36 replies to this topic

[twylyght]

http://www.politico....ides-90610.html

"Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said."

[MadHatter]

Senators and Congressmen have their own exchange and refuse to go on Obamacare.

Now lawmakers and aides would be execpted from Obamacare.

Anyone who thinks this bill was still a good answer is fuging brain dead.....or they are CWG/Delhommey....but quite frankly, that is actually the same thing.

[Kurb]

Couple of things.


If you start the thread, please share your opinion as well, and quote the "good" parts of the article.


Two, I hope someone can explain why this makes sense...

[MadHatter]

Couple of things.


If you start the thread, please share your opinion as well, and quote the "good" parts of the article.


Two, I hope someone can explain why this makes sense...

There weren't any good parts to the article.

[twylyght]

Couple of things.


If you start the thread, please share your opinion as well, and quote the "good" parts of the article.


Two, I hope someone can explain why this makes sense...

Apologies... And done, sir

[Cary Kollins]

Mandating uninsured people to buy insurance through a private company. How does that qualify as socialism again?

[teeray]

This isn't trying to get out of Obamacare. There is an issue with the language of one of the amendments a Republican added in an attempt to be clever but backfired on him that may need to be resolved.

[twylyght]

Mandating uninsured people to buy insurance through a private company. How does that qualify as socialism again?

3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

[twylyght]

This isn't trying to get out of Obamacare. There is an issue with the language of one of the amendments a Republican added in an attempt to be clever but backfired on him that may need to be resolved.

So.... It's great for the rest of us... Just not for the guys passing the laws?

[teeray]

So.... It's great for the rest of us... Just not for the guys passing the laws?

???

Again it isn't an attempt to get out of Obamacare.

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

so you're a marxist now? if not, why are you misusing theory that you don't believe?

[twylyght]

so you're a marxist now? if not, why are you misusing theory that you don't believe?

GS still working things through
Reading? Check. Comprehension? Not so much

[twylyght]

???

Again it isn't an attempt to get out of Obamacare.

Riiiiight. Just the parts that don't work for them.

[teeray]

Riiiiight. Just the parts that don't work for them.

No. It is because of a stupid amendment by Chuck Grassley that said that the Congress and their staff had to get insurance through the exchange.

It wasn't meant to pass, it was supposed to be an amendment that failed so that Republicans could come out and say "SEE! They don't even want the exchanges for themselves!! DERPA DERPA!"

Welp, the Democrats said, "That is a great idea!" and passed it.

The problem is that it was worded lazily because it was a bullshit amendment, and now member of Congress and their staffs can only get their insurance through exchanges.

The problem is that employers with more than 100 employees cannot participate in the exchanges until 2017.

So whereas other employers never have to use the exchanges at all, and have the ability to use other insurances, Congress cannot. So once this goes into effect, because of this amendment, Congress would not be able to contribute to the staff's insurance until 2017.

That is completely different than in the private sectors where they continue doing what they are doing now, and in 2017 have the option to participate in the exchanges (if their state allows it).

Also, they aren't even sure if there is a problem. They are doing preliminary work while they are awaiting a ruling on whether this is actually an issue or not.

All they are doing is trying to figure out what they need to do in order to contribute to their staff's insurance like other employers. The stupid amendment is to blame.

[twylyght]

No. It is because of a stupid amendment by Chuck Grassley that said that the Congress and their staff had to get insurance through the exchange.

It wasn't meant to pass, it was supposed to be an amendment that failed so that Republicans could come out and say "SEE! They don't even want the exchanges for themselves!! DERPA DERPA!"

Welp, the Democrats said, "That is a great idea!" and passed it.

The problem is that it was worded lazily because it was a bullshit amendment, and now member of Congress and their staffs can only get their insurance through exchanges.

The problem is that employers with more than 100 employees cannot participate in the exchanges until 2017.

So whereas other employers never have to use the exchanges at all, and have the ability to use other insurances, Congress cannot. So once this goes into effect, because of this amendment, Congress would not be able to contribute to the staff's insurance.

That is completely different than in the private sectors where they continue doing what they are doing now, and in 2017 have the option to participate in the exchanges (if their state allows it).

Also, they aren't even sure if there is a problem. They are doing preliminary work while they are awaiting a ruling on whether this is actually an issue or not.

All they are doing is trying to figure out what they need to do in order to contribute to their staff's insurance like other employers. The stupid amendment is to blame.

Apparently it was so exciting that we had to pass the bill to see what was in it