Obamacare too expensive for Congressmen and staffers

According to Politico several staffers are leaving government service to avoid Obamacare. The AFFORDABLE Care Act goes into full effect next year and there have been stories that the minimum cost could be $20,000 for a family over a year, year after year. These DC people who make over $100,000 a year are worried that the Act they passed may be too expensive. One provision states that representatives and their people will be put on the AFFORDABLE Care Act exchange but.... there may be an out. Some people are saying that if you are out of government before next year then you will be grandfathered on the old plan which has the US taxpayer covering the cost of 70% of your healthcare costs.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ill-89161.html

Now to show the inherent bias of some at Politico, here is a story published the same day where Paige Winnfield Cuntlicker writes that this is only frustrated GOP staffers instead of being bipartisan. Ms. Cuntlicker should probably be fired or have a warning above her byline; WARNING: Political Hack Writing Here

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...hip-88646.html

Still, this is the AFFORDABLE Care Act. Where did they come up with that and why did you buy into it?

One provision states that representatives and their people will be put on the AFFORDABLE Care Act exchange but.... there may be an out. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I think we've already had this discussion.

The above provision was a Republican idea.

Oops.

I think we've already had this discussion.

The above provision was a Republican idea.

Oops. Originally Posted by Doove

surely you cant believe a 2%er would have forgot about this ..

SNICK

Do you really understand? I support the provision that says Congressman, Senators, and staffers have to go on Obamacare. You, make it sound like a bad thing and that is ridiculous. Why would you be against the Washington elites not being in the soup with the rest of us? Could it be that you are all on the government payroll....it sounds that way. All this carping and complaining and you are one of them all along.

By the way, it was called the Grassley Provision.

Do you really understand? I support the provision that says Congressman, Senators, and staffers have to go on Obamacare. You, make it sound like a bad thing and that is ridiculous. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

So you're in favor of government making health insurance choices for people.

Pretty radical.

So you're in favor of government making health insurance choices for people.

Pretty radical. Originally Posted by Doove

No, he's not in favor of it, and neither am I.

What he is in favor of (as am I) is that, when and if the government insists on making those choices, that the government people ALSO be subject to their choices.

If it is good enough for the commoners, it is good enough the Lords.

Far too often, Congress passes laws, and exempts Congress from having to follow those laws.

That appears to be what YOU are advocating, Doove, that there should be one law for the subjects, and another for the rulers. Is that a fair summary of your position?

That seemed simple enough. Does that answer your question Doove or do we have to go really, really simple?

No, he's not in favor of it, and neither am I.

What he is in favor of (as am I) is that, when and if the government insists on making those choices, that the government people ALSO be subject to their choices.

If it is good enough for the commoners, it is good enough the Lords.

Far too often, Congress passes laws, and exempts Congress from having to follow those laws.

That appears to be what YOU are advocating, Doove, that there should be one law for the subjects, and another for the rulers. Is that a fair summary of your position? Originally Posted by Sidewinder

you and JD are both idiots ... the claim Obamacare is too expensive is from a chain email that started in 2000 .. I thought a 2%er would remember having this horseshit debunked the first time I posted this ... guess not

I digress
.........................

PolitiFact first examined the claim that members of Congress are exempt from the provisions of the Affordable Care Act in 2009, when the legislation was still under consideration in Congress.
We rated it False. That claim was based on the assumption that the health care reform plan would have sent everyone -- except Congress -- into a new "public option" federal insurance plan. It would not have.

In fact, the law as passed did not even include a public option -- and Section 1213 of it requires members of Congress and congressional staff, starting in 2014, to buy health plans created by the health care act or offered through the state exchanges the act establishes.

Political scientist Norman Ornstein, a long-time observer of Congress and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, debunked the claim of congressional exemption in a piece he wrote for the Washington newspaper Roll Call.

"On the assertion that Members of Congress are exempt from the provisions of the Affordable Care Act: also false," he wrote. "Members of Congress are subject under the health care reform law to the same mandate that others are to purchase insurance, and their plans must have the same minimum standards of benefits that other insurance plans will have to meet. Members of Congress currently have not a gold-plated free plan but the same insurance options that most other federal employees have, and they do not have it provided for free. They have a generous subsidy for their premiums, but no more generous (and compared to many businesses or professions less generous) than standard employer-provided subsidies throughout the country."

FactCheck.org examined the broader claim that members of Congress "specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment)," and found it "15 years out of date" in 2010.

The reason: Passage of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. It specifically made sure a variety of laws dealing with civil rights, labor and workplace safety regulations applied to the legislative branch of government. The independent Office of Compliance was set up to enforce the laws in Congress.

The act specifically prohibits harassment based on sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age and disability.

Ornstein, who has been sharply critical of Congress (and only last month co-authored a piece for Foreign Policy magazine titled "Yes, Congress Is That Bad") said it is "not surprising that, in tough times, Americans would be inclined to believe the absolute worst about their elected officials.

"But at least," he added, "let the criticism be fair and based on facts instead of persistent urban legends."

PolitiFact Ohio would agree.

At best, the chain email's statement about Congressional exemptions is ridiculously out of date. At worst, it is cynically inaccurate.

On the Truth-O-Meter, it rates Pants on Fire!

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...s-complying-h/

One provision states that representatives and their people will be put on the AFFORDABLE Care Act exchange but.... there may be an out. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No, he's not in favor of it, and neither am I.

What he is in favor of (as am I) is that, when and if the government insists on making those choices, that the government people ALSO be subject to their choices.

If it is good enough for the commoners, it is good enough the Lords.

Far too often, Congress passes laws, and exempts Congress from having to follow those laws. Originally Posted by Sidewinder

If you don't see how JD's own comment totally refutes what you're trying to say, let me know.

That appears to be what YOU are advocating, Doove, that there should be one law for the subjects, and another for the rulers. Is that a fair summary of your position?

Nope. One law for everyone. Everyone has their own individual circumstances that may impact how the law affects them, but nevertheless, one law for everyone.

Not really sure how you were so confused on that.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...everyone-else/




I'm down for cleaning out ALL of them. Those bastards. Those fucking piece of shit bastards. They are suspossed to be our public servents. Their job shouldn't even be paid.

PS. When I run, I'll not only post a link to every sin I've ever committed but I'll run on 3 promises I'll have in writing.

1. Whatever healthcare is forced on my constituents, is what I'll take.

2. I will donate any pay I would receive to a charity yet to be named.

3. I'll stay 2 terms and that's IT.


All you chin waggers talk it up. Will any of you run for an office to make it better? Or will you dog me for when mentioning it. You asshats better pray I really don't. I would win because honesty is something so scarce, it would be held in the highest respect, regardless I was a hooker. Can you imagine the news coverage? I wouldn't have to raise but a mil or so.

staffers cant run from Obiecare, they require insurance anywhere they work, and whoever they work for

I would win because honesty is something so scarce, Originally Posted by LovingKayla

So is intelligence. So congratulations, you're 0 for 2.

According to Politico several staffers are leaving government service to avoid Obamacare. The AFFORDABLE Care Act goes into full effect next year and there have been stories that the minimum cost could be $20,000 for a family over a year, year after year. These DC people who make over $100,000 a year are worried that the Act they passed may be too expensive. One provision states that representatives and their people will be put on the AFFORDABLE Care Act exchange but.... there may be an out. Some people are saying that if you are out of government before next year then you will be grandfathered on the old plan which has the US taxpayer covering the cost of 70% of your healthcare costs.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ill-89161.html

Now to show the inherent bias of some at Politico, here is a story published the same day where Paige Winnfield Cuntlicker writes that this is only frustrated GOP staffers instead of being bipartisan. Ms. Cuntlicker should probably be fired or have a warning above her byline; WARNING: Political Hack Writing Here

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...hip-88646.html

Still, this is the AFFORDABLE Care Act. Where did they come up with that and why did you buy into it? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Your reseach abilities are lacking as usual. There is this website called Google. You use it to search for things.


If you type in "$20000" and "obamacare", you find the link you posted as well as most of of the fringe "news" sites.


But wait. The 4th result down. Factcheck.org. They list all of their sources. Let's check what they say.


And that's where you fail. That's where you are exposed as a blinder wearing, bullshit slinging douche-bag who frequently lies in his posts.


Everyone knows who you are and what you kneel for. Whirly, sog, and the late Uncle hanjob accepted you into their misinformation circle of mistrust. Because they, like the klan and the nra, will accept anyone who is willing to parrot.

I guess if you had to really dig for the info, you would only be lazy. But you ignore a reasonable source. In this case, because the information is readily available, you are lying by omission.

You should stick to opinion. Because no opinion is wrong or a lie. Unless of cource you try to sneak one of your "facts" in.

Q: Did the IRS say that the cheapest health insurance plan under the federal health care law would cost $20,000 per family?
A: No. The IRS used $20,000 in a hypothetical example to illustrate how it will calculate the tax penalty for a family that fails to obtain health coverage as required by law. Treasury says the figure “is not an estimate of premiums.”

In the same article.
The Kaiser Family Foundation has developed a “Health Reform Subsidy Calculator,” which allows people to get a sense of who might be eligible for premium support from the government, and how much the subsidy might be. (It is just an illustration, though, and not meant to suggest that this is exactly what people will pay or receive in subsidies.) Assuming a medium-range regional cost factor, the premium for a 50-year-old policyholder — in a family of four, with a household income of $92,200 — could be $16,858, according to the subsidy calculator. But that family might also qualify for an $8,099 subsidy, leaving them to pay $8,759. That estimate is close to the average subsidy of $8,290 that CBO projects exchange participants would receive in 2023

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/oba...0000-a-family/