October 31st, 2013
12:48 PM ET
9 years ago
Congressional staff caught in middle of Obamacare dispute
Washington (CNN) - As members of Congress point at problems with HealthCare.gov, lawmakers themselves are scrambling and, in and some cases, sparking cries of hypocrisy over how they'll handle the one piece of Obamacare under their control: whether their own staff should be forced into the exchanges.
Members of Congress have until the end of the day on Thursday to make up their minds, and Democrats and Republicans are divided internally on the politically tricky issue.
FULL STORY
From CNN Politics
- DeSantis needles Trump as he breaks silence on hush money case
- 10 Cards Charging 0% Interest Until 2024
- Biden to designate area sacred to tribes as largest national monument of his presidency
- Untitled
- Saudi Arabia releases dual US-Saudi citizen from prison after he posted critical tweets about the kingdom
- Untitled
I think entire USA better kick these congress guys. Evil goes away. ACA is a Law.
"politically tricky issue"
Shouldn't be. Federal Gov't = Large employer. ACA requires large employers to provide health insurance benefits for their employees. Simple. The only thing "tricky" about it is the MSM's deliberate refusal to thoroughly debunk the 100% lie about it being some sort of "exemption" that these staffers are not being forced into the exchanges. Neither are the overwhelming, vast majority of people in this country who receive and will continue to receive health insurance benefits from their employer. There's no reason whatsoever the federal gov't should get an exemption from that mandate while private employers have to obey it.
So much for the Republican exemption story!
"Republican insistence that members of Congress and their staff should directly experience the law they passed, "
Carry the GOP/Teatrolls' water much? By receiving health insurance benefits from their employer, plans that satisfy the ACA's baseline requirements for what plans must include, they ARE "experiencing the law they passed." CNN yet again gives the GOP/Teatrolls' mischaracterizations a pass by simply regurgitating them as fact....when they're anything but.
Why force people into the exchanges when the already have coverage as a job benefit?
They are not caught in anything. They should be subject to the laws of the land like everybody else and with no special treatment. It really is that simple. Any law that does not apply to all of us is unconstitutional and needs to be gotten rid of. We cannot be a nation full of laws that only are enforced on certain people. That is a form of tyranny.
We all know that Congress, is NOT going to give up what they already have........because they get the best there is.........and we all know it.
Congress doesn't care about their staff.
Donna
They are not caught in anything. They should be subject to the laws of the land like everybody else and with no special treatment. It really is that simple. Any law that does not apply to all of us is unconstitutional and needs to be gotten rid of. We cannot be a nation full of laws that only are enforced on certain people. That is a form of tyranny.
--------------------
Stubborn ignorance is no excuse for this lack of understanding. What is so hard about realizing that the staffers already have medical insurance as part of their jobs benefits package? Talk about right wing density. Sheesh.
Donna's complaint would be similar to having the government demand that all employees at a very large private company forfeit their employer provided health insurance, and go buy health insurance on the open market. Sometimes I have to really wonder if there are any conservatives out there who understand what hypocrisy means and actually is.
Rudy NYC
Why force people into the exchanges when the already have coverage as a job benefit?
--
why force old people to pay for maternity and pediatric coverage? why force men to pay for maternity coverage? why force people to buy health insurance they don't need and with a $5000 deductible?
hey, this is liberal healthcare "reform". nothing needs to makes sense.
Maybe "exemption" isn't the word, but Congress did give themselves and their staff a subsidy that not every American (who makes what they do) is eligible to receive. And if the idea behind it so they do lose qualified people, wouldn't those same people have to go into the exchange if they quit their jobs?
" They should be subject to the laws of the land like everybody else and with no special treatment. It really is that simple. Any law that does not apply to all of us is unconstitutional and needs to be gotten rid of. "
You make wonderful arguments for why Grassley's amendment should be taken out of the ACA and why it was horribly unfair, inequitable and petty for it to be put in there in the first place. Fact: Grassley's amendment makes it so that staffers are receiving 'special" treatment, not the other way around...they'd be receiving special UNFAIR AND INEQUITABLE treatment because they'd be (a) the only people in the country who work for a large employer that is not only not required, but actually prohibited, from providing their health insurance benefits AND (b) the only people in the country who are prohibited from obtaining a subsidy if they purchase insurance on the exchanges no matter what...even if they otherwise meet all income and need requirements that everyone else has to meet.
"Maybe "exemption" isn't the word, but Congress did give themselves and their staff a subsidy that not every American (who makes what they do) is eligible to receive"
No they didn't. That's not even remotely true.
just asking wrote:
why force old people to pay for maternity and pediatric coverage? why force men to pay for maternity coverage? why force people to buy health insurance they don't need and with a $5000 deductible?
----------------------
Why force women to pay for a man's prostate treatments? Why force a middle aged man to pay for somebody's kid with the chickenpox? Why force people to pay higher prices for health insurance because some people go around without coverage and literal shoplift health care from care providers?
Did you know that Republicans had a health care reform plan of their own before they allowed themselves to be run over by the Tea Party? It is nearly identical to Obamacare except that there is no individual mandate, and it raises the income ceiling limits for Medicaid so that many lower middle class families would qualify. The Tea Party would flay it if the establishment Republicans, like Boehner, ever tried to roll it out again.
Here's the real, Democrat desired solution. Cancel ALL of their insurance and enroll them all in Medicaid. Let all of the federal employees experience first hand the healthcare system the Democrats strive to give all of us. Totally government paid for, single payer right? Go for it Democrats. Put your healthcare where your mouth is!
Former U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi, 54, was indicted in 2008 on charges of extortion, bribery, insurance fraud, money laundering and racketeering related to a 2005 money-laundering scheme that netted the Flagstaff Republican more than $700,000.
why force people to buy health insurance they don't need
@just asking–why? You know the answer to why when you get sick, hospital sends you the bill tantamount to your house. Garnish your wage and attach home. O.k. Lot of homes lost thus.
Why doesn't everyone have to have Obamacare if it is so great!!!! let our leader be one of the first to sign-on. Haha
Donna
Here's the real, Democrat desired solution. Cancel ALL of their insurance and enroll them all in Medicaid. Let all of the federal employees experience first hand the healthcare system the Democrats strive to give all of us. Totally government paid for, single payer right? Go for it Democrats. Put your healthcare where your mouth is!
-------------------------
Actually, that is almost identical to the "Republican Health Care Reform" that Boehner rolled out in 2009. Your idea is identical except for the fact that he puts means testing into whether or not you get free Medicaid. The plan raises the income limit to be eligile significantly, to over $40,000 per year.