What is the rationale for exempting congress/executive from ACA?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by CHFG8R, Oct 2, 2013.

  1. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,206
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,330
    I just read the actual article where it says that they are not exempt. Headlines are just headlines. Yes, members of congress are in a different position than people who don't have insurance. But they arent "exempt."
  2. CHFG8R
    Online

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,883
    Likes Received:
    218
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +997
    Aww, the poor staffers (the majority being sons and daughters of politically connected blue bloods with Ivy League educations, etc.). What will they do?


    Answer: Make it up on the backend when they (like those they work for) turn this plum position into private-sector gold.
  3. CHFG8R
    Online

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,883
    Likes Received:
    218
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +997
    I agree with the distinction and understand that the (R)s are massaging the language to political advantage, that is clear and my attitude has changed in that respect from the OP. However, it is not the slam dunk you would have me/us believe. As the article states, they are in a more favorable position with respect to ACA than the rest of the citizenry.
  4. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,206
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,330
    Is this just your generalization? I've known a number of people who have staffed for Congress, and none of them I would consider overly priviledged. Just people who are genuinly interested in politics from middling backgorunds and want to make a difference. They often do go on to other, better paid jobs, but again, usually not ones that will make them exceedingly wealthy. I realize this is annecdotal, but I think its a stretch to assume that DC staffers are mostly the priviledged scions of the elite.
  5. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,206
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,330
    No, not the rest of the citizenry. The article says people with access to other gov't/business employer plans, which is decidely not the "rest of the citizenry."
  6. CHFG8R
    Online

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,883
    Likes Received:
    218
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +997
    Well, since we don't have hard numbers (and I've known a couple too), we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
  7. CHFG8R
    Online

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,883
    Likes Received:
    218
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +997
    So, they're worse off than the uninsured and those without employer provided insurance? Really? Could you please explain how this is so?
  8. FlyingGatorII
    Offline

    FlyingGatorII Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,657
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    Doesn't receiving a subsidy of taxpayer dollars (a subsidy I certainly will not receive) to make up the extra cost they incur due to Obamacare make them exempt from the negative financial effects felt by the rest of us? Aren't we really just playing semantics here? Is that why you didn't really elaborate on your answer river? Who ordered that subsidy be given BTW? Congress was effectively given a raise without ever taking a vote. Does that seem legal or even right to you?
    • Like Like x 1
  9. jmoliver
    Offline

    jmoliver Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,822
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +98
    As member of neither party, I could replace Liberal in your statements with Republican (at least on this board) and get the same conclusion.
  10. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,206
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,330
    Huh? I'm not really sure what you mean here "with respect to the ACA." Having employer provided insurance in the first place put them in a "more favorable" position than the uninsured prior to the ACA. The "favorable" position is that with the amendment, they have the option of buying a non-employer plan on the exchange and still receiving the same employer contribution, despite not having an employer plan (as the amendment has been interpreted). Stripping those subsidies would put them (staffers mostly) in an extremely "unfavorable" positon. I'm not sure how you can reconcile the language of the amendment to make it so that they are in the same position everyone else is in, because the ACA doesnt put everyone in the same position. Some people will purchase individual medical plans on exchanges, some people will still continue to get employer group medical coverage.
  11. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    Yes, Propaganda like being able to keep your doctor and saving $2,500 a year on healthcare. Yes, that is propaganda, Fred. And your side knows all about propaganda.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. FlyingGatorII
    Offline

    FlyingGatorII Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,657
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453

    Help me out here. I have health care through my employer. They have told me due to Obamacare taxes on that plan (it's a good one) their cost to offer it to me goes up 40%. I can keep it but I have to pay the increase and they will not reimburse me for it in any way, putting me in a really unfavorable position. So now Congress and their staffers costs go up like mine, but in their case they will have the increase paid for by taxpayers, thus no real effect on them while I am out the 40% difference. Sound about right to you? What am I missing here?
  13. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    The Federal government is footing that increase in federal employes' insurance. The increase the Liberals here are in complete denial about... like it's some sort of "propaganda."
  14. QGator2414
    Online

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,515
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +486
    Yep.

    The political elite truly are the worst now...
  15. GT Gator
    Offline

    GT Gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +185
    Again, this is misleading silliness put out by a very tiny minority of Republicans Congressmen.

    Congress and its staffers are not getting any special subsidy.

    Prior to ACA, all Federal employee received healthcare through the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. This program has always contributed up to 75% of the healthcare costs for Federal employees. The Federal employee has always paid the balance (about 25%).

    This is exactly how most of my coworkers receive their healthcare at the Fortune 500 company I work for. Our company pays 67% of the employees' healthcare cost and the employees pay the 33% balance. Sure, the Feds are slightly more generous, but it's still pretty close. (For the record, I don't purchase healthcare through my civilian employer -- I get mine through the Reserves with Tricare Reserve Select because it's slightly cheaper and better.)

    The vast majority of Americans get their healthcare the exact same way. Their employers usually pay a decent portion and the employees pay the balance.

    Nothing has changed for Congress since the implementation of ACA. FEHB was in place both before and after.

    So, is Congress insulated from the changes with ACA? Not any more than the rest of Federal employer and probably not any more the 80% of American that receive healthcare from their employers.

    All that being said, ACA will still bankrupt our country and destroy our healthcare system. Whether Congress is exempt or not, it still sucks.
  16. CHFG8R
    Online

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,883
    Likes Received:
    218
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +997
    I am simply referring to this quote in the article and your contention that they are not in a more favorable position than the "rest of the populace." I will admit to being too broad in my assessment. However, I believe it stands to reason that the "rest of the populace" not including those with Government or Employer provided insurance would include the uninsured, self-paying insured, Medicaid recipients and Medicare recipients. I find it hard to believe that, as the article you posted stated, if staffers can purchase their insurance "under terms more favorable than other employees - in government or in business - who have access to employer-provided healthcare," that they would not be in a more favorable position than all but, perhaps, Medicare recipients. Thus, my "rest of the populace" statement.

    But, all in all, we're probably splitting hairs.
  17. gatorchamps0607
    Offline

    gatorchamps0607 Always Rasta

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    39,980
    Likes Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Ft. Myers, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +1,710
    Exactly, its amazing he gets away with all the baiting/trolling he does around here.

    Shab will post something that everyone on here knows happens on both sides, someone calls him out, Shab disappears.

    This is clearly baiting and/or trolling.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. CHFG8R
    Online

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,883
    Likes Received:
    218
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +997
    Or public admission of a mental flaw. When you throw concerns about hypocrisy to the wind the way he/she does, you clearly have to be mentally defective in some way.
  19. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    People forget... :grin:
  20. GT Gator
    Offline

    GT Gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +185
    You probably work for a smaller employer that had a health plan that didn't comply with the requirements of ACA -- things like requiring all full-time employees to be enrolled within 90 days and disallowing pre-existing condition clauses.

    Because of all the new requirements of ACA, smaller employers who's plans weren't ACA compliant are getting clobbered.

    That's what's probably happening to you.

    Larger employers (including the Feds) are not as affected by the requirements of ACA. Most already complied with the ACA requirements. They also have the advantage of a much bigger cost pool. So, they're less affected by geography and changes in their insured population.

    Still, larger employers are still affect. I read an article a while back that said Fortune 500 employers expect to see a 5% to 10% increase in healthcare costs due to ACA. FEHB (the plan that covers Congress and all Fed employees) is seeing a 3.7% increase due to ACA in 2014.

    And, that's where my biggest issue with ACA lies....

    The smaller the business, the more it is affected by ACA. The young, healthy self-employed individual making decent money is really screwed.

    Meanwhile, big business, state, local, and Federal governments are not really feeling the pinch.

Share This Page