• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York Healthcare Premiums Are About To Explode

Grim17 said:
I don't know why it's so hard for you to admit that I am right when I say that democrats are 100% responsible for Obamacare, because not one republican voted for that legislation.
Click to expand...
Senator Grassley was responsible for adding the amendment that requires members of congress to be required to enroll in Obamacare.
 
sangha said:
Umm, the link I posted explicitly states that the amendments were amendments to that House bill H.R. 3590

Here's the link again
Bill Summary & Status - 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) - S.AMDT.2786 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

See where it says "Amends: H.R.3590"?

That means those amendments were amendments to HR 3590 and it shows that there were many amendments submitted and sponsored by republicans
Click to expand...




I stand corrected on the detail of the amendments.

The foundation of the bill written by Senators was discarded in favor of the bill from the House that had nothing to do with the ACA.

Republicans claim that most of the amendments that were accepted were technical rather than substantive.

The White house. gov site list 5 or 6 ideas that are sourced two Republicans.

Slate examines the GOP amendments to a Senate health care bill.

Republican Ideas Included in the President's Proposal | The White House
 
code1211 said:
I stand corrected on the detail of the amendments.

The foundation of the bill written by Senators was discarded in favor of the bill from the House that had nothing to do with the ACA.

Republicans claim that most of the amendments that were accepted were technical rather than substantive.

The White house. gov site list 5 or 6 ideas that are sourced two Republicans.

Slate examines the GOP amendments to a Senate health care bill.

Republican Ideas Included in the President's Proposal | The White House
Click to expand...

So you now admit that the republicans did have a hand in writing ACA. Now, the only debate left is how much of a hand did they have. That's progress

Your own link says that a large portion of the amendments appear to be substantive. I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise.

Also, the foundation of the bill written by the Senators (three of whom were republican) was not discarded. It was used to replace HR 3590.
 
code1211 said:
No point beyond what was snipped.
Click to expand...

That someone so much younger than you has such a superior grasp of the world?

Don't worry, I'm sure there's alot of unimportant things you're better at than me, most likely grammar and spelling. :peace
 
sangha said:
So you now admit that the republicans did have a hand in writing ACA. Now, the only debate left is how much of a hand did they have. That's progress

Your own link says that a large portion of the amendments appear to be substantive. I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise.

Also, the foundation of the bill written by the Senators (three of whom were republican) was not discarded. It was used to replace HR 3590.
Click to expand...




The opinion of the Slate was that the amendments were substantive, but the White House.Gov site only posted 5 ideas that were substantive of the 161 submitted. there were about 900 submitted, weren't there?

In any event, none of this make the thing any better than it is.

Why was it used to replace HR 3950?
 
Last edited:
Buddha C said:
That someone so much younger than you has such a superior grasp of the world?

Don't worry, I'm sure there's alot of unimportant things you're better at than me, most likely grammar and spelling. :peace
Click to expand...



Actually, spelling has never been a strong part of my communication. Sister Mary Margaret would weep every time she need to review a lesson I'd submit. Auto correct and spell check are great crutches for my writing in this place or any other.

As for your superior grasp of anything, only you can be the judge of your grasp of the world. The young always seem to think they have a superior grasp of all things.

Perhaps this is why the decisions they make are always wise, thoughtful and kind.
 
pbrauer said:
Senator Grassley was responsible for adding the amendment that requires members of congress to be required to enroll in Obamacare.
Click to expand...



Probably the best amendment and was, I think, immediately undermined when the staffs of the Federal thieves and I think the thieves themselves were given subsidies to pay for most of their premiums.
 
code1211 said:
The opinion of the Slate was that the amendments were substantive, but the White House.Gov site only posted 5 ideas that were substantive of the 161 submitted. there were about 900 submitted, weren't there?

In any event, none of this make the thing any better than it is.

Why was it used to replace HR 3950?
Click to expand...

The Wiki link explained why the senate used H.R. 3590 and replaced the text with ACA
 
code1211 said:
Probably the best amendment and was, I think, immediately undermined when the staffs of the Federal thieves and I think the thieves themselves were given subsidies to pay for most of their premiums.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that their staffs were allowed to remain in the FEHP system, and I'm certain that a senator's salary is too high for them to qualify for subsidies.
 
sangha said:
The Wiki link explained why the senate used H.R. 3590 and replaced the text with ACA
Click to expand...



I believe it said that since a spending bill must originate in the House, they used a bill that had nothing to do with the topic at hand in yet another perversion of the process to achieve their end by devious, borderline illegal means.
 
sangha said:
I'm pretty sure that their staffs were allowed to remain in the FEHP system, and I'm certain that a senator's salary is too high for them to qualify for subsidies.
Click to expand...



You are right. that is why the subsidies are a bit disingenuous and yet another departure from the law that was passed.
 
code1211 said:
I believe it said that since a spending bill must originate in the House, they used a bill that had nothing to do with the topic at hand in yet another perversion of the process to achieve their end by devious, borderline illegal means.
Click to expand...

That is correct

code1211 said:
You are right. that is why the subsidies are a bit disingenuous and yet another departure from the law that was passed.
Click to expand...

I don't see how the senators not getting a tax credit makes the tax credit "disingenuous"
 
sangha said:
That is correct



I don't see how the senators not getting a tax credit makes the tax credit "disingenuous"
Click to expand...




One of the amendments that you point to as proof that the Republicans are full partners in this is throne that demands that this group of folks be required to enroll in Obmamacare.

By taking advantage of subsidies not available in the law to folks at their income level, they are proving themselves to be the lying thieves that we all know they are, both R&D.

Not surprisingly, this was a White house arranged deviation from the law to avoid the ranker of the legislators.

$174K-Per-Year Congressmen Will Get Special Obamacare Subsidy | CNS News
<snip>
Under the OPM deal arranged in August, the average member of Congress who makes $174,000 a year will be able to keep his approximately $10,000 health insurance subsidy, like he used to get under his old plan, before Obamacare. Congressional staffers who buy through the exchange will also get to keep the subsidies they were receiving. (See Congress Salary CRS Report.pdf)
<snip>
 
code1211 said:
One of the amendments that you point to as proof that the Republicans are full partners in this is throne that demands that this group of folks be required to enroll in Obmamacare.

By taking advantage of subsidies not available in the law to folks at their income level, they are proving themselves to be the lying thieves that we all know they are, both R&D.

Not surprisingly, this was a White house arranged deviation from the law to avoid the ranker of the legislators.

$174K-Per-Year Congressmen Will Get Special Obamacare Subsidy | CNS News
<snip>
Under the OPM deal arranged in August, the average member of Congress who makes $174,000 a year will be able to keep his approximately $10,000 health insurance subsidy, like he used to get under his old plan, before Obamacare. Congressional staffers who buy through the exchange will also get to keep the subsidies they were receiving. (See Congress Salary CRS Report.pdf)
<snip>
Click to expand...

The article you linked to is quite dishonest. Not surprising given the source's history of lying. Here is a link to the rule it refers to

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...m-members-of-congress-and-congressional-staff

The rules do not allow any special exception for tax credits for members of congress. If their income is above 400% of the FPL (and it is), then they don't get any tax credits.

IOW, the "average member of Congress" will not get any tax credit, but their staffers might, depending on their salary.
 
sangha said:
The article you linked to is quite dishonest. Not surprising given the source's history of lying. Here is a link to the rule it refers to

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...m-members-of-congress-and-congressional-staff

The rules do not allow any special exception for tax credits for members of congress. If their income is above 400% of the FPL (and it is), then they don't get any tax credits.

IOW, the "average member of Congress" will not get any tax credit, but their staffers might, depending on their salary.
Click to expand...




To be clear, you are saying that there is absolutely no subsidy paid to those who previously carried health insurance in this group of people?

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/healthcare/a/Do-Members-Of-Congress-Get-Subsidies-For-Obamacare.htm
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
To be clear, you are saying that there is absolutely no subsidy paid to those who previously carried health insurance in this group of people?

Health Care Subsidy for Congress - In Obamacare
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I'm saying. What I am saying that they will not get the tax credits (ie the ACA subsidy) that ACA makes available. What they are getting is the same subsidy they have always received. In the US, employers are allowed to provide their employees with money to pay their health care premiums. Before ACA, the employer of these Congress members (ie the fed govt) paid them a subsidy to buy insurance. After ACA, their emploter is paying a them a subsidy to buy insurance.

IOW, ACA had nothing to do with the subsidy they are receiving. They received it before ACA, and the will continue to receive it after ACA. The only change ACA made is that they will now buy their insurance through the exchange, instead of buying it through FEHP.
 
sangha said:
No, that is not what I'm saying. What I am saying that they will not get the tax credits (ie the ACA subsidy) that ACA makes available. What they are getting is the same subsidy they have always received. In the US, employers are allowed to provide their employees with money to pay their health care premiums. Before ACA, the employer of these Congress members (ie the fed govt) paid them a subsidy to buy insurance. After ACA, their emploter is paying a them a subsidy to buy insurance.

IOW, ACA had nothing to do with the subsidy they are receiving. They received it before ACA, and the will continue to receive it after ACA. The only change ACA made is that they will now buy their insurance through the exchange, instead of buying it through FEHP.
Click to expand...



In other words, they are dong this in violation of the law.
 
code1211 said:
Actually, spelling has never been a strong part of my communication. Sister Mary Margaret would weep every time she need to review a lesson I'd submit. Auto correct and spell check are great crutches for my writing in this place or any other.

As for your superior grasp of anything, only you can be the judge of your grasp of the world. The young always seem to think they have a superior grasp of all things.

Perhaps this is why the decisions they make are always wise, thoughtful and kind.
Click to expand...

Yes, I love how the old always use the "Young" excuse when the paradigm is changing to hold onto their antedeluvian views. :)
 
Buddha C said:
Yes, I love how the old always use the "Young" excuse when the paradigm is changing to hold onto their antedeluvian views. :)
Click to expand...



While I'm old enough to have witnessed and survived many floods, I'm not quite old enough to have experienced and survived THE flood.

People who are older were once young and have witnessed both their own youth's evolving passions and actions and the ideas and changing beliefs of other youths across many years. I celebrate youth in the same way that I celebrate all things comprised primarily of potential.

That said, if you are possessed of the notion that you are "the smartest man in the room", there is nothing that I would presume to say to affect that notion. However, you may want to find a room with a higher population.
 
sangha said:
Wrong again. ACA doesn't say anything about how the Fed govt compensates the members of congress.
Click to expand...



So this is additional pay subject to income tax?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom