• 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!

Federal workers should enroll in Obamacare: Rand Paul

humbolt said:
I don't know. I suppose if no one says anything different, they believe that what they say will be made into truth somehow. It's a complicated issue, so there's ample opportunity to cloud it. There are also those who maintain that the ACA is really a right wing idea - a product of conservative thought. There are examples of such a thing, but I don't see a conservative national program in law on the federal books anywhere. It isn't there, and the PPACA received no conservative or even republican votes at all. I can understand why the left might want some to think that, though.
Click to expand...

They just seem to hate it when they have to take responsibility for the things they do! That could be easily corrected by thinking things through before they act, but when you are being emotional rather than logical, which seems to be the case in most of their thinking, it's probably not an easy trait to master. That might explain doggedly clinging to arguments which have been proven false by facts? Perhaps that's why :spin: is used so much to cloud issues...what else have they got? :doh:
 
polgara said:
They just seem to hate it when they have to take responsibility for the things they do! That could be easily corrected by thinking things through before they act, but when you are being emotional rather than logical, which seems to be the case in most of their thinking, it's probably not an easy trait to master. That might explain doggedly clinging to arguments which have been proven false by facts? Perhaps that's why :spin: is used so much to cloud issues...what else have they got? :doh:
Click to expand...
Obama and the Senate cannot run away from this. That has them seething. As it turns out, the "brightest" among us, as they describe themselves, are really pretty stupid. They hate that too. They're the ones that are supposed to deliver us to a perfected society. "We are the ones we've been waiting for", according to the president. I could've waited a little longer for a better result.
 
humbolt said:
Review & Outlook: Congress's ObamaCare Exemption - WSJ.com
Click to expand...

Um, look, the law specifically says that congressional employees must get health insurance through the exchange. They just get to keep the existing subsidy. Which is something any employer can do.

The only change being made to Congress' health plan is that instead of picking from the current selection of health plans for Federal employees, they'll have to pick from the insurance exchange.

The amendment to the ACA requiring this was submitted by Senator Grassley.
 
Last edited:
humbolt said:
I don't know. I suppose if no one says anything different, they believe that what they say will be made into truth somehow. It's a complicated issue, so there's ample opportunity to cloud it. There are also those who maintain that the ACA is really a right wing idea - a product of conservative thought. There are examples of such a thing, but I don't see a conservative national program in law on the federal books anywhere. It isn't there, and the PPACA received no conservative or even republican votes at all. I can understand why the left might want some to think that, though.
Click to expand...

The ACA did, however, receive literally hundreds of amendments proposed by Republicans.

edit: 161 were adopted, apparently.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - With some in Congress arguing lawmakers and their staff should not get subsidies to cover their health insurance as health-care reform goes into effect, the Republican senator from Kentucky told reporters that he's going to start pushing a constitutional amendment that goes even further.

The proposal will outlaw any special exemptions for government employees. This means all federal workers would have to purchase health insurance on the new Obamacare exchanges instead of getting taxpayer-funded subsidies. Critics have long maintained that those subsidies amount to special treatment. The Obamacare health insurance exchange opens October 1.
Federal workers should enroll in Obamacare, Rand Paul says - Politics & Policy - Catholic Online
Click to expand...

How much would you be willing to bet that Congress will vote itself an exemption?
 
uncleray said:
How much would you be willing to bet that Congress will vote itself an exemption?
Click to expand...

They already voted for the opposite of an exemption by adopting Senator Grassley's amendment to require themselves to purchase insurance on the exchanges.
 
Deuce said:
Um, look, the law specifically says that congressional employees must get health insurance through the exchange. They just get to keep the existing subsidy. Which is something any employer can do.

The only change being made to Congress' health plan is that instead of picking from the current selection of health plans for Federal employees, they'll have to pick from the insurance exchange.

The amendment to the ACA requiring this was submitted by Senator Grassley.
Click to expand...
And we all know that if the requirements of the ACA are followed, they get no damn subsidy at all because their incomes far exceed the maximum allowed to receive a subsidy. It's just another case of special treatment.
 
humbolt said:
And we all know that if the requirements of the ACA are followed, they get no damn subsidy at all because their incomes far exceed the maximum allowed to receive a subsidy. It's just another case of special treatment.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. You have the wrong subsidies in mind.

The "subsidy" I'm referring to is really just like any other employer contribution to a health plan. They select a plan, Uncle Sam pays a percentage of its premium, the rest out of pocket. I do the same with my employees. This subsidy already exists.

The subsidy you are referring to is an income-based subsidy that is newly created by the ACA. Congress is not eligible for this based on income, as you said. (although some of their staffers might be eligible, depending on family size and pay)
 
Deuce said:
The ACA did, however, receive literally hundreds of amendments proposed by Republicans.

edit: 161 were adopted, apparently.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with anything at all when the republicans knew from the start that they were powerless to stop the legislation? The ACA belongs to the left, lock, stock and barrel. I'll make you a deal though. If it works out well, you can claim all the credit you want. If it doesn't, you're going to get all the blame.
 
humbolt said:
What does that have to do with anything at all when the republicans knew from the start that they were powerless to stop the legislation? The ACA belongs to the left, lock, stock and barrel. I'll make you a deal though. If it works out well, you can claim all the credit you want. If it doesn't, you're going to get all the blame.
Click to expand...

You're the one who thinks right-wing input, or lack thereof, is important. Personally I don't care who came up with it. It's a mediocre bill that only addresses a portion of the issues our health care system faces. But unlike you, I can criticize the bill on the basis of things that are actually true.
 
Deuce said:
No it isn't. You have the wrong subsidies in mind.

The "subsidy" I'm referring to is really just like any other employer contribution to a health plan. They select a plan, Uncle Sam pays a percentage of its premium, the rest out of pocket. I do the same with my employees. This subsidy already exists.

The subsidy you are referring to is an income-based subsidy that is newly created by the ACA. Congress is not eligible for this based on income, as you said. (although some of their staffers might be eligible, depending on family size and pay)
Click to expand...
As I said, according to the income guidelines in the ACA, these employees are not eligible for a subsidy at all. It doesn't matter what existed in their old plan. I can make any arrangement I want with a private employer, but Congress agreed to the same coverage as everybody else would receive under the ACA, and as a public employee under the auspicies of the legislation, they are not entitled to a subsidy, period. Yes, there are some staffers for whom a subsidy might apply.
 
Deuce said:
You're the one who thinks right-wing input, or lack thereof, is important. Personally I don't care who came up with it. It's a mediocre bill that only addresses a portion of the issues our health care system faces. But unlike you, I can criticize the bill on the basis of things that are actually true.
Click to expand...
Then you'd have to admit that Congress in large part does not receive any subsidy at all under the guidelines. It doesn't matter what their old coverage provided - they aren't going to have that anymore. Sucks for them. They can join the rest of the country in that.
 
humbolt said:
Then you'd have to admit that Congress in large part does not receive any subsidy at all under the guidelines. It doesn't matter what their old coverage provided - they aren't going to have that anymore. Sucks for them. They can join the rest of the country in that.
Click to expand...

When every American gets paid $175,000 for a part-time job , we'll consider it then, okay? That seems fair to me! :
 
polgara said:
When every American gets paid $175,000 for a part-time job , we'll consider it then, okay? That seems fair to me! :
Click to expand...
We're going to need an increase in the minimum wage, then. That works out to about $116.048/hour for a 29 hour work week. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
 
humbolt said:
We're going to need an increase in the minimum wage, then. That works out to about $116.048/hour for a 29 hour work week. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Me, too, assuming a 29 hour work week. But I think your figures are assuming a 52-week year, which does not exist in DC, so you may have some recalculating to do. :shrug:
 
EdwinWillers said:
The very fact that some are allowed to be exempt from the law means the law itself is illegitimate. I agree - this piece of crap needs to go. It's absolutely infuriating the arrogance this administration is displaying - and their utter disrespect for the American people and their laws.
Click to expand...

I agree: we need single payer universal health care for everybody like other civilized nations have.

Wait. . . you're against that.
 
polgara said:
Me, too, assuming a 29 hour work week. But I think your figures are assuming a 52-week year, which does not exist in DC, so you may have some recalculating to do. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Indeed I do. I need to get this hourly rate up there near a lawyer's rate. Let's assume that we have franking privileges, and all the rest of that stuff we don't pay taxes on. Let's also assume that we get all the government holidays and out of session periods congress enjoys, plus Government Shutdown Day on October 1st. Let's also assume that we are partially disabled and can only work when we feel really, really good and the doctor says it's okay to work until we don't feel really, really good. We're getting free transportation back and forth anyway. We won't count the lobbyist money we keep in the refrigerator. I hope we're getting into the $600.00/ hr range now. I'd be disappointed to learn I was making any less. Plus I left out Ramadan.
 
humbolt said:
As I said, according to the income guidelines in the ACA, these employees are not eligible for a subsidy at all. It doesn't matter what existed in their old plan. I can make any arrangement I want with a private employer, but Congress agreed to the same coverage as everybody else would receive under the ACA, and as a public employee under the auspicies of the legislation, they are not entitled to a subsidy, period. Yes, there are some staffers for whom a subsidy might apply.
Click to expand...

They aren't entitled for the premium subsidies that the ACA creates. Nowhere does the law state "nobody can receive any other subsidies for anything else." Farmers still get corn subsidies, dude, even if they make a million dollars a year.

It is the same coverage as everybody else. Any employer can choose to subsidies their employees health plans in this manner.
 
Deuce said:
They aren't entitled for the premium subsidies that the ACA creates. Nowhere does the law state "nobody can receive any other subsidies for anything else."

It is the same coverage as everybody else. Any employer can choose to subsidies their employees health plans in this manner.
Click to expand...
Any private employer can. Look Deuce, there are some ways they can get around what was legislated, but the intent of the law is that they don't. It wasn't my idea. I didn't write it. They did. They apparently didn't know what they were writing. Imagine that.
 
humbolt said:
Any private employer can. Look Deuce, there are some ways they can get around what was legislated, but the intent of the law is that they don't. It wasn't my idea. I didn't write it. They did. They apparently didn't know what they were writing. Imagine that.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes, the idea that the government isn't allowed to contribute to health care plans of its employees was your idea, because you made it up. No part of the ACA says the government is not allowed to contribute to employee health premiums.

Prove me wrong by quoting the exact text of the ACA that would prevent this.
 
humbolt said:
They do? Which came first - universal health care or plumbing?
Click to expand...

Your apparent point was "Libya has universal health care, Libya is bad, therefore universal health care is bad." Feel free to clarify if that's not the point you were trying to make. You didn't leave much to go on.
 
Originally Posted by EdwinWillers
The very fact that some are allowed to be exempt from the law means the law itself is illegitimate. I agree - this piece of crap needs to go. It's absolutely infuriating the arrogance this administration is displaying - and their utter disrespect for the American people and their laws.
Click to expand...
head of joaquin said:
I agree: we need single payer universal health care for everybody like other civilized nations have.

Wait. . . you're against that.
Click to expand...
Yes I am - but for a slightly (albeit related) different reason, because it's not Constitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom