Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Merc14

Lawmakers/Aides try to get out of Obamacare

298 posts in this topic

NJ sure is a controversial character. He pops in with short and usual comments and can stir up a thread for pages. Guess that's rules for radicals. He did once say that even on the ultra rare occasion that he agrees with something we say he will avoid it as to not be called a hypocrite. Yea, that may happen but I think to me it would humanize him a bit as he is very robotic about liberalism.

I firmly believe he is Jay Carney. A few years ago, Robert Gibbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah.... If he was a famous FedGov Democrat, or even a Illinoise StateGov Democrat, he'd have more through answers then he usually does. He'd have aids to research arguements for him and he'd just present his arguement based on that. But mostly he expresses opinon in an emotional, not always fact based, Appeal to Social Justice. Which a lot of times is very successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ sure is a controversial character. He pops in with short and usual comments and can stir up a thread for pages. Guess that's rules for radicals. He did once say that even on the ultra rare occasion that he agrees with something we say he will avoid it as to not be called a hypocrite. Yea, that may happen but I think to me it would humanize him a bit as he is very robotic about liberalism.

I firmly believe he is Jay Carney. A few years ago, Robert Gibbs.

He is a great foil to use to illustrate a point to those who may be undecided. He is a pure leftist zealot that spouts the point papers verbatim. Throw soem facts at him and he dodges and weaves and avoids answering thus proving your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Obamacare really going to lift minoritys out of poverty,

so here you're not even being serious I see

or even provide them with better healthcare?

maybe maybe not. One part of the ACA is to provide healthcare for those who don't have it. So yes minitorities, non-monitorites, just about everyone who cannot get healthcare will have "better" healthcare. It's kind of a no brainer.

What "payout" have minoritys reaped for voting Democrat consistantly for decades? Still underemployed, still under educated, still higher percentage in poverty.

do you vote based on what you can get out of government? I see the essential difference for republicans now. They're out to get whatever they can and screw everyone else.

Meanwhile "minorities" do not vote based on that stupid idea. Which is why they are democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Ninja, it hasn't escaped my notice that you have ignored the OP in this thread and not opined on Congress trying exempt themselves from Obamacare. Why? Are you a union member that got the same deal?

Because it's Politico and their unnamed source which may or may not be true. Kind of like a conspiracy theory. Which is most likely what it really is.

No I have never been part of a union but support them strongly. I'm not sure what that has to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Because it's Politico and their unnamed source which may or may not be true. Kind of like a conspiracy theory. Which is most likely what it really is.

No I have never been part of a union but support them strongly. I'm not sure what that has to do with it.

LMAO. Politico is your boys and this has been verified by many others!! You are a funny guy. They are backpedaling like crazy and your response is Politico is what, right wing? Do some research and get back to us on why they are trying to be exempted. Or just rattle off excuses and embarrass yourself, I win either way .

Were you a union member?

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so here you're not even being serious I see

No. I'm serious. What have Democrats done to REALLY, REALLY end poverty and lack of education?

maybe maybe not. One part of the ACA is to provide healthcare for those who don't have it. So yes minitorities, non-monitorites, just about everyone who cannot get healthcare will have "better" healthcare. It's kind of a no brainer.

You got me there, but didn't the poor have Healthcare in the form of ERs? So that Obamacare is not providing better healthcare, just paying for it differently?

do you vote based on what you can get out of government? I see the essential difference for republicans now. They're out to get whatever they can and screw everyone else.

I would if I was starving and living in a ghetto. I pay my taxes and don't dodge what I owe, and I use government programs I am entitled too, but I don't make a lifestyle out of it.

Meanwhile "minorities" do not vote based on that stupid idea. Which is why they are democrats.

So minorities would rather have no real change, rather then even think about working with Evil Republicans and having greater employment and earning more money?

Out of curiousity, what would you say is the basis of strong minority voting? Loyalty? Pro-union? Affermative Action? Jobs? Tradition?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it's Politico and their unnamed source which may or may not be true. Kind of like a conspiracy theory. Which is most likely what it really is.

This is published on Forbes too.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2013/04/25/congress-fearing-brain-drain-seeks-to-opt-out-of-participating-in-obamacares-exchanges/

Washington post has it down another way..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/25/no-congress-isnt-trying-to-exempt-itself-from-obamacare/

That’s where the problem comes in. This was an offhand amendment that was supposed to be rejected. It’s not clear that the federal government has the authority to pay for congressional staffers on the exchanges, the way it pays for them now in the federal benefits program. That could lead to a lot of staffers quitting Congress because they can’t afford to shoulder 100 percent of their premiums. (There’s also a smaller issue related to how retiree benefits might be calculated. But I’m only willing to go so far into the weeds here.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What has always intrigued me is that if healthcare was such a problem, why not try some "free things" before destroying the world's greatest health care system.

1. Tort reform. Once we have the single payer system, that ND loves, there will be tort reform anyways. If Obama has his way you will be treated like a military person and have no status to sue for malpractice. You can't sue the government. Wouldn't have cost a dime and would've reduced costs massively and we are going far beyond that anyways so why not try it?.

2. End state to state restrictions on healthcare plans. Competition always lowers costs and improves performance. Obamacare guarantees no competition since every company will leave the general market. Would've cost nothing.

3. Serious reforms to medicare. Billions are wasted on fraud yet the government spends very little to stop it. Why? It is estimated we could insure everyone with no insurance if we instituted the above reforms and attacked fraud yet it was never considered . Why? It would cost nothing but Lawyer money.

Edited by Merc14
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you vote based on what you can get out of government? I see the essential difference for republicans now. They're out to get whatever they can and screw everyone else.

Meanwhile "minorities" do not vote based on that stupid idea. Which is why they are democrats.

I'm a republican and I vote in the hopes the goverment will leave me alone. I don't scew anyone but my wife. Meanwhile I remember a whole lot of "minorities" voting democrat because the goverment was going to pay their rent, buy them cars, pay for their phone, and other such nonsense. which since I pay taxes that means these "minorities" are trying to "screw" me. NJ what planet do you hail from?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would've been interested in ninjadude's excuses but he has left the stage. Apparently the excuse is now they weren't trying to get exemptions yada, yada. Term limits folks. It is time. I have been ahainst them but it is obvious we need to enact term limits.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got me there, but didn't the poor have Healthcare in the form of ERs?

the ER is NOT healthcare. That is patently false. It's very EXPENSIVE emergency healthcare.

I would if I was starving and living in a ghetto. I pay my taxes and don't dodge what I owe, and I use government programs I am entitled too, but I don't make a lifestyle out of it.

neither do "minorities"

So minorities would rather have no real change, rather then even think about working with Evil Republicans ™ and having greater employment and earning more money?

I guess you missed the last two presidential elections. And the last 5 years of Repulicans NOT working with Democrats.

Out of curiousity, what would you say is the basis of strong minority voting? Loyalty? Pro-union? Affermative Action? Jobs? Tradition?

All of the above and more. Just the same as the "majority".

You're problem here is implying that "minority" equals poor, jobless, government dependent. When in fact the "majority" is all of these things in the majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

before destroying the world's greatest health care system.

because the ACA doesn't destroy the healthcare system. It is not healthcare.

1. Tort reform.

I realize you weren't here back when this was debated on UM but I posted many times that it had been studied extensively that any meaningful torte reform would not make any dent whatsoever in the several trillion dollars spent on healthcare.

2. End state to state restrictions on healthcare plans

the ACA does this. It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

3. Serious reforms to medicare. Billions are wasted on fraud yet the government spends very little to stop it.

the ACA does this as well. There are numerous items to limit and stop fraud in the law.

It seems like many, once you REALLY understand what's in the law, you're all for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

because the ACA doesn't destroy the healthcare system. It is not healthcare.

Why is congress trying to exempt themselves and their minions from Obamacare? Answer the bloody question or stop posting as this is the subject of the thread, not your inane pandering to years old propaganda that even Obama has abandoned as pure silliness. Answer the question.

Answer the question I asked and if you don't i will hound you on THIS thread and this thread only. I have that right as the OP and you are not allowed to hijack a thread, as you are trying to do now. Address the original question or bow out and we can draw our own conclusions.

Why is congress trying to exempt themselves and their minions from Obamacare? Answer or start your own thread.

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is congress trying to exempt themselves and their minions from Obamacare?

They aren't. The issue isn't whether they're "exempt" from something (what, exactly?). It's what happens to the financial contribution they get to insurance now.

Members of Congress and their staff are explicitly required by the law to give up their current employer-sponsored plans (offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits program)--they're the only people in the entire country explicitly required by the law to give up their plans. Under the law, people who have insurance through work are going to continue to; Congress is the exception. Instead, like people who don't have insurance through their job, they'll have to shop for coverage in the new marketplaces.

But when you're compensated by an employer, even if it's the federal government, your compensation isn't just your wages or salary, it's also your employer's contributions to your benefits. The question the feds seem to be grappling with is what happens to the contribution members of Congress and their staffs currently get put toward their health insurance. Does that disappear, effectively giving all of them a pay cut? Or can they still somehow have it applied to insurance they buy in the new marketplaces?

The point is, members of Congress and their staffs are already treated differently by the law: it treats them more harshly. If they were trying to change that--which, despite Politico's unsubstantiated gossip, they don't seem to be doing--what they would be doing is changing the law to make it treat members of Congress the same way it treats everyone else. Asking what they should be, or want to be, or could be "exempt" from makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't. The issue isn't whether they're "exempt" from something (what, exactly?). It's what happens to the financial contribution they get to insurance now.

Members of Congress and their staff are explicitly required by the law to give up their current employer-sponsored plans (offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits program)--they're the only people in the entire country explicitly required by the law to give up their plans. Under the law, people who have insurance through work are going to continue to; Congress is the exception. Instead, like people who don't have insurance through their job, they'll have to shop for coverage in the new marketplaces.

But when you're compensated by an employer, even if it's the federal government, your compensation isn't just your wages or salary, it's also your employer's contributions to your benefits. The question the feds seem to be grappling with is what happens to the contribution members of Congress and their staffs currently get put toward their health insurance. Does that disappear, effectively giving all of them a pay cut? Or can they still somehow have it applied to insurance they buy in the new marketplaces?

The point is, members of Congress and their staffs are already treated differently by the law: it treats them more harshly. If they were trying to change that--which, despite Politico's unsubstantiated gossip, they don't seem to be doing--what they would be doing is changing the law to make it treat members of Congress the same way it treats everyone else. Asking what they should be, or want to be, or could be "exempt" from makes no sense.

What you are missing (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since I don't know your agenda) is that millions upon millions of "ordinary" Americans will be losing that employer based compensation as well, in effect taking a pay cut, because companies will opt to pay the fine rather than what is going to be massive increases in employee health insurance. Congress knows this and is trying to change the rules for them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are missing (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since I don't know your agenda) is that millions upon millions of "ordinary" Americans will be losing that employer based compensation as well, in effect taking a pay cut, because companies will opt to pay the fine rather than what is going to be massive increases in employee health insurance. Congress knows this and is trying to change the rules for them.

I don't know what "massive increases in employee health insurance" are or why they suddenly make it economically feasible and appealing to 1) give employees a pay cut by eliminating health benefits, and 2) pay a $2,000 fine per employee when they could've done the former at any point in the past seven decades and paid no fine whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what "massive increases in employee health insurance" are or why they suddenly make it economically feasible and appealing to 1) give employees a pay cut by eliminating health benefits, and 2) pay a $2,000 fine per employee when they could've done the former at any point in the past seven decades and paid no fine whatsoever.

Of course you don't because you haven't done any more research than the average brain dead American that voted Obama in. Do a bit of study and see if you can figure it out and if not then we can debatebut I am not going to waste time arguing with someone who has already made up their mind even though they have no idea what they are talking about.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This oughta be good.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This oughta be good.

LOL. It won't be because it isn't going to happen. "I don't know what obamacare is about but I think its great." What????? Oh, you must be a democrat or an idiot. Nevermind, same thing. The guy is from the UK so why post abut our mess? Who has time for that? Oy. Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you don't because you haven't done any more research than the average brain dead American that voted Obama in.

Is this meant to be a joke?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this meant to be a joke?

Make a statement that is relevant not ask a question that isn't. Explain yourself, your side and why you disagree. Your feelings mean nothing here, you need to present facts that can be argued with, otherwise just say you like it and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make a statement that is relevant not ask a question that isn't. Explain yourself, your side and why you disagree. Your feelings mean nothing here, you need to present facts that can be argued with, otherwise just say you like it and move on.

I did that in post #40. You skillfully deflected the thread into nothingness instead of responding. Well done!

P.S. New England is in the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did that in post #40. You skillfully deflected the thread into nothingness instead of responding. Well done!

P.S. New England is in the United States.

i forgot you posted the post I responded to and I read England. Too many threads that are far more fun. Sorry. Regardless, my post was not a deflection, it was a response and it still stands, you need to do some research. It is quite easy to find the data I am referring to as buyer's remorse is setting in all over the place. There is an easy logical conclusion to Obamacare and it is single payer.

Fact: If the government makes it impossible to sell insurance at a reasonable price yet requires businesses to offer insurance or pay a fine that is less than the insurance then businesses will pay the fine and the insurance companies will leave. Who is left?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fact: If the government makes it impossible to sell insurance at a reasonable price yet requires businesses to offer insurance or pay a fine that is less than the insurance then businesses will pay the fine and the insurance companies will leave. Who is left?

Businesses have always had a choice as to whether they offer compensation in the form of health benefits. They do it because their employees want them and because health benefits are more valuable than the equivalent wages thanks to the tax code. None of that is changing. Any analysis based on comparing the value of the ACA's employer mandate fine to the actual value of the insurance package offered ignores the actual economic incentives at work.

That said, most people with employer-sponsored insurance plans aren't actually buying insurance products from health insurance companies, even indirectly. Instead, they're in self-insured plans in which their employer is effectively their insurance company (with actual health insurers likely used purely as administrative entities). So the idea of insurers "leaving" those people makes little sense in that context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.