiums.

<snip>

Here’s how it happened: Back during the Affordable Care Act negotiations, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) proposed an amendment forcing all members of Congress and all of their staffs to enter the exchanges. The purpose of the amendment was to embarrass the Democrats. But in a bit of jujitsu of which they were inordinately proud, Democrats instead embraced the amendment and added it to the law. Here’s the relevant text:

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 (or an amendment made by this Act).

Let’s stop for a moment here and explain why this is unusual. Large employers — defined in the law as employers with more than 100 employees — aren’t allowed onto the insurance exchanges until 2017, and only then if a state makes an affirmative decision to let them in.

But the federal government is the largest employer in the country. So Grassley’s amendment means that the largest employer in the country is required to put some of its employees — the ones working for Congress — on the exchanges. But the exchanges don’t have any procedures for handling premium contributions for large employers.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/25/no-congress-isnt-trying-to-exempt-itself-from-obamacare/

Fast forward:

In 2014, Congress gets Obamacare. Here’s how they’ll pay for it.

Starting in 2014, members of Congress and their staffs will have to get their health insurance through Obamacare’s insurance marketplaces. But according to a regulation that the Obama administration’s Office of Personnel Management plans to announce on Friday and release next week, the federal government can continue to contribute toward the cost of their health plans.

The regulation comes after months of worry on Capitol Hill. The Affordable Care Act includes a provision, first proposed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), forcing members of Congress and their staffs to buy insurance through Obamacare. But it didn’t provide a clear mechanism for them to do so.

The insurance marketplaces are built for individuals, not employers, and there was concern that the federal government could not continue paying its traditional share of congressional health plans. That would mean the entire cost would fall to members of Congress and their staffs, many of whom would likely flee the institution.

The Obama administration’s compromise is to permit the federal government to contribute toward employee insurance on the exchanges, but to render those employees ineligible for any tax credits or subsidies.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/01/in-2014-congress-gets-obamacare-heres-how-theyll-pay-for-it/

there's nothing remotely unreasonable about this. not even a little bit, but people who are ignorant as dirt are running around saying that Congress is opting out of Obamacare. They know not the fucking first thing about this situation but hey why let that stop you?

I have huge doubts about the ACA, but bullshit is bullshit.

[cali]

1. kick. I know a lie gets half way around the world before

the truth gets its shoes on, but that's no reason not to try and bring the lie to a screeching halt.

[sufrommich]

2. This lie is already an established "facebook fact".nt

[cali]

3. That's not going to stop me from screaming that it's a stupid fucking lie

and continuing to do so until people deal with it
.

[sufrommich]

4. As it shouldn't.Just pointing out that

it's the equivalent of dropping a needle into the internet haystack.

[RadiationTherapy]

6. Exactly. One of the benefits of near-instant, near-global communication is evidence-based debate.

Even my most rabid political friends have to at least look for supporting documentation for their claims when refuted, which, at the very least, elevates conversation somewhat.

[bullwinkle428]

9. "Facebook facts" are apparently a close cousin to "truthiness"!

[Jackpine Radical]

58. Mission accomplished.

[Safetykitten]

5. You know why it's not bullshit?

Because when it gets closer to the deadlines, all manner of shit will be going on with this clusterfuck, and it will be different for them, in a way as usual that makes it so they will spared the nasty details we will have to go through.

So no, it's not bullshit.

[cali]

7. say what? you provide zero evidence for your claim. none. zip. that makes it bullshit

YOU saying it's bullshit with no evidence is utterly meaningless.

[Safetykitten]

11. We will see.

[cali]

12. we don't have to wait and see. the info and facts are all there

it just takes a willingness to forgo confirmation bias, do a little research and turn one's outrage to something more worthy of it.

[Safetykitten]

13. Work your own side of the street. There will be changes aplenty as the 2014 looms.

[cali]

14. cryptic one liners. yeah, they're just great. whatever.

[ceonupe]

51. Just because someone is not down on bended knee

Kissing this admins ass all the time or disagrees with policy does not auto equal they are republican.

I can see u fell for the simpleton either for or aginst argument and everyone aginst is an enemy tatics.

Yes there will be many changes and failures in this system of forced private for profit insurance for all.

In the end what we will endup with is the various big insurance companies getting contract from the government to run this new program. Give it 5 years and watch what happens.

This whole ACA thing was a bad idea like trying to fit tank in a compact car spot. If we were going to do anything we should have opened Medicare to all.

I bet even individual mandate is delayed before election time. Like all politicians the dems know to suppress bad news and laws until after the election

[Safetykitten]

24. I am a troll and sockpuppet...and I am a him.

[whttevrr]

26. Well...

This is awkward...

[Capt. Obvious]

27. Honesty is freeing

[CreekDog]

32. I didn't say you were a troll or sockpuppet --you just don't know anything about the topic

that really is not enough to constitute trolling, though it is nearly as effective.

[disidoro01]

8. It's a friggin PR

nightmare. Why is the government exempting itself from a government program? That's the narrative going forward. couple this with the IRS employees wanting an exemption and it's a disaster.
The group that created and voted in this law wants and exemption and the group tasked with enforcing this law want an exemption. That leaves a lot of people concerned.
Why wasn't this provision stripped out immediately when it was voted into law?
People continue to turn on a program designed to help because of this stuff here.
I have no love or faith for this ACA. It was done poorly and was written with too much input from the industry itself.
I forgot to add the business deadline extension that is frustrating people who don't get an extension as individuals.

[cali]

10. You're right about it being a PR nightmare and it's one the dems helped to make

but please read the info at the links in the op. this is not an exemption- except to people who don't know what that word means or folks with such a strong case of confirmation bias that they'll buy any story that fits into their frame.

[disidoro01]

16. no no

I read your information. I stated what the narrative going forward will be and the fact that the government isn't helping it's case with these high profile stories.
But I do stand by my statement that the act was poorly done.

[cali]

19. you get no argument from me about the ACA being a shambles

I hope for the best with it but fear the worst.

[Mojorabbit]

49. Aren't employers supposed to start this next year?

They were given an extension but I am not understanding why the mechanism is not in place. If it was supposed to originally start this year, there should be some mechanism out there already developed. This does not make sense.

[ceonupe]

52. It does if u understand election politics

Dems got killed in 2010 on 2 fronts

Obamas mega orginization destroyed local old democrat org who do the heavy lifting during mid terms and did not become as helpful as it could or release data to the state orgs in usuable ways as it held its data close to the chest.

Yes team Obama came to town in 2007/2008 but they also left the local Democratic Party In shambles after the election. Lots of outsiders were brought in from other states pushing out local folks who had worked hard and knew their lock politics very well. Many of these people still are not as active as they once were because the Obama local takeover approach which won the national election never looked long term on the impact they would have on local and state races as well as midterms when u need the true long term democratic volunteers that where pushed aside.

The other big issue was ACA and the parts many view as negatives or costs. The delay was nothing more than politics and I'm willing to bet personal mandate will also get delayed before election.

Sorry for the rant but this is clear to see. The dems don't want to even talk about ACA in the next election.

[whttevrr]

15. Ok, but...

Congress still sucks, right?

[cali]

17. lol yes, congress is still dysfunctional as hell.

[disidoro01]

18. Yes they do

don't you agree?

[whttevrr]

20. Yeah...

But the OP seemed a tad animated...

[cali]

21. see my sig line

nothing irritates me so much as teh stupid.

[NutmegYankee]

48. You should add this to your sig

Found on a random google search.

[whttevrr]

22. What we really need is for Congress to pay into Social Security!

Then it will be Solvent Forever!

[hfojvt]

29. see question 5

http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Members of Congress DO pay in to Social Security, just like all Federal Government employees. They have since 1984.

[whttevrr]

34. Color me chagrined...

I thought they had some kind of USPERS... like CalPERS.

Great... now my participation in this thread is ruined by my own ignorance. How will I ever ...

Oh, look...

Shiny!

[leftstreet]

28. But will they be exempt from the 'cadillac plan' tax?

The insurance marketplaces are built for individuals, not employers, and there was concern that the federal government could not continue paying its traditional share of congressional health plans. That would mean the entire cost would fall to members of Congress and their staffs, many of whom would likely flee the institution.

Is that because the Congressional plans exceed the premium amounts allowed under Obamacare?

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

[liberal_at_heart]

35. good question. This Congress is immensely corrupt on both sides. I would not put it past them

at all to exempt themselves from parts of the ACA. If they can not only vote to keep legislation secret but also vote to keep their votes on legislation secret, give themselves pay raises while only giving penny raises to the minimum wage, and take more vacation time than any American worker I can think of, why wouldn't they exempt themselves from parts of the ACA?

[leftstreet]

37. If THEIR employer can fund spendy plans, then it's an exemption

Hard to tell what's what though.

But as Pelosi said, they'd have to pass it to know what was in it

[cali]

40. So, should all other federal employees not be allowed to have their employer

"fund spendy plans"- you know, like Post Office workers and janitors and secretaries?

[leftstreet]

42. I thought that wasn't the issue

The debate is whether or not Congress and staffers are getting an exception to Obamacare that the rest of us aren't

[cali]

44. they are not. read the op.

[leftstreet]

45. So an individual Congress plan can't exceed $10,200?

I'm not seeing that in the OP

[liberal_at_heart]

43. how many Post Office workers do you think will be getting the Cadillac plan? How many members

of Congress do you think will be getting the Cadillac plan? There is a difference. Members of Congress are rich, corrupt, and will do anything to protect what they have.

[NutmegYankee]

47. Under the FEHB, the most commonly used plan is Blue Cross/Blue Shield FEP PPO

And that does not meet the $10,200 threshold.

[ceonupe]

53. Don't tell the op

He's busy feeding us the admin spin on this.

The truth is just like the unions who no are upset noone wants to give up their Beniffits even as they force others to play by the rules.


And yes their current health plan is not bound by ACA rules and they don't want it to be because they would get taxed.

This is more from congress to show us all they really don't want to play by the rules they want everyone else to do.

My concern with all these exemptions is the courts will throw the mandates and other provisions out because the government themselfs laid the ground work to do so with all these exemptions.


Let me make it easier ACA sets a limit of 10k on the health plans congress health plans are more than that. They should have to pay fee to keep it or chose lower plan but they want exemption.

[Safetykitten]

30. The dark cabinet that is the ACA...

So, true? Not True? But in the ACA wild ride that will be till the 2014 inception of this miserable fuck up, there will be items that will be bases in half-truths, and then...oh the details. But the details we don't know about. And we won't. Not until the deed is done and people like this get their "special deals".

All manner of special deals have been done for the ACA, and now the nuts and bolts will have to be exposed. So why don't the people that say this is not true give us the EXACT details? They just give us the bigger picture. Then when it's a done deal...Oh. whatever.

[TheKentuckian]

31. Agreed, and one is hard pressed to find a harsher critic than me of this convoluted mess

built on wrongheaded assumptions and a desire to institute reform while leaving the underlying structure and existing profit centers in place.

Congress isn't excepting themselves and their staffs but rather maintaining the structure of their compensation packages, which I believe is fair and reasonable. Why should their employer be restricted from contributing to the cost of coverage in an employer based system.

The problem is of course gamesmanship on one level as you lay out, playing gotcha on both sides.

The bigger issue is the assumption baked in that the employer based market is okay, affordable, and must be left alone that caused this structural failure to come to the surface and become a big game that would require this obvious fix (and may yet have unintended consequences to be discovered).

[cali]

33. I'm where you are on the ACA- it's a convoluted mess is a good way to sum it up

I agree with every word you wrote.

As I've said, I hope for the best re the ACA, but fear the worst.

thanks for your post.

[liberal_at_heart]

36. I'm not sure I agree that their compensation packages are fair and reasonable.

The majority of Congress are millionaires mostly because of lobbying while the majority of Americans earn poverty wages.

[cali]

38. the majority of the thousands of staffers are not millionaires

[liberal_at_heart]

39. and I'm not accussing the staffers of being corrupt. It is Congress members that are corrupt and

they are the ones writing the rules. There inlies the problem.

[cali]

41. well, I wouldn't disagree with you on that

Mine are far from corrupt, but then I live in Vermont. We pretty much don't do corrupt politicians. really.

[TheKentuckian]

46. I think it fair for an employee to not get a crappier deal than they signed up for

I'm not exactly speaking to the packages specifically but rather the principle.

Why would you object to a staffer making very average money having their employer continue to pick up the same share of their benefit cost and/or why would you think it is a decent thing to essentially renegotiate their compensation package on the sly and take away thousands in benefits?

Even for people in Congress, taking away the employer contribution would just add more fuel to the fire you outline, it would just make it less likely that anyone that isn't wealthy could take the job on.

[ceonupe]

54. Does your comment not

Apply to everyday folks who had plans that exceed the 10k limit who's employers paid for the plan?

Because that is what this is all about.

I know some people that specificly negotiated health plans in their comp package in stead of other perks. Now those people because of ACA are looking at large fees to keep those plans.

This is the same reason unions are fighting it now as well. Lots of people have health plans that employer or retirement plans pay more than the ACA limit.

The OP itself is a poor spin job. This just another example of congress proving they are better than us simpletons

[timweidman]

50. caddy plans

I am trying to wrap my small mind around this gynormous healthcare thing. I noticed earlier in this post that someone said that if a conpany gives their employees a "caddilac" health plan they will be taxed 40% on the dollar ovrr x amount. So my first but probably not last question is - why would this plan penalize a company for giving their employees better coverage? How does this make any sense? Or am I not seeing something and hsve this wrong? Thanks for any input.

[ceonupe]

55. I got it right

Let's say your company pays 14k on your health plan.

Now u must pay a 40% tax on about 4k of that because your health plan is too good and its not "fair".

But congress does not want to have to follow this rule itself. In fact it had staffers moved to the exchanges to avoid this but the real deal is staffers will get a plan that's not as good as what they had.


Sort of like obamas if unlike your current plan u can keep it * (astrisk means unless its a plan that we consider excessive and then we wi puntatively tax you because we don't think it's fair but we will create exemptions for our union buddies)

In the end they even pissed the unions off.

They worst lie told was ACA was real healthcare reform.

[timweidman]

56. ceonupe. lets see if I got this right. my brother owns a small business and pays half their cost of

Healthcare which is $650 from him then $650 from employee. That's $15600. It is not a " cadillac" plan by any means. He now will have to pay 40% on top of that? I am sure he wont want to absorb the cost himself and may eliminate his plan altogether. Does this sound good to anyone? Seems like more small companies would push the cost to employees rather than shrink their already shrinking profit margins. I don't understand where they (healthcare proponents) are coming from.

[ceonupe]

57. No he won't

The employees however could be hit with it.


The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) imposes an annual excise tax on plans with premiums exceeding $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for a family.


Yep like nancy said we have to pass it before we know what's in it.