Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Socialism... For the people, not the socialist

37 posts in this topic

Posted

???

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

GS still working things through

Reading? Check. Comprehension? Not so much

it's ok if you can't answer the question; it's not like you ever do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

obamacare really isn't socialism in any real sense of the word. corporatism, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

lol i remember when some dipshit here claimed that corporatism is "backdoor socialism" so don't underestimate the ability of republicans (or birchers, in this case) to just make poo up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

perhaps they mean a backdoor to the destruction of a free market? beats me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

it's ok if you can't answer the question; it's not like you ever do

We'll wait while you explain away what "collectivist principles" means

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

We'll wait while you explain away what "collectivist principles" means

what is collectivist about mandating that the bulk of a nation's citizenry purchase a private product from an abso-fuging-lutely worthless middle man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Poor kids... your head is going to explode before you squeeze an original thought of it...

Meanwhile in the original point, Congress is looking to yet again exempt itself from the rules that everyone else must abide by

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Next thing you know rich people will be using their influence to exempt themselves from taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Next thing you know rich people will be using their influence to exempt themselves from taxes.

Yet, somehow they bear the lion's share of the national "revenue".... huh... how did that happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites