• 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!

Republicans move to halt ObamaCare 'bailout' for angry unions


The source you provided claims that Congress is exempt in the title, but doesn't explain how in the actual source. All they have done is allow the current health insurance benefit that congress currently receives also be able to be applied when they have to switch to ObamaCare health care exchanges. They have not been exempted in any way. They will be shopping for insurance, and buying the same insurance plans that any average everyday citizen would be getting. And if that citizens employer wants to pay part of his premium as a pat of his salary, that is identical to the federal government paying part of congress's premiums. Which is currently how it's done anyway.

Your second source only talks about temporary waivers, which is exactly my point. No one is getting exemptions, only temporary waivers to allow a company more time to comply, thus easing any possible burdens put on business's. This is a common practice.
 
wrong they are employed by the people of the United States paid by their tax money.
the average insurance contribution by employers is 30% congress and their employees will be getting 75% only others that will be getting that much in subsides is the poor

That's not only what they "will" be getting, but it's also what they are CURRENTLY RECEIVING! Regardless, this isn't an exemption. All congress did was enable the federal government to continue to pay part of their premiums on the new health care exchanges after the switch. The reason they had to do this was because the exchanges were set up to supply small businesses and individuals with health care options, not large entities. The federal government does not qualify as a small business. So since congress did what is right, and are forcing congress members to buy insurance through the exchange (something that conservatives through out the entire health care debate argued that congress should have to do IE: "make congress sign up for OBamaCare!!!!") they have amended the law to allow their employer (the federal government) to provide pay incentive in the form of paying part of the premium. Something that is currently being done anyways.
 
And those contributions are a violation of the black-letter law, forbidden to private enterprise.
It's not forbidden to any private enterprise, if I'm not mistaken. It's allowed from small and some medium sized businesses.

Through the small business (SHOP) exchange, small employers will have the option of choosing a level of coverage and then allowing each employee to select their own insurer and plan. The exchange can also collect the employer and employee contributions and direct those payments to the chosen insurers.
SPECIAL SECTION: Health Insurance Reform
 
That's not only what they "will" be getting, but it's also what they are CURRENTLY RECEIVING! Regardless, this isn't an exemption. All congress did was enable the federal government to continue to pay part of their premiums on the new health care exchanges after the switch. The reason they had to do this was because the exchanges were set up to supply small businesses and individuals with health care options, not large entities. The federal government does not qualify as a small business. So since congress did what is right, and are forcing congress members to buy insurance through the exchange (something that conservatives through out the entire health care debate argued that congress should have to do IE: "make congress sign up for OBamaCare!!!!") they have amended the law to allow their employer (the federal government) to provide pay incentive in the form of paying part of the premium. Something that is currently being done anyways.

The law was not amended. The Office of Personnel Management was basically directed to "fix" the situation. The reason for subjecting Congress members and their staffs was to show that if it was good enough for individual citizens it should be good enough for them as well...
 
The law was not amended. The Office of Personnel Management was basically directed to "fix" the situation.
Very good point, I misspoke, you are correct. Regardless, they aren't exempt.

The reason for subjecting Congress members and their staffs was to show that if it was good enough for individual citizens it should be good enough for them as well...

And they are still getting insurance through the exchanges, the only difference is that now they can keep their current benefits provided to them by their employer. If anyone has a problem that they get benefits, then that is something that they should complain about separately because ObamaCare didn't create these benefits, it's only continuing it.
 
And they are still getting insurance through the exchanges, the only difference is that now they can keep their current benefits provided to them by their employer. If anyone has a problem that they get benefits, then that is something that they should complain about separately because ObamaCare didn't create these benefits, it's only continuing it.

Yes, but the law did not provide for any subsidies not available to other individuals without HC. Current federal subsidies available for individuals are dependent on income, not their employer. That was the point of the amendment that added this provision...
 
Yes, but the law did not provide for any subsidies not available to other individuals without HC. Current federal subsidies available for individuals are dependent on income, not their employer. That was the point of the amendment that added this provision...

They are not receiving subsidies, they are receiving employer benefits, something that is allowed in the exchanges, even though it's only allowed for small businesses. It's disingenuous to call these "subsidies". My employer does not give me a "health care subsidy". It's a benefit. And it's something that they are currently receiving and they wanted it continued.

In the end, we are only arguing semantics. It is a fact that they will be receiving their health care plans through the exchange. So to say that they got an exemption is stretching the truth.
 
They are not receiving subsidies, they are receiving employer benefits, something that is allowed in the exchanges, even though it's only allowed for small businesses. It's disingenuous to call these "subsidies". My employer does not give me a "health care subsidy". It's a benefit. And it's something that they are currently receiving and they wanted it continued.

In the end, we are only arguing semantics. It is a fact that they will be receiving their health care plans through the exchange. So to say that they got an exemption is stretching the truth.

This is just an excuse for the actions that have been taken. Clearly the intent of the law was to have them shop and purchase on the exchanges as any other individual is now required to do, but it was decided that it would be too expensive for them to have to do this...
 
This is just an excuse for the actions that have been taken. Clearly the intent of the law was to have them shop and purchase on the exchanges as any other individual is now required to do, but it was decided that it would be too expensive for them to have to do this...

The intent of the law was not to strip them of their employer based benefits. That was an unintended consequence. If you don't think that they should receive these benefits, that's fine and you can make a very valid argument on that, but what you can't argue is that ObamaCare is the responsible party. This has been how its setup in the past and they have arranged it to continue.
 
The intent of the law was not to strip them of their employer based benefits. That was an unintended consequence. If you don't think that they should receive these benefits, that's fine and you can make a very valid argument on that, but what you can't argue is that ObamaCare is the responsible party. This has been how its setup in the past and they have arranged it to continue.

Actually, it was...
 
The source you provided claims that Congress is exempt in the title, but doesn't explain how in the actual source. All they have done is allow the current health insurance benefit that congress currently receives also be able to be applied when they have to switch to ObamaCare health care exchanges. They have not been exempted in any way. They will be shopping for insurance, and buying the same insurance plans that any average everyday citizen would be getting. And if that citizens employer wants to pay part of his premium as a pat of his salary, that is identical to the federal government paying part of congress's premiums. Which is currently how it's done anyway.

Your second source only talks about temporary waivers, which is exactly my point. No one is getting exemptions, only temporary waivers to allow a company more time to comply, thus easing any possible burdens put on business's. This is a common practice.


If you read it, you would note that when the law was passed congress was subject to the law but when they found they were giving up their golden ticket, Obama stepped in and the government subsidized their payments into the exchanges. At least that's what the article said, if you read it.
 
If you read it, you would note that when the law was passed congress was subject to the law but when they found they were giving up their golden ticket, Obama stepped in and the government subsidized their payments into the exchanges. At least that's what the article said, if you read it.

All they did was extend the current employer benefits that they currently receive to the exchanges. They are still subject to the law. That's hardly what I would consider an "exemption".
 
Actually, it was...

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.
 
I don't like Obamacare either. Who do I see about my subsidy?

Congress has exempted itself, a number of large companies have been given exemptions, Obama is now struggling for union support. This is more of the same Chicago style cronyism that we've come to expect from this president. I don't know why we keep letting them get away with it.

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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
Back
Top Bottom