Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Socialism... For the people, not the socialist


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#31 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,290 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 26 April 2013 - 09:39 PM

wouldn't it just be a good step in the right direction and show solidarity with the people who voted for congress to go ahead and have the same plan?
would there be any harm in that?

#32 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,115 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 09:44 PM

wouldn't it just be a good step in the right direction and show solidarity with the people who voted for congress to go ahead and have the same plan?
would there be any harm in that?


oh look another poster who ignored teeray's effort post about this

#33 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,290 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 26 April 2013 - 09:54 PM

no i saw teerays post and im with him on that.

now we have changed gears and maybe the inertia was too much for you.

what is the harm in them getting in on the same plan? break it down cant. line item it for me as it pertains to the debt and the constituion.

im not saying they are thinking they are above anyone but what is the downside in being on the same plan.

easy question.

#34 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,506 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 10:09 PM

I will copy the relevant part of Teeray's post from page 1 that should answer that, pstall:

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).



#35 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,506 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 10:10 PM

as to how it pertains to the debt and the constitution, irrelevant. it's how it pertains to "brain drain" and loss of staffers due to totally unaffordable coverage, which the private sector won't have...

#36 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,290 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 26 April 2013 - 10:21 PM

so the staffers and congress are under their state's jurisdiction or DC?

also a 4 year gap is pretty significant that you would think would have been addressed beforehand.

i mention the debt mav because so many for O care talk up that part and don't really know what they are talking about.

#37 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,426 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 11:30 PM

so the staffers and congress are under their state's jurisdiction or DC?

also a 4 year gap is pretty significant that you would think would have been addressed beforehand.

i mention the debt mav because so many for O care talk up that part and don't really know what they are talking about.


The staffer and Congress are under the same jurisdiction as everyone else as it pertains to Obamacare.

Yes the 4 year gap is significant, and it should have been addressed beforehand. Republicans introduced an amendment that they thought would fail in order to score some cheap talking points. The Democrats instead passed it trying to be a little too clever and call the bluff. Point being, the amendment wasn't really thought out, because it wasn't meant to pass. It was supposed to fail.

The problem that it caused is that Congress and their staff now may not be on the same plan as everyone else (I say may because they are awaiting a ruling on it).

The issue is that this amendment was exclusive to Congress and their staff that they HAVE to get their insurance through the insurance exchanges.

However, every other major employer in the nation (more than 100 employees) can't use the exchanges until 2017, and even after 2017 they just have the option to participate in the exchanges, but in the meantime will continue with their current insurance structure.

Because the federal government has way more than 100 employees it falls under that provision of not being able to participate until 2017. BUT unlike every other company these select employees (Congress and their staff) HAVE to get their insurance through the exchanges because of this amendment. Therefore, their employer would not be able to contribute to their health insurance the way they normally would and the way other employers do and will continue to do for their employees.

I am not sure if that is clear or not, but in short, every other major employer in the nation will continue to provide insurance to their employees in the same manner as they are now until 2017. Congress has to provide insurance through the exchanges but since the federal government has over 100 employees they cannot contribute to their employees health care.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com