Congressional BS ( I know, redundant)

Cancel 2016.2

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8644202946287548.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

good...

The Affordable Care Act requires Members of Congress and their staffs to participate in its insurance exchanges, in order to gain first-hand experience with what they're about to impose on their constituents. Harry Truman enrolled as the first Medicare beneficiary in 1965, and why shouldn't the Members live under the same laws they pass for the rest of the country?

Harry Reid revised the Grassley amendment when he rammed through his infamous ObamaCare bill that no one had read for a vote on Christmas eve. But he neglected to include language about what would happen to the premium contributions that the government makes for its employees. Whether it was intentional or not, the fairest reading of the statute as written is that if Democrats thought somebody earning $174,000 didn't deserve an exchange subsidy, then this person doesn't get a subsidy merely because he happens to work in Congress.


But the statute means that about 11,000 Members and Congressional staff will lose the generous coverage they now have as part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Instead they will get the lower-quality, low-choice "Medicaid Plus" of the exchanges. The Members—annual salary: $174,000—and their better paid aides also wouldn't qualify for ObamaCare subsidies. That means they could be exposed to thousands of dollars a year in out-of-pocket insurance costs.
Click to expand...

funny...

The result was a full wig out on Capitol Hill, with Members of both parties fretting about "brain drain" as staff face higher health-care costs. Democrats in particular begged the White House for help, claiming the Reid language was merely an unintentional mistake. President Obama told Democrats in a closed-door meeting last week that he would personally moonlight as HR manager and resolve the issue.
Click to expand...

not good...


And now the White House is suspending the law to create a double standard. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that runs federal benefits will release regulatory details this week, but leaks to the press suggest that Congress will receive extra payments based on the FEHBP defined-contribution formula, which covers about 75% of the cost of the average insurance plan. For 2013, that's about $4,900 for individuals and $10,000 for families.
Click to expand...

bullshit...

This latest White House night at the improv is also illegal. OPM has no authority to pay for insurance plans that lack FEHBP contracts, nor does the Affordable Care Act permit either exchange contributions or a unilateral bump in congressional pay in return for less overall compensation. Those things require appropriations bills passed by Congress and signed by the President.


But the White House rejected a legislative fix because Republicans might insist on other changes, and Mr. Obama feared that Democrats would go along because they're looking out for number one. So the White House is once again rewriting the law unilaterally, much as it did by suspending ObamaCare's employer mandate for a year. For this White House, the law it wrote is a mere suggestion.


The lesson for Americans is that Democrats who passed ObamaCare didn't even understand what they were doing to themselves, much less to everyone else. But you can bet Democrats will never extend to ordinary Americans the same fixes that they are now claiming for themselves. The real class divide in President Obama's America is between the political class and everyone else.
Click to expand...
 
If you want to know what is actually going on instead of what the WSJ editorial board says is going on you can skip the above and read the link below from the first time this issue was raised. Basically, it was unclear whether the government could pay for the employer share of the exchange premiums as it typically did for employee health insurance benefits. The OMB appears poised to issue regulations permitting the government to do so. Why that's a big deal is lost on me, but I'm guessing it's because the Republicans are assholes and would prefer their staffers to suffer unncessarily if it means they can make a dumbass political point.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-isnt-trying-to-exempt-itself-from-obamacare/
 
Dungheap said:
If you want to know what is actually going on instead of what the WSJ editorial board says is going on you can skip the above and read the link below from the first time this issue was raised. Basically, it was unclear whether the government could pay for the employer share of the exchange premiums as it typically did for employee health insurance benefits. The OMB appears poised to issue regulations permitting the government to do so. Why that's a big deal is lost on me, but I'm guessing it's because the Republicans are assholes and would prefer their staffers to suffer unncessarily if it means they can make a dumbass political point.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-isnt-trying-to-exempt-itself-from-obamacare/
Click to expand...

Imagine that... first thing out of Dungs mouth is an attack on the source. What part of the WSJ article was incorrect Dung? Give us the points that were wrong.
 
Superfreak said:
Imagine that... first thing out of Dungs mouth is an attack on the source. What part of the WSJ article was incorrect Dung? Give us the points that were wrong.
Click to expand...


I gave the link so that people who want a less partisan take on the situtation can get a fair assessment of it.


Also, too, staffers don't generally make $174,000, so, like, the statement that the "fairest read" of the statute is that the intent of Congress was to not make any contribution towards staffer health insurance because staffers make a lot of money (the assumption from which the rest of the bullshit flows) is incorrect.
 
Dungheap said:
I gave the link so that people who want a less partisan take on the situtation can get a fair assessment of it.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... you posted a BLOG by Ezra Klein and you want us to believe that is somehow less partisan? In other words, you cannot point out anything that was wrong with what the Journal article stated?

Also, too, staffers don't generally make $174,000, so, like, the statement that the "fairest read" of the statute is that the intent of Congress was to not make any contribution towards staffer health insurance because staffers make a lot of money (the assumption from which the rest of the bullshit flows) is incorrect.
Click to expand...

The article didn't say the staffers generally make $174k... so you cannot even give a 'fair' assessment of what the Journal said? You instead create straw men.
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO... you posted a BLOG by Ezra Klein and you want us to believe that is somehow less partisan? In other words, you cannot point out anything that was wrong with what the Journal article stated?
Click to expand...

The Ezra Klein piece is less biased. And I pointed out the major flaw in the WSJ op-ed (not an article) in the very next sentence.


Superfreak said:
The article didn't say the staffers generally make $174k... so you cannot even give a 'fair' assessment of what the Journal said? You instead create straw men.
Click to expand...

Um, this is what the WSJ editorial board wrote:

Whether it was intentional or not, the fairest reading of the statute as written is that if Democrats thought somebody earning $174,000 didn't deserve an exchange subsidy, then this person doesn't get a subsidy merely because he happens to work in Congress.
Click to expand...

This fictional person is actually every staffer in Congress not one "person." And I don't think pretending that Democrats wanted to end the employer subsidy for health insurance for all Congressional staffers is actually the fairest reading of the statute.


Here's an idea: how about you tell me in your own words what you think is problematic about the OMB issuing regulations that permit the federal government to continue to pay a portion of its employee's health insurance premiums.
 
Here's an idea: how about you tell me in your own words what you think is problematic about the OMB issuing regulations that permit the federal government to continue to pay a portion of its employee's health insurance premiums.
 
Superfreak said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8644202946287548.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop


bullshit...
Click to expand...

You got that right!

Members of Congress already have excellent health care, the same provided to every federal employee in the country, with the exception of far lower premiums and deductables.

Since that meets the minimum standards of the health car law, they're fine. If they don't want the insurance, then yes, they do need to carry Obamacare. Although it that's the case, they're idiots, and republicans, of course.
 
Consider SF butt slapped again. And this retarded republican (yes, that's an oxymoron)

http://www.nerve.com/news/current-e...an-complains-about-his-government-health-care

A Maryland Republican elected this month on a fervent anti-Obamacare platform had the audacity to complain in a freshman orientation when he discovered his government health care wouldn't kick in until February. Andy Harris won election after repeatedly slamming his opponent, Democrat Frank Kratovil, for voting against Obamacare but refusing to commit to repealing it. After "surprising" his colleagues with his reaction in the orientation, he then asked if he could buy health care from the government to cover the gap, which, as a Congressional aide pointed out, is pretty much exactly the right he'd like to deny everybody else in America.
Click to expand...
 
Howey said:
You got that right!

Members of Congress already have excellent health care, the same provided to every federal employee in the country, with the exception of far lower premiums and deductables.

Since that meets the minimum standards of the health car law, they're fine. If they don't want the insurance, then yes, they do need to carry Obamacare. Although it that's the case, they're idiots, and republicans, of course.
Click to expand...

LMAO... far lower premiums? Seriously... try reading sometime.
 
Here's an idea: how about you tell me in your own words what you think is problematic about the OMB issuing regulations that permit the federal government to continue to pay a portion of its employee's health insurance premiums.
 
Dungheap said:
Here's an idea: how about you tell me in your own words what you think is problematic about the OMB issuing regulations that permit the federal government to continue to pay a portion of its employee's health insurance premiums.
Click to expand...

How about in your own words you tell us what law gives the OMB authority to do so?

Currently it is the OPM that runs Fed benefits.
 
Dungheap said:
Here's an idea: how about you tell me in your own words what you think is problematic about the OMB issuing regulations that permit the federal government to continue to pay a portion of its employee's health insurance premiums.
Click to expand...

you keep asking and he keeps avoiding it.

Don't most employers pay a portion of the premium? Didn't the govt pay it before? Isn't this just working to figure out a way that they keep paying that portion so the workers don't get screwed?
 
tekkychick said:
you keep asking and he keeps avoiding it.

Don't most employers pay a portion of the premium? Didn't the govt pay it before? Isn't this just working to figure out a way that they keep paying that portion so the workers don't get screwed?
Click to expand...

LMAO... yeah, when he says something accurate, then maybe I will respond. The OMB does not have the authority to act. The OPM is the current fed office that runs bene's. It is they that have to make a decision. (and as the WSJ stated, the change has to be done via Congress... the OPM only has authority to act on FEHB contracts)
 
Superfreak said:
How about in your own words you tell us what law gives the OMB authority to do so?

Currently it is the OPM that runs Fed benefits.
Click to expand...


LOL. SF is outraged about something, he's just not sure what. And this is the guy whose basic schtick is calling others "parrots."
 
Dungheap said:
LOL. SF is outraged about something, he's just not sure what. And this is the guy whose basic schtick is calling others "parrots."
Click to expand...

LMAO... first you attack the messenger. Then you provide us with a link to a Dem parrot and proclaim he is not partisan. Now you proclaim that I am 'angry' to avoid the fact that you are an idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top