Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
ObamaCare aka "Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act" (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Johnny Rock
- Start date
snogger
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Right. But I was referring to folks who actually understand the law. I'll try to find the poll - I think it was a Kaiser poll last year - that showed support increased once the actual provisions were explained to individuals.
Demagoguery works. It's sad.
Joe T
Footballguy
snogger
Footballguy
Don't get me wrong.. I think parts of the bill are great.Right. But I was referring to folks who actually understand the law. I'll try to find the poll - I think it was a Kaiser poll last year - that showed support increased once the actual provisions were explained to individuals.
Demagoguery works. It's sad.
i.e.
No more lifetime limits.. This greatly impacted our family, as many, in the past and was one of the worst things in our current Health care environment.
No more denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions..
But there were so many "untruths'" given to us that even some of those that supported this before it was signed into law are now looking for loopholes to get out from under it. ie. Unions.
I hope I can come into this forum in a few years and wear a
and say I WAS WRONG!!!!But I fear the costs of this passed law will greatly outweigh the built in ways to pay for it.. I fully expect within a few years other "Mandate Taxes" to be imposed to help pay for it as I feel it is going to be greatly underfunded..
Last edited by a moderator:
Johnny Rock
Footballguy
Well, as an employer we got the reprieve until 2015, which means for us that we don't have to worry about part-timer's working over 30 hours per week until 1/1/2014 when the beginning of our "look-back" period begins.
Meanwhile just waiting to see how much our healthcare renewal price increases for 1/1/2014.
Meanwhile just waiting to see how much our healthcare renewal price increases for 1/1/2014.
matttyl
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Well, no one can say for certain exactly what the overall costs will be, but the most credible analysis suggests that the "OBAMACARE IS GOING TO BANKRUPT AMERICA" narrative is nonsense.Don't get me wrong.. I think parts of the bill are great.Right. But I was referring to folks who actually understand the law. I'll try to find the poll - I think it was a Kaiser poll last year - that showed support increased once the actual provisions were explained to individuals.
Demagoguery works. It's sad.
i.e.
No more lifetime limits.. This greatly impacted our family, as many, in the past and was one of the worst things in our current Health care environment.
No more denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions..
But there were so many "untruths'" given to us that even some of those that supported this before it was signed into law are now looking for loopholes to get out from under it. ie. Unions.
I hope I can come into this forum in a few years and wear a
But I fear the costs of this passed law will greatly outweigh the built in ways to pay for it.. I fully expect within a few years other "Mandate Taxes" to be imposed to help pay for it as I feel it is going to be greatly underfunded..
matttyl
Footballguy
If it indeed was from last year, it doesn't make any point at all considering all the changes that have happened since.
matttyl
Footballguy
Politician Spock
Footballguy
This is true.Well, no one can say for certain exactly what the overall costs will be, but the most credible analysis suggests that the "OBAMACARE IS GOING TO BANKRUPT AMERICA" narrative is nonsense.Don't get me wrong.. I think parts of the bill are great.i.e.Right. But I was referring to folks who actually understand the law. I'll try to find the poll - I think it was a Kaiser poll last year - that showed support increased once the actual provisions were explained to individuals.
Demagoguery works. It's sad.
No more lifetime limits.. This greatly impacted our family, as many, in the past and was one of the worst things in our current Health care environment.
No more denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions..
But there were so many "untruths'" given to us that even some of those that supported this before it was signed into law are now looking for loopholes to get out from under it. ie. Unions.
I hope I can come into this forum in a few years and wear a
But I fear the costs of this passed law will greatly outweigh the built in ways to pay for it.. I fully expect within a few years other "Mandate Taxes" to be imposed to help pay for it as I feel it is going to be greatly underfunded..
Bankruptcy is not experienced until a significant drop in lifestyle is experienced first.
Right up there with the "your family will save $2500 per year" nonsense.Well, no one can say for certain exactly what the overall costs will be, but the most credible analysis suggests that the "OBAMACARE IS GOING TO BANKRUPT AMERICA" narrative is nonsense.Don't get me wrong.. I think parts of the bill are great.Right. But I was referring to folks who actually understand the law. I'll try to find the poll - I think it was a Kaiser poll last year - that showed support increased once the actual provisions were explained to individuals.
Demagoguery works. It's sad.
i.e.
No more lifetime limits.. This greatly impacted our family, as many, in the past and was one of the worst things in our current Health care environment.
No more denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions..
But there were so many "untruths'" given to us that even some of those that supported this before it was signed into law are now looking for loopholes to get out from under it. ie. Unions.
I hope I can come into this forum in a few years and wear a
But I fear the costs of this passed law will greatly outweigh the built in ways to pay for it.. I fully expect within a few years other "Mandate Taxes" to be imposed to help pay for it as I feel it is going to be greatly underfunded..
Oh, I love the "people who actually understand the law like it" shtick.
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Mr. Know-It-All
Footballguy
in an anecdotal example - my wife (who has been an RN at a hospital for 19 years) was told last month that due to compliance with upcoming government regulations they will be closing her department in November. 19 RNs/techs/et. will be out of work. Thanks Obama.
In all honesty, at a rate of 2.5 deliveries per month, it is a prudent move to eliminate the department - but it is so much more fun to blame Obama.
In all honesty, at a rate of 2.5 deliveries per month, it is a prudent move to eliminate the department - but it is so much more fun to blame Obama.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
They would use that as the reason even if it wasnt.
ftr: My wife is a director at a Childrens Hospital.
bigbottom
Footballguy
Of course, the two examples of things that you like most about the bill are two of the components that significantly drive up coverage costs.Don't get me wrong.. I think parts of the bill are great.Right. But I was referring to folks who actually understand the law. I'll try to find the poll - I think it was a Kaiser poll last year - that showed support increased once the actual provisions were explained to individuals.
Demagoguery works. It's sad.
i.e.
No more lifetime limits.. This greatly impacted our family, as many, in the past and was one of the worst things in our current Health care environment.
No more denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions..
But there were so many "untruths'" given to us that even some of those that supported this before it was signed into law are now looking for loopholes to get out from under it. ie. Unions.
I hope I can come into this forum in a few years and wear a
But I fear the costs of this passed law will greatly outweigh the built in ways to pay for it.. I fully expect within a few years other "Mandate Taxes" to be imposed to help pay for it as I feel it is going to be greatly underfunded..
snogger
Footballguy
bigbottom said:Of course, the two examples of things that you like most about the bill are two of the components that significantly drive up coverage costs.Don't get me wrong.. I think parts of the bill are great.i.e.Right. But I was referring to folks who actually understand the law. I'll try to find the poll - I think it was a Kaiser poll last year - that showed support increased once the actual provisions were explained to individuals.
Demagoguery works. It's sad.
No more lifetime limits.. This greatly impacted our family, as many, in the past and was one of the worst things in our current Health care environment.
No more denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions..
But there were so many "untruths'" given to us that even some of those that supported this before it was signed into law are now looking for loopholes to get out from under it. ie. Unions.
I hope I can come into this forum in a few years and wear a
But I fear the costs of this passed law will greatly outweigh the built in ways to pay for it.. I fully expect within a few years other "Mandate Taxes" to be imposed to help pay for it as I feel it is going to be greatly underfunded..
which is why Obamas claim this will save money is bogus.. had he been truthful about the real cost the bill never passes. But the sheep bought his 
and so we are off and no way to turn back. Again, I hope I am wrong.. but I see two ways out.. more mandate taxesor insurance companies go out of business.. hello higher unemployment.. and hello to single payer. Meaning higher taxes.. either way I see more money leaving the middle class pockets then Obama has let on.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
The House voted to repeal Obamacare for the 40th time today.
matttyl
Footballguy
Totally agree. How can you poll people about the bill last year when no one knew any of the individual costs at that time (and most states still don't)? And why would those people LAST year be more knowledgeable about the bill than all the polls referenced above that were done THIS year?
If you ask the direct question to people - "would you like to eliminate an Insurance company's ability to deny coverage to someone due to a pre-existing condition" I'd assume more people would say yes. When asked the exact same question if they "would be willing to pay 2-3x as much for their current coverage so that we could eliminate an Insurance company's ability to deny coverage to someone due to a pre-existing condition" people would swing the other way.
Any idea how many people with "pre-existing conditions" were able to obtain coverage before the condition every existed? It only became an issue for them when they tried to obtain the coverage after the condition existed, and at that point it wasn't fair. I see it all the time in my occupation.
matttyl
Footballguy
You posted this on August 2nd, 2013. That very same day this was released....Right. But I was referring to folks who actually understand the law. I'll try to find the poll - I think it was a Kaiser poll last year - that showed support increased once the actual provisions were explained to individuals.
Demagoguery works. It's sad.
Headline -
Obamacare poll shock: 77 per cent want the individual mandate repealed or delayedRead more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383735/Obamacare-poll-shock-77-cent-want-individual-mandate-repealed-delayed-House-passes-block-IRS-enforcement.html#ixzz2bCX8xJ64
So people knew more in 2012 about the ACA than they do now?!
tri-man 47
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
No, they will take the coverage, they just don't want to pay the full price for it. And these are the people that should know the ACA best, correct?
matttyl
Footballguy
And this from Yahoo.....
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rate-shock-young-people-face-214200920.html
The average price for the lowest-cost ObamaCare "bronze" plan in eight states is 122% higher than the cheapest plan currently available in those states, according to an IBD analysis of rate filings and a recent Government Accountability Office report.
The late July report, largely overlooked by the press, provides detailed information on insurance plans today in all 50 states, from the cheapest plans offered to a 30-year-old nonsmoker to the most expensive plans 55-year-old couples can buy.
A separate report from the Maryland insurance department lists the lowest-cost "bronze" plans proposed for ObamaCare exchanges in eight states.
Comparing the two reveals a wide gulf between the cheapest plans available now and those that will be sold next year under ObamaCare.
In Ohio, for example, the least expensive "bronze" plan for a 25-year-old will cost $1,956 a year. That's almost three times higher than the cheapest plan in that state today, and higher than even the median-priced plan in the state, according to the GAO report.
In Virginia, the lowest "bronze" premium is $1,608 — which is 252% higher than the cheapest policy available today.
And Maryland's least expensive ObamaCare plan will be 83% higher than the lowest-cost plan sold in that state this year.
Aetna (AET) on Thursday pulled out of Maryland's exchange after state officials pressed it to lower its proposed rates by up to 29%.
Subsidies, Benefits Touted
ObamaCare backers point out that many people couldn't get these current low rates either because they aren't sold in their local area, or because of their health status. And these plans often include higher deductibles and skimpier benefits than ObamaCare allows.
They also point out that exchange subsidies will offset higher ObamaCare costs for many, and that in any case, higher premiums are worth it given the protections against coverage denials and the more comprehensive benefits required.
But not everyone will be eligible for these subsidies, which phase out entirely at 400% of the poverty rate. And even with them, costs will still go up for many. A young worker making $20,000 in Maryland, for example, would pay about $1,000 for the cheapest ObamaCare plan, after the subsidy. That's still $278 more than the least expensive plan offered in the state today.
And higher rates pose a significant risk to ObamaCare's success. If not enough young people sign up, premium costs will spiral upward.
That's been the experience in six states that have already imposed ObamaCare-style market reforms — known as "guaranteed issue" and "community rating." These rules prevent insurers from denying coverage or charging more to people who are sick. But they can easily backfire.
Because coverage is guaranteed, people have an incentive to put off buying insurance until they get sick, thereby saving premium costs in the meantime. And the community rating rules reduce premiums for the sick, but raise them for the healthy.
The combination of the two can create a premium "death spiral." If young, healthy people refuse to buy coverage, the insurance pool gets older and sicker, and premiums climb still higher.
The GAO data support this. The lowest-cost plans in the six states with guaranteed issue and community rating rules average $1,703 a year. But in the 44 states without these rules, the cheapest plans average only $615.
Two states — Kentucky and New Hampshire — abandoned these market regulations precisely because of this death spiral. And in New York, these rules left the state with just thousands able to afford individual policies, down from more than 1 million who bought them in 1992.
The designers of ObamaCare say the individual mandate will prevent sky-high rates by forcing young and healthy people to buy coverage or pay a fine. But there's no guarantee this will work.
In Massachusetts, for example, which has both the ObamaCare market reforms and an individual mandate, the cheapest plan available today costs $2,564 a year, according to the GAO. That's higher than any other state in the country, and more than three times the national average.
And while Washington state has guaranteed issue and community rating rules but no individual mandate, ObamaCare will nevertheless push its premiums still higher. The cheapest "bronze" plan proposed for a 25-year-old would run $2,000 a year — which amounts to a 60% increase over what's available to a young person in that state today.
Plus, even ObamaCare backers say that the penalties for not complying with the mandate are likely to be too weak to work effectively, according to the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein — who was one of the few to pick up on the GAO report.
Klein notes that liberal economist Uwe Reinhardt called these low penalties a "major design flaw in the law."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rate-shock-young-people-face-214200920.html
The average price for the lowest-cost ObamaCare "bronze" plan in eight states is 122% higher than the cheapest plan currently available in those states, according to an IBD analysis of rate filings and a recent Government Accountability Office report.
The late July report, largely overlooked by the press, provides detailed information on insurance plans today in all 50 states, from the cheapest plans offered to a 30-year-old nonsmoker to the most expensive plans 55-year-old couples can buy.
A separate report from the Maryland insurance department lists the lowest-cost "bronze" plans proposed for ObamaCare exchanges in eight states.
Comparing the two reveals a wide gulf between the cheapest plans available now and those that will be sold next year under ObamaCare.
In Ohio, for example, the least expensive "bronze" plan for a 25-year-old will cost $1,956 a year. That's almost three times higher than the cheapest plan in that state today, and higher than even the median-priced plan in the state, according to the GAO report.
In Virginia, the lowest "bronze" premium is $1,608 — which is 252% higher than the cheapest policy available today.
And Maryland's least expensive ObamaCare plan will be 83% higher than the lowest-cost plan sold in that state this year.
Aetna (AET) on Thursday pulled out of Maryland's exchange after state officials pressed it to lower its proposed rates by up to 29%.
Subsidies, Benefits Touted
ObamaCare backers point out that many people couldn't get these current low rates either because they aren't sold in their local area, or because of their health status. And these plans often include higher deductibles and skimpier benefits than ObamaCare allows.
They also point out that exchange subsidies will offset higher ObamaCare costs for many, and that in any case, higher premiums are worth it given the protections against coverage denials and the more comprehensive benefits required.
But not everyone will be eligible for these subsidies, which phase out entirely at 400% of the poverty rate. And even with them, costs will still go up for many. A young worker making $20,000 in Maryland, for example, would pay about $1,000 for the cheapest ObamaCare plan, after the subsidy. That's still $278 more than the least expensive plan offered in the state today.
And higher rates pose a significant risk to ObamaCare's success. If not enough young people sign up, premium costs will spiral upward.
That's been the experience in six states that have already imposed ObamaCare-style market reforms — known as "guaranteed issue" and "community rating." These rules prevent insurers from denying coverage or charging more to people who are sick. But they can easily backfire.
Because coverage is guaranteed, people have an incentive to put off buying insurance until they get sick, thereby saving premium costs in the meantime. And the community rating rules reduce premiums for the sick, but raise them for the healthy.
The combination of the two can create a premium "death spiral." If young, healthy people refuse to buy coverage, the insurance pool gets older and sicker, and premiums climb still higher.
The GAO data support this. The lowest-cost plans in the six states with guaranteed issue and community rating rules average $1,703 a year. But in the 44 states without these rules, the cheapest plans average only $615.
Two states — Kentucky and New Hampshire — abandoned these market regulations precisely because of this death spiral. And in New York, these rules left the state with just thousands able to afford individual policies, down from more than 1 million who bought them in 1992.
The designers of ObamaCare say the individual mandate will prevent sky-high rates by forcing young and healthy people to buy coverage or pay a fine. But there's no guarantee this will work.
In Massachusetts, for example, which has both the ObamaCare market reforms and an individual mandate, the cheapest plan available today costs $2,564 a year, according to the GAO. That's higher than any other state in the country, and more than three times the national average.
And while Washington state has guaranteed issue and community rating rules but no individual mandate, ObamaCare will nevertheless push its premiums still higher. The cheapest "bronze" plan proposed for a 25-year-old would run $2,000 a year — which amounts to a 60% increase over what's available to a young person in that state today.
Plus, even ObamaCare backers say that the penalties for not complying with the mandate are likely to be too weak to work effectively, according to the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein — who was one of the few to pick up on the GAO report.
Klein notes that liberal economist Uwe Reinhardt called these low penalties a "major design flaw in the law."
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
But at least health care is cheaper in New York.
jamny
Footballguy
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
...than it already was due to similar rate guidelines which forced 90 some percent of the insured New Yorkers to drop the coverage they already had due to rate increases.
NajehHejan
Footballguy
Just had a meeting at work and effective 9/1/13, my weekly health care premium is going up 37%. It was blamed on rising health care costs as well as new government regulations (Obamacare). We were promised that the premium increase was made as low as possible, and that the increase also seems large because my old premium was so good. I feel this is a bit of a sham, but what am I to do?
matttyl
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
Aetna, who is based in Connecticut, drops out of Connecticut individual market. They are the second insurance carrier to drop out of the Connecticut market. They also dropped out in Maryland. Yeah, more choice for the consumer..... 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/05/aetna-withdraws-connecticut-health-exchange/2619695/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/05/aetna-withdraws-connecticut-health-exchange/2619695/
jamny
Footballguy
“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”Aetna, who is based in Connecticut, drops out of Connecticut individual market. They are the second insurance carrier to drop out of the Connecticut market. They also dropped out in Maryland. Yeah, more choice for the consumer.....
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/05/aetna-withdraws-connecticut-health-exchange/2619695/
matttyl
Footballguy
Aetna has also dropped out of California and Colorado. Maybe they just don't want to be in states that start with "C".
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/aetna-says-good-bye-to-obamacare-in-connecticut.html/?a=viewall
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/aetna-says-good-bye-to-obamacare-in-connecticut.html/?a=viewall
cstu
Footballguy
We're getting dropped by Aetna at the end of the year, but I've found prices with other companies are cheaper and include maternity (which used to be a very expensive option).Aetna, who is based in Connecticut, drops out of Connecticut individual market. They are the second insurance carrier to drop out of the Connecticut market. They also dropped out in Maryland. Yeah, more choice for the consumer.....
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/05/aetna-withdraws-connecticut-health-exchange/2619695/
matttyl
Footballguy
They have to include this now, it's an "essential benefit".We're getting dropped by Aetna at the end of the year, but I've found prices with other companies are cheaper and include maternity (which used to be a very expensive option).Aetna, who is based in Connecticut, drops out of Connecticut individual market. They are the second insurance carrier to drop out of the Connecticut market. They also dropped out in Maryland. Yeah, more choice for the consumer.....
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/05/aetna-withdraws-connecticut-health-exchange/2619695/
As for cheaper prices, I believe (and only time will tell) that they will just lead to more of the unhealthy people signing up with that carrier on January 1st and these low rates won't be enough to offset the higher than expected claims they will see. This will lead to higher renewal rates in the future to offset the initial loses. These higher prices will prohibit more younger and healthier people from joining the pool, and lead to more currently insured healthy from dropping the coverage leaving the remaining pool a little bit sicker on average.
You just don't find it odd the a carrier founded in and based in Connecticut can't even remain as an option for people in that state? Or California, or Maryland, or Colorado?
matttyl
Footballguy
Might just happen any day now, and you can start using some other carrier's ###ty coverage, with less options to boot.
snogger
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's hoping. Hopefully the new carrier will actually send my insurance cards and pay for the services they agreed to without having to call and complain....
E Street Brat
Footballguy
Simply incredible
We are a bunch of dopes for allowing these sob's to treat us this way.
and turning around and voting for them time and time again.
Thank you sir, may I have another?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress has won some partial relief for lawmakers and their staffs from the "Obamacare" health reforms that it passed and subjected itself to three years ago.
In a ruling issued on Wednesday, U.S. lawmakers and their staffs will continue to receive a federal contribution toward the health insurance that they must purchase through soon-to-open exchanges created by President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law.
The decision by the Office of Personnel Management, with Obama's blessing, will prevent the largely unintended loss of healthcare benefits for 535 members of the Senate and House of Representatives and thousands of Capitol Hill staff.
When Congress passed the health reform law known as Obamacare in 2010, an amendment required that lawmakers and their staff members purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created. They would lose generous coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
The amendment's author, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, argued that if Obamacare plans were good enough for the American public, they were good enough for Congress. Democrats, eager to pass the reforms, went along with it.
But it soon became apparent the provision contained no language that allowed federal contributions toward their health plans that cover about 75 percent of the premium costs.
This caused fears that staff would suddenly face sharply higher healthcare costs and leave federal service, causing a "brain drain" on Capitol Hill.
But Wednesday's proposed rule from the OPM, the federal government's human resources agency, means that Congress will escape the most onerous impact of law as it was written.
The OPM said the federal contributions will be allowed to continue for exchange-purchased plans for lawmakers and their staffs, ensuring that those working on Capitol Hill will effectively get the same health contributions as millions of other federal workers who keep their current plan.
The problem surrounding the Obamacare language for Capitol Hill staff was the subject of intense negotiations in recent weeks between House and Senate leaders and the Obama administration.
Some Republicans immediately slammed the OPM decision, using it as fuel for their campaign to turn public opinion against Obamacare just as its core provisions are due to go into effect.
"While the administration has handed out waiver after waiver and exemption after exemption for the well-connected in Washington, they have done nothing to lower health care costs for families in Michigan," said Dave Camp, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
Camp said the OPM ruling is the "latest proof" of impending failure for the reforms and pledged that Republicans would keep trying to repeal them.
Last week, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said the language problem would have caused unintended "collateral damage" on congressional staff, causing many to leave for the private sector.
"They are a tremendous intellectual resource, people who could, shall we say, be better compensated financially outside" of government, said Pelosi, who spearheaded passage of the health care law in 2010 as House Speaker.
STILL MUST PURCHASE PLANS
Lawmakers and staff still must purchase plans on the exchanges for coverage that starts in January, OPM said, and they will not be eligible for tax credits to offset premium payments. These credits are the main federal subsidy mechanism for all other health plans purchased through Obamacare exchanges due to open in October. These tax subsidies fall off quickly as income rises.
Tim Jost, a healthcare law expert at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia, said it was probably never Congress' intention to take away federal benefit contributions from Capitol Hill employees, just to push them into them into the exchanges.
"This clarifies what they really intended to do all along," Jost said. "Congress had subjected itself to a requirement that applied to nobody else in the country."
Republican Senator David Vitter vowed to reverse the OPM ruling to ensure that no members of Congress, Capitol Hill staff nor Obama administration appointees get any federal subsidies for health insurance purchased on Obamacare health exchanges.
"These recent maneuverings inside the beltway are precisely why the American people rightly despise Congress," said Vitter, of Louisiana. "Perhaps if White House appointees and Congress have to live under these same Obamacare rules, things would be changed quickly for the better."
We are a bunch of dopes for allowing these sob's to treat us this way.
and turning around and voting for them time and time again.
Thank you sir, may I have another?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress has won some partial relief for lawmakers and their staffs from the "Obamacare" health reforms that it passed and subjected itself to three years ago.
In a ruling issued on Wednesday, U.S. lawmakers and their staffs will continue to receive a federal contribution toward the health insurance that they must purchase through soon-to-open exchanges created by President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law.
The decision by the Office of Personnel Management, with Obama's blessing, will prevent the largely unintended loss of healthcare benefits for 535 members of the Senate and House of Representatives and thousands of Capitol Hill staff.
When Congress passed the health reform law known as Obamacare in 2010, an amendment required that lawmakers and their staff members purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created. They would lose generous coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
The amendment's author, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, argued that if Obamacare plans were good enough for the American public, they were good enough for Congress. Democrats, eager to pass the reforms, went along with it.
But it soon became apparent the provision contained no language that allowed federal contributions toward their health plans that cover about 75 percent of the premium costs.
This caused fears that staff would suddenly face sharply higher healthcare costs and leave federal service, causing a "brain drain" on Capitol Hill.
But Wednesday's proposed rule from the OPM, the federal government's human resources agency, means that Congress will escape the most onerous impact of law as it was written.
The OPM said the federal contributions will be allowed to continue for exchange-purchased plans for lawmakers and their staffs, ensuring that those working on Capitol Hill will effectively get the same health contributions as millions of other federal workers who keep their current plan.
The problem surrounding the Obamacare language for Capitol Hill staff was the subject of intense negotiations in recent weeks between House and Senate leaders and the Obama administration.
Some Republicans immediately slammed the OPM decision, using it as fuel for their campaign to turn public opinion against Obamacare just as its core provisions are due to go into effect.
"While the administration has handed out waiver after waiver and exemption after exemption for the well-connected in Washington, they have done nothing to lower health care costs for families in Michigan," said Dave Camp, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
Camp said the OPM ruling is the "latest proof" of impending failure for the reforms and pledged that Republicans would keep trying to repeal them.
Last week, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said the language problem would have caused unintended "collateral damage" on congressional staff, causing many to leave for the private sector.
"They are a tremendous intellectual resource, people who could, shall we say, be better compensated financially outside" of government, said Pelosi, who spearheaded passage of the health care law in 2010 as House Speaker.
STILL MUST PURCHASE PLANS
Lawmakers and staff still must purchase plans on the exchanges for coverage that starts in January, OPM said, and they will not be eligible for tax credits to offset premium payments. These credits are the main federal subsidy mechanism for all other health plans purchased through Obamacare exchanges due to open in October. These tax subsidies fall off quickly as income rises.
Tim Jost, a healthcare law expert at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia, said it was probably never Congress' intention to take away federal benefit contributions from Capitol Hill employees, just to push them into them into the exchanges.
"This clarifies what they really intended to do all along," Jost said. "Congress had subjected itself to a requirement that applied to nobody else in the country."
Republican Senator David Vitter vowed to reverse the OPM ruling to ensure that no members of Congress, Capitol Hill staff nor Obama administration appointees get any federal subsidies for health insurance purchased on Obamacare health exchanges.
"These recent maneuverings inside the beltway are precisely why the American people rightly despise Congress," said Vitter, of Louisiana. "Perhaps if White House appointees and Congress have to live under these same Obamacare rules, things would be changed quickly for the better."
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I'm not sure I understand your problem with this. Did you miss the phrase "largely unintended" in the article? Congress and staff wouldn't have been under the same rules as everyone else because everyone else's employers have the option of providing health care coverage.
If you don't like your elected representation and you think everyone should vote them all out, fine. That's your right. But anyone who passed Economics 101 can tell you that if you withhold one of the main perks of employment on Capitol Hill, your representation in Congress will likely get worse, not better.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Because most people are smart enough to read the rest of the article and understand the complexity of the issues instead of buying into the mindless pandering found in the quote that constitutes the last paragraph.
matttyl
Footballguy
Most, if not all, of those affected can already get more money working elsewhere, right? Nothing is keeping them there now, and this is what they choose to do. They put in a law that would "benefit" all Americans. Why does it not apply to them?
Joe T
Footballguy
snogger
Footballguy
Yep.. We should all be used to getting
and just move on.. No need to change anything or require change.. If you want Great representatives in Congress like we have right now then just bend over and take it. After all, it's only fair.. 
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
It should apply to them the same way it applies to everyone else. They took the jobs based on part on the fact that the compensation included health care coverage. After passage of the law, other employers were free to decide to provide health care coverage as they chose for their employees. That's exactly what has happened here- the federal government decided, like most large employers, to provide health care coverage for its employees rather than forcing them to obtain coverage on their own. I don't understand why you think that's a problem.
As to the idea that they should just work elsewhere if their compensation package is dramatically altered like you apparently would like to do- sure, that's true I guess. Like all employers, the federal government is entitled to slash compensation drastically with little to no warning, although "entitled" doesn't mean it's fair or just or a good way to run a business or government. I assume you know enough about economics to understand what happens to the quality of the workforce if you dramatically decrease compensation, right?
E Street Brat
Footballguy
Fine I understand your point, but why change it now? They put this language in the bill to get it passed and then after all is said and done they go back and change it. They did the same thing with the employer mandate.
It's a bull#### move.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Explain to me how you're gettingYep.. We should all be used to getting
by this.TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Because it was not the intended consequence of the Grassley amendment, as noted a couple times in the article. OPM is trying to give effect to the intent of the lawmakers. You can play lawyer and argue whether that's technically overstepping their delegated authority if you want, but either way I don't understand why you would possibly care as a citizen and taxpayer.
Similar threads
