Federal workers should enroll in Obamacare: Rand Paul

Deuce said:

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.

Click to expand...

You have it backwards. See, Harry Reid left out that part about the subsidies, and it went through reconciliation without the text which would allow it. So quoting ACA is meaningless because the subsidy they used to enjoy isn't addressed at all. It's gone. You didn't read the WSJ article, did you? C'mon. Fess up. If you had, you wouldn't be asking for language that doesn't exist. I made nothing up.

Anthony60 said:

Is there something in that monstrous law that allows the president to grant exemptions as he sees fit? Or to delay parts of the law? Because, otherwise, I don't see any presidential power that allows him to parse out laws or exempt people from laws that others have to follow.

Click to expand...

Executive Orders are orders by the president to the administration on how the administration should act. He cant do anything extra-constitutional. For example, he, by himself, couldnt cause the passage of legislation. he can however tell HHS to not enforce certain parts of it or to exempt certain individuals. So...what he is doing IS legal. Now...someone so inclined could probably sue and probably win...but not til it has actually been implemented

Deuce said:

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.

Click to expand...

My point was that less than civilized countries also have universal health care. It really doesn't matter how much coverage one has if there isn't anyplace to go to receive treatment. See, people making such statements as the one I responded to haven't really looked into more than how nice it sounds to say such things. I've spent some time in places like Libya.

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...

Firstly - A "constitutional amendment" is a virtual impossibility and I fail to see how a matter related to essentially contract negotiations would require such an action to be implemented.

Secondly - He makes a good point and perhaps as a way of defunding federal healthcare and reducing the cost of the federal government, he and other Republicans in congress could move to defund all provision of healthcare from everyone who receives a salary from the federal government and force them into these wonderful Obamacare exchanges that the President and Democrats keep touting. Surely, if businesses can save money by pushing their employees onto the exchanges and pay a penalty, the federal government should be able to save $billions because they can exempt themselves from the penalty too.

humbolt said:

You have it backwards. See, Harry Reid left out that part about the subsidies, and it went through reconciliation without the text which would allow it. So quoting ACA is meaningless because the subsidy they used to enjoy isn't addressed at all. It's gone. You didn't read the WSJ article, did you? C'mon. Fess up. If you had, you wouldn't be asking for language that doesn't exist. I made nothing up.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly, it isn't addressed and therefore isn't gone. And nothing in the ACA prevents employer subsidies from being used on the insurance exchanges.

WSJ has a paywall. No article comes up when I click your link.

Deuce said:

Yes, exactly, it isn't addressed and therefore isn't gone. And nothing in the ACA prevents employer subsidies from being used on the insurance exchanges.

WSJ has a paywall. No article comes up when I click your link.

Click to expand...

I apologize for the paywall business. I never thought about that... Actually, it is gone. I have no doubt it was intended that language be included to address the subsidy business, but somehow it was missed in the rush to get a final product. That doesn't mean subsidies don't happen. Obama doesn't have the power to postpone implementation, either, but he has for some entities. This is not the first administration to do this type of thing, but this one does seem to have a particular penchant for it. I will go have a look at the WSJ thing and see if I can offer the article. It's pretty straight forward. I confess to a few yucks at the irony of it all when I was reading it.

humbolt said:

I apologize for the paywall business. I never thought about that... Actually, it is gone. I have no doubt it was intended that language be included to address the subsidy business, but somehow it was missed in the rush to get a final product. That doesn't mean subsidies don't happen. Obama doesn't have the power to postpone implementation, either, but he has for some entities. This is not the first administration to do this type of thing, but this one does seem to have a particular penchant for it. I will go have a look at the WSJ thing and see if I can offer the article. It's pretty straight forward. I confess to a few yucks at the irony of it all when I was reading it.

Click to expand...

There is no language in the bill preventing employer contributions, federal or private, to plans purchased on the exchanges. Period.

Congress must purchase insurance on the exchange. That is the only congress-specific change the ACA makes. There is no "exemption." Period. The existing contributions to Congress' health plans were not repealed.

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...

While we are at it, lets cut the exemptions for unions as well.

Deuce said:

There is no language in the bill preventing employer contributions, federal or private, to plans purchased on the exchanges. Period.

Congress must purchase insurance on the exchange. That is the only congress-specific change the ACA makes. There is no "exemption." Period. The existing contributions to Congress' health plans were not repealed.

Click to expand...

Not "repealed". "Replaced". As I said, legally Congress must present and pass an appropriation for funding to restore the subsidy. It's eminently fair. We are, after all, about leveling the playing field.

humbolt said:

Not "repealed". "Replaced". As I said, legally Congress must present and pass an appropriation for funding to restore the subsidy. It's eminently fair. We are, after all, about leveling the playing field.

Click to expand...

Good evening, humbolt. :2wave:

:agree: BTW, glad to see you managed the boring 2-day desert trek safely, and are back in the Promised Land of DP! :thumbs:

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...

I agree with this 100%. At the same time put them all on Social Security retirement systems. No special gov't retirements, including Congressmen and women. Obamacare for all Gov't employees including Congresspersons. No other healthcare unless it is out of their own pockets.

polgara said:

Good evening, humbolt. :2wave:

:agree: BTW, glad to see you managed the boring 2-day desert trek safely, and are back in the Promised Land of DP! :thumbs:

Click to expand...

I've survived, and I see you have pleasantly, too. Actually, right now, we could all just use some popcorn and watch the spectacle anyway.

Congress should lose their pay on Tuesday also. Especially when those taking care of Veterans in Veterans' Homes are losing their pay.

humbolt said:

I've survived, and I see you have pleasantly, too. Actually, right now, we could all just use some popcorn and watch the spectacle anyway.

Click to expand...

:thumbs: I actually got some things done around here...although I admit I was checking DP every few hours, because it's more interesting than housework, you see. :lol:

polgara said:

:thumbs: I actually got some things done around here...although I admit I was checking DP every few hours, because it's more interesting than housework, you see. :lol:

Click to expand...

What could possibly be more interesting than housework - unless maybe it's power washing the deck? I did watch pieces of the Steelers going for 0 - 4. They made it. So uplifting.

NIMBY said:

Congress should lose their pay on Tuesday also. Especially when those taking care of Veterans in Veterans' Homes are losing their pay.

Click to expand...

I thought that the House passed something specifically to handle that.

Good evening, NIMBY. :2wave: Glad to see you!

Only for defense department, active and contractors. Not Veterans department. However, each time one of these is pointed out, as our soldiers, they'll pass another CR without telling Dems much about voting and have no discussion on the floor.

polgara said:

I thought that the House passed something specifically to handle that.

Good evening, NIMBY. :2wave: Glad to see you!

Click to expand...

So we lost a bunch of posts in this thread, so can't retype everything I previously said but I'll just hit the main thing I eventually came to.

There is no "exemption" from "Obamacare" for congress.

There is an exemption however, and one that was not known when people in good faith voted on the ACA containing the amendment we've been speaking of. OPM put forth an EXEMPTION from the standard policy of the government previously to NOT offer subsidies for non-employer provided health insurance. Previously, if an employee did not want to enroll in FEHBP and instead get private insurance the government did not have the authority to offer that worker a subsidy.

NOW, under this new policy by OPM, congressional personnel are EXEMPT from that rule IF the non-employer provided plan is part of the "health care exchange".

Prior to the ACA bill, this was NOT something the government could do and there was no reasonable expectation from anyone voting on the ACA that OPM would simply DEEM that such an exemption would exist. There was nothing written into the ACA regarding subsidies because the rules under which the government has functioned for quite some time did not provide the government the authority to subsidize non-employer provided health insurance.

OPM exempted congress from that standard, provided the government authority to subsidize such plans in certain circumstances.

No, despite what Harry Reid says, this is not the exact same thing as an employer funding an employees health care. While one could argue they're similar, an employer paying part of an insurance plan THEY choose for you is not exactly the same thing as an employer reimbursing you for the costs of a health insurance plan you choose.

In regards to "Well, nothing says that other businesses can't do it this way". Really? A business can refuse to provide health insurance but provide a subsidy to their employees to go onto the exchanges, and they wouldn't have to pay the fine for not providing health insurance? Is that possible?

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...

The individuals or the Government would have to purchase through the exchanges? Healthcare is a benefit offered to some government employees, such as the military. The government pays full cost for healthcare for active military and provides an insurance (TriCare) for dependents and retirees that has co-pays. Is this a type of "exemption" he is talking about? If so, I am totally against it.

Being "exempt" from Obamacare (OC) because I'm a retiree as well as disabled and receiving care through the VA, I'm not really up to date on a lot of the mandates in OC. The government has already defaulted on it's original contract with the military that promised free healthcare for life for retirees and their dependents. Anything not protecting existing or not improving towards free care for retirees and dependents is something I am totally against.