Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 129

Thread: Republicans move to halt ObamaCare 'bailout' for angry unions

  1. #41
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Republicans move to halt ObamaCare 'bailout' for angry unions

    Quote Originally Posted by lolabird View Post
    Why was Bush allowed to bail out the banks who caused the housing collapse when he signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008? He rewarded the evil doers.
    It beats the **** out of me. I don't support any bail outs.

  2. #42
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: Republicans move to halt ObamaCare 'bailout' for angry unions

    Quote Originally Posted by roughdraft274 View Post
    Nope, by all accounts that I have heard from congress people is that this was an unintended consequence. They knew that they would purchase insurance through the exchange, but not that they would not continue receiving employer benefits on their premiums.

    If my employer switches insurance companies and I tell them that they must continue to pay 50% of my premiums or I will leave for another job offer, and they agree to pay it, that isn't me getting an exemption from the switch.
    It was an amendment introduced by a Repub Senator specifically to make Dems put their money where their mouth was so to speak...
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  3. #43
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,080

    Re: Republicans move to halt ObamaCare 'bailout' for angry unions

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    It was an amendment introduced by a Repub Senator specifically to make Dems put their money where their mouth was so to speak...
    Yea, and they accepted it. He thought that if everyone else would have to shop through the exchanges, they should too. And they are shopping through the exchanges. That was the point, not taking away their employer benefits.
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    uh that is so small as to be stupid. Do you want registration? given less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales, its pretty much a waste of resources
    **Thirty Minutes Later**
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you are confused. I never denied that many criminals get guns in private sales.

  4. #44
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: Republicans move to halt ObamaCare 'bailout' for angry unions

    Quote Originally Posted by roughdraft274 View Post
    Yea, and they accepted it. He thought that if everyone else would have to shop through the exchanges, they should too. And they are shopping through the exchanges. That was the point, not taking away their employer benefits.
    It was exactly the point to take away the benefits of Congress and their staff members if PresidentCare was such a great idea for individuals...
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  5. #45
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,080

    Re: Republicans move to halt ObamaCare 'bailout' for angry unions

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    It was exactly the point to take away the benefits of Congress and their staff members if PresidentCare was such a great idea for individuals...
    No, it was to make them get their insurance through the exchanges.
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    uh that is so small as to be stupid. Do you want registration? given less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales, its pretty much a waste of resources
    **Thirty Minutes Later**
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you are confused. I never denied that many criminals get guns in private sales.

  6. #46
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,080

    Re: Republicans move to halt ObamaCare 'bailout' for angry unions

    A good summary of the current situation...

    Congress isn’t “exempt” from the law. It wasn’t exempt back in 2010, when we first debunked such a claim; nor were lawmakers exempt in May when the bogus bit surfaced again. Three months later, they’re still not exempt. In fact, as we’ve said before, lawmakers and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans don’t. And the “special subsidy” to which Pittenger refers is simply a premium contribution that his employer, the federal government, has long made to the health insurance policies of its workers.

    The Affordable Care Act says that starting in 2014, members of Congress and their staffs can no longer get their health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as they have in the past. Instead, these federal employees will have to get insurance through the exchanges set up by the Affordable Care Act. Other Americans with work-based insurance aren’t subject to such a requirement. They can continue to get health insurance through their employers. Other federal workers, too, can continue to select health insurance plans through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. But not Congress.

    Why the unusual requirement for lawmakers and congressional staffers? This provision was added when health care bills were being debated, out of Republican concern that Congress get the same insurance that would be offered to some Americans through this legislation — insurance sold through state-based and federal exchanges. Those exchanges are for individuals who buy their own insurance, including the now uninsured, and small businesses.

    Our readers may recall that before this provision was created, there were claims circulating that Congress was “exempt” from the law. This twisted reading of the legislation was based on the fact that originally Congress, like other Americans with work-based insurance or Americans on Medicare and Medicaid, wouldn’t be eligible for the exchanges. In other words, Congress was supposedly “exempt” when members couldn’t participate in the exchanges, and now that they are required to do so, they’re still somehow “exempt” from the law. Neither of these convoluted claims is true.
    No ‘Special Subsidy’ for Congress
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    uh that is so small as to be stupid. Do you want registration? given less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales, its pretty much a waste of resources
    **Thirty Minutes Later**
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you are confused. I never denied that many criminals get guns in private sales.

  7. #47
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: Republicans move to halt ObamaCare 'bailout' for angry unions

    Quote Originally Posted by roughdraft274 View Post
    A good summary of the current situation...


    No ‘Special Subsidy’ for Congress
    Again, intent is what it is no matter how it is spun...
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  8. #48
    Sage
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    5,613

    Re: Republicans move to halt ObamaCare 'bailout' for angry unions

    Quote Originally Posted by trfjr View Post
    why should my tax money go towards them getting 75% of their insurance paid for when the average employer only pays 30%
    Not quite. This year the average employer contribution for a family plan in the United States is 72% of the total premium.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    Actually, it was...
    If the point was to strip Congress of their health benefits and make them buy on their own like anyone else who doesn't have an offer of employer-sponsored coverage (instead of merely taking the unique step of ensuring they have to choose a plan sold through an exchange), than the wording of the statute is rather odd:

    "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, 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 ... offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)."

    It doesn't say they're no longer eligible for health benefits as part of their compensation package--it actually says the opposite. They still get a benefit as a condition of employment, but they have to choose plans from an exchange (and not from the Federal Employees Health Benefit marketplace, as they had been formerly). The implication there being there's still an employer contribution. If there isn't, I'm not sure what it means for the employer (the federal government) to be offering the benefit as a perk of service.

  9. #49
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,144

    Re: Republicans move to halt ObamaCare 'bailout' for angry unions

    The sad thing is I believe Unions are a fundamental good. In principle. However, what they've turned into, what their practices are, what double deals that go down with them makes any support for them almost completely untenable.

  10. #50
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: Republicans move to halt ObamaCare 'bailout' for angry unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeard View Post
    Not quite. This year the average employer contribution for a family plan in the United States is 72% of the total premium.



    If the point was to strip Congress of their health benefits and make them buy on their own like anyone else who doesn't have an offer of employer-sponsored coverage (instead of merely taking the unique step of ensuring they have to choose a plan sold through an exchange), than the wording of the statute is rather odd:

    "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, 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 ... offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)."

    It doesn't say they're no longer eligible for health benefits as part of their compensation package--it actually says the opposite. They still get a benefit as a condition of employment, but they have to choose plans from an exchange (and not from the Federal Employees Health Benefit marketplace, as they had been formerly).
    Again, the amendment that was included inn the bill was intended to subject Congress to the same standards as they were subjecting every other individual in the country. You can slice, dice, chop, etc, but it doesn't change the intent of the amendment...
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •