ObamaCare aka "Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act" (1 Viewer)

[E Street Brat]

Great last paragraph. How are people ok with this?!

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.

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?

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?

Please....

Show me another company that operates with a 17 trillion dollar debt,

You can not compare this government to a normal business.

 

[snogger]

Great last paragraph. How are people ok with this?!

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.

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..

Explain to me how you're getting by this.

I was replying to this little nugget:

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.

In response to this "amendment"...

They should be required to do what they signed into law.. . If it isn't so great for all, then why did they agree to it, only to decide later to wiggle out from under it???

Truth... They agreed to something just to get it passed and now are looking for any way out of it..

Normal Congress and by your own quote we should just take it, otherwise our representation will just get worse.

 

[matttyl]

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?

But it doesn't. They are playing by a different set of rules.

And why is their "compensation packing being dramatically altered"? Seriously, what's changing about it? The fact that they now would have to pay for something they themselves are forcing millions of other Americans to do?

 

[TobiasFunke]

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?

But it doesn't. They are playing by a different set of rules.

And why is their "compensation packing being dramatically altered"? Seriously, what's changing about it? The fact that they now would have to pay for something they themselves are forcing millions of other Americans to do?

.

What's changing about their compensation package? They had health care coverage, and it would have been pulled out from under them but for the OPM ruling.

Millions of other Americans' employers aren't directed by law to stop contributing to their employees' health care coverage. If you don't understand how this is different than what Obamacare requires of most citizens, I think we're done here. I thought you'd had some conversations in this thread that made it seem like you were capable of nuance and looking a little deeper than the usual "I hate Congress and the government" idiot banter. Was that wrong?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Great last paragraph. How are people ok with this?!

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.

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..

Explain to me how you're getting by this.

I was replying to this little nugget:

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.

In response to this "amendment"...

They should be required to do what they signed into law.. . If it isn't so great for all, then why did they agree to it, only to decide later to wiggle out from under it???

Truth... They agreed to something just to get it passed and now are looking for any way out of it..

Normal Congress and by your own quote we should just take it, otherwise our representation will just get worse.

You understand that the Office of Personnel Management is not Congress, right? The "they" you refer to in your post is actually two completely different things.

 

[Go DC Yourself]

Great last paragraph. How are people ok with this?!

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.

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?

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?

Please....

Show me another company that operates with a 17 trillion dollar debt,

You can not compare this any government to a normal business.

Fixed

 

[TobiasFunke]

Great last paragraph. How are people ok with this?!

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.

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?

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?

Please....

Show me another company that operates with a 17 trillion dollar debt,

You can not compare this any government to a normal business.

Fixed

If you really want to fix it, how about making it actually responsive to my post about employer/employee choices and obligations and the market for a talented workforce instead of irrelevant crap?

 

[Go DC Yourself]

Great last paragraph. How are people ok with this?!

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.

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?

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?

Please....

Show me another company that operates with a 17 trillion dollar debt,

You can not compare this any government to a normal business.

Fixed

If you really want to fix it, how about making it actually responsive to my post about employer/employee choices and obligations and the market for a talented workforce instead of irrelevant crap?

Nothing in response, I agree with you there. The guy I was responding to was the one who introduced the irrelevancy to the argument.

 

[matttyl]

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?

But it doesn't. They are playing by a different set of rules.

And why is their "compensation packing being dramatically altered"? Seriously, what's changing about it? The fact that they now would have to pay for something they themselves are forcing millions of other Americans to do?

.

What's changing about their compensation package? They had health care coverage, and it would have been pulled out from under them but for the OPM ruling.

Millions of other Americans' employers aren't directed by law to stop contributing to their employees' health care coverage. If you don't understand how this is different than what Obamacare requires of most citizens, I think we're done here. I thought you'd had some conversations in this thread that made it seem like you were capable of nuance and looking a little deeper than the usual "I hate Congress and the government" idiot banter. Was that wrong?

And completely replaced by the Exchange insurance plans that they themselves signed into law.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Great last paragraph. How are people ok with this?!

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.

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?

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?

Please....

Show me another company that operates with a 17 trillion dollar debt,

You can not compare this any government to a normal business.

Fixed

If you really want to fix it, how about making it actually responsive to my post about employer/employee choices and obligations and the market for a talented workforce instead of irrelevant crap?

Nothing in response, I agree with you there. The guy I was responding to was the one who introduced the irrelevancy to the argument.

Just felt it was easier to respond through your post then going back to the initial worthless post.

We done here, folks? Anyone still think it's a horrible travesty that underpaid Capitol Hill staffers will still receive contributions to health care coverage as part of their compensation package just like most every other employee in America?

 

[TobiasFunke]

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?

But it doesn't. They are playing by a different set of rules.

And why is their "compensation packing being dramatically altered"? Seriously, what's changing about it? The fact that they now would have to pay for something they themselves are forcing millions of other Americans to do?

.

What's changing about their compensation package? They had health care coverage, and it would have been pulled out from under them but for the OPM ruling.

Millions of other Americans' employers aren't directed by law to stop contributing to their employees' health care coverage. If you don't understand how this is different than what Obamacare requires of most citizens, I think we're done here. I thought you'd had some conversations in this thread that made it seem like you were capable of nuance and looking a little deeper than the usual "I hate Congress and the government" idiot banter. Was that wrong?

And completely replaced by the Exchange insurance plans that they themselves signed into law.

From the original article:

STILL MUST PURCHASE PLANSLawmakers 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."

 

[snogger]

I apologize.. I was posting my reply based on a different article, not the one quoted..

here is the story I was reading while I was replying...

White house purposes health care fix for congress

Proposed rules — issued when the halls of Congress are empty for summer recess — say lawmakers' offices should individually decide whether staffers are subject to a health law provision that would require them to switch their insurance from the federal plan to new coverage coming next year under Obama's overhaul.

 

[matttyl]

Just felt it was easier to respond through your post then going back to the initial worthless post.

We done here, folks? Anyone still think it's a horrible travesty that underpaid Capitol Hill staffers will still receive contributions to health care coverage as part of their compensation package just like most every other employee in America?

This is incorrect. Most every other employee in America is not getting "contributions to health care coverage" provided through an individual exchange. It's against the rules to do so.

Direct from opm.gov:

Therefore, the arrangement described is not subject to the rule in the Affordable Care Act that prohibitsan employer from providing a qualified health plan through an Exchange as a benefit under its cafeteria plan.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Just felt it was easier to respond through your post then going back to the initial worthless post.

We done here, folks? Anyone still think it's a horrible travesty that underpaid Capitol Hill staffers will still receive contributions to health care coverage as part of their compensation package just like most every other employee in America?

This is incorrect. Most every other employee in America is not getting "contributions to health care coverage" provided through an individual exchange. It's against the rules to do so.

Direct from opm.gov:

Therefore, the arrangement described is not subject to the rule in the Affordable Care Act that prohibitsan employer from providing a qualified health plan through an Exchange as a benefit under its cafeteria plan.

I guess I missed the part of my post where I said "provided through an individual exchange." Can you highlight that part of my post for me? I'd hate to think you were putting words in my mouth. You're not the kind of person who changes the subject by creating false arguments to dispute instead of admitted you were wrong in your previous post, are you?

Let's make this simple. Explain to me in plain language what you don't like about the OPM proposed rule and why you don't like it. Is it going to cost you a lot of money? Do you think it's somehow unjust or unfair? Let's hear it. Because we've been having this conversation for at least an hour or so now, and I have yet to hear any well-articulated complaint about the proposed rule.

 

[matttyl]

TobiasFunke (great name by the way, love that show), I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all there is to know about the OPM. I've read some article about the situation, most of which are politically motivated, obviously. Most of my research about the ACA has been about the part that will affect the millions of people, not the much smaller part that only affects a few hundred to maybe a few thousand.

If any part of my understanding is wrong, then I do sincerely apologize and I would appreciate an explanation of why it's wrong. My understanding is that when (if) the ACA comes into effect on Jan. 1, many congressional people will lose their ability to be part of the FEHB - either by being ruled ineligible, or being mandated to be part of the individual exchange market (I'm honestly not sure which), or both. This may have been intentional or unintentional, politically motivated or not. Whatever the case, that's the situation. It's a situation that they created. They will still have access to health insurance, though the exchanges that they created. This may not be as nice as the coverage (and their cost for it) that they have now. That will be the case for many Americans, and there is little to nothing that those Americans can do about it. So a new ruling/law/whatever the term is was passed, as a loophole for those people.

I guess my complaint (if all that's in fact the case), is why are they so special that a special rule is made just for themselves - when a similar situation will be happening to many other Americans without the same ability?

 

[TobiasFunke]

TobiasFunke (great name by the way, love that show), I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all there is to know about the OPM. I've read some article about the situation, most of which are politically motivated, obviously. Most of my research about the ACA has been about the part that will affect the millions of people, not the much smaller part that only affects a few hundred to maybe a few thousand.

If any part of my understanding is wrong, then I do sincerely apologize and I would appreciate an explanation of why it's wrong. My understanding is that when (if) the ACA comes into effect on Jan. 1, many congressional people will lose their ability to be part of the FEHB - either by being ruled ineligible, or being mandated to be part of the individual exchange market (I'm honestly not sure which), or both. This may have been intentional or unintentional, politically motivated or not. Whatever the case, that's the situation. It's a situation that they created. They will still have access to health insurance, though the exchanges that they created. This may not be as nice as the coverage (and their cost for it) that they have now. That will be the case for many Americans, and there is little to nothing that those Americans can do about it. So a new ruling/law/whatever the term is was passed, as a loophole for those people.

I guess my complaint (if all that's in fact the case), is why are they so special that a special rule is made just for themselves - when a similar situation will be happening to many other Americans without the same ability?

I think the source of the confusion here is that the notion that members and staff would lose might employer contributions to existing coverage was tied to an amendment specifically directed at them. In other words, we're already dealing a "special rule made just for themselves" by necessity, thanks to the Grassley Amendment. The OPM proposed rule is an interpretation of the legislative intent of that amendment, concluding that the amendment was intended just to push coverage for members and staff towards the same plans available to members of the public on the exchanges, rather than to completely cut off federal government contributions towards their health care costs. You can read the proposed rule here.

The Amendment said members can only obtain coverage via health plans created or offered under the ACA. The OPM proposed rule would clarify that the federal government as employer of members and staff is still free to make contributions to health care coverage as part of a compensation package, just as any other employer can do; it's just that thanks to the Amendment they can only obtain certain kinds of coverage. That part is different from private employers, but it's actually more restrictive.

Like I said before, maybe you disagree with the OPM's interpretation of the language of the Amendment and think that it was intended to completely eliminate health care benefits to members and Staff, or maybe you think they're right, or maybe you don't know. But I don't see why it should matter to citizens. We're talking about a couple thousand people, so there's little to no impact on the budget. And I think it's pretty clearly a good thing to continue to provide health care coverage to members, and especially to staff who work incredibly hard and get paid way less than they're worth. If we stop doing that we're just giving those people yet another reason to abandon public service. I know a lot of those people, and I know that great benefits and the security of knowing they'll continue unabated is a big reason they are willing to work jobs that otherwise don't pay them nearly enough.

 

[matttyl]

That part is different from private employers, but it's actually more restrictive.

The first part is the point I was making earlier (I hope you realize that). And I'm not sure I follow you on the second part. Aren't they eligible for any plan created by the ACA (bronze all the way to platinum)? Wasn't the ACA made to increase choice, not restrict it?

 

[TobiasFunke]

That part is different from private employers, but it's actually more restrictive.

The first part is the point I was making earlier (I hope you realize that). And I'm not sure I follow you on the second part. Aren't they eligible for any plan created by the ACA (bronze all the way to platinum)? Wasn't the ACA made to increase choice, not restrict it?

It doesn't really matter if you think that only being able to choose from ACA plans or more or less restrictive than the options available to employers in the private sector. The real question is - who cares? Why should anyone other than members and staff concern themselves with this? Nobody's getting a special perk or benefit or exemption or anything like that. Members and staff are getting health care coverage as dictated by the Amendment, as interpreted by the proposed rule. So what? What's the complaint? It's been like four hours now, and I still haven't heard a good one. All I've heard is generic anti-government crap with no explanation as to how it's relevant to this situation.

 

[Joe T]

They should be required to do what they signed into law.. . If it isn't so great for all, then why did they agree to it, only to decide later to wiggle out from under it???

Truth... They agreed to something just to get it passed and now are looking for any way out of it..

Normal Congress and by your own quote we should just take it, otherwise our representation will just get worse.

Is Tobias still trying to defend the normal say they'll do one thing and then backtrack and do the exact opposite Congress that we have?

 

[TobiasFunke]

They should be required to do what they signed into law.. . If it isn't so great for all, then why did they agree to it, only to decide later to wiggle out from under it???

Truth... They agreed to something just to get it passed and now are looking for any way out of it..

Normal Congress and by your own quote we should just take it, otherwise our representation will just get worse.

Is Tobias still trying to defend the normal say they'll do one thing and then backtrack and do the exact opposite Congress that we have?

Show me where Congress is "backtracking and doing the exact opposite" here.

Hint- OPM is not Congress.

 

[matttyl]

It doesn't really matter if you think that only being able to choose from ACA plans or more or less restrictive than the options available to employers in the private sector. The real question is - who cares? Why should anyone other than members and staff concern themselves with this? Nobody's getting a special perk or benefit or exemption or anything like that. Members and staff are getting health care coverage as dictated by the Amendment, as interpreted by the proposed rule. So what? What's the complaint? It's been like four hours now, and I still haven't heard a good one. All I've heard is generic anti-government crap with no explanation as to how it's relevant to this situation.

No, that's exactly what they are getting. They are getting a special perk in this situation. Their employer is being allowed to directly fund their employee's participation on a state exchange insurance plan. What other employers are being given that ability?

I would have been better with OPM saying that Congress and staff could remain on the FEHB, personally (if they had that ability).

 

[TobiasFunke]

It doesn't really matter if you think that only being able to choose from ACA plans or more or less restrictive than the options available to employers in the private sector. The real question is - who cares? Why should anyone other than members and staff concern themselves with this? Nobody's getting a special perk or benefit or exemption or anything like that. Members and staff are getting health care coverage as dictated by the Amendment, as interpreted by the proposed rule. So what? What's the complaint? It's been like four hours now, and I still haven't heard a good one. All I've heard is generic anti-government crap with no explanation as to how it's relevant to this situation.

No, that's exactly what they are getting. They are getting a special perk in this situation. Their employer is being allowed to directly fund their employee's participation on a state exchange insurance plan. What other employers are being given that ability?

Why is this a perk? Other employers can directly fund their employees' health care plans. Sure this is different than the options available to private employers because it directs them to a specific set of coverage plans, but IMO it's not really better or worse. This is an amendment by which a key Republican senator who opposed various parts of the ACA at various stages hammered home a point, essentially saying "if you think these exchanges are so great, then use them yourself!" That's a special perk? Really? What's so great about it? And if so, why are you complaining about it now instead of when the Amendment was added by Grassley?

Different? Sure. A perk or special benefit? Not at all.

 

[matttyl]

Well John Q public's employer can not fund his individual exchange insurance plan without it being taxable to John. So yes, it's still a perk. I'm not saying it's a huge one or anything, or anything to get all up in arm about (as opposed to the ACA in general).

It doesn't really matter if you think that only being able to choose from ACA plans or more or less restrictive than the options available to employers in the private sector. The real question is - who cares? Why should anyone other than members and staff concern themselves with this? Nobody's getting a special perk or benefit or exemption or anything like that. Members and staff are getting health care coverage as dictated by the Amendment, as interpreted by the proposed rule. So what? What's the complaint? It's been like four hours now, and I still haven't heard a good one. All I've heard is generic anti-government crap with no explanation as to how it's relevant to this situation.

No, that's exactly what they are getting. They are getting a special perk in this situation. Their employer is being allowed to directly fund their employee's participation on a state exchange insurance plan. What other employers are being given that ability?

Why is this a perk? Other employers can directly fund their employees' health care plans. Sure this is different than the options available to private employers because it directs them to a specific set of coverage plans, but IMO it's not really better or worse. This is an amendment by which a key Republican senator who opposed various parts of the ACA at various stages hammered home a point, essentially saying "if you think these exchanges are so great, then use them yourself!" That's a special perk? Really? What's so great about it? And if so, why are you complaining about it now instead of when the Amendment was added by Grassley?

Different? Sure. A perk or special benefit? Not at all.

Above you said it was more restrictive, now it's "not really better or worse"?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Well John Q public's employer can not fund his individual exchange insurance plan without it being taxable to John. So yes, it's still a perk. I'm not saying it's a huge one or anything, or anything to get all up in arm about (as opposed to the ACA in general).

It doesn't really matter if you think that only being able to choose from ACA plans or more or less restrictive than the options available to employers in the private sector. The real question is - who cares? Why should anyone other than members and staff concern themselves with this? Nobody's getting a special perk or benefit or exemption or anything like that. Members and staff are getting health care coverage as dictated by the Amendment, as interpreted by the proposed rule. So what? What's the complaint? It's been like four hours now, and I still haven't heard a good one. All I've heard is generic anti-government crap with no explanation as to how it's relevant to this situation.

No, that's exactly what they are getting. They are getting a special perk in this situation. Their employer is being allowed to directly fund their employee's participation on a state exchange insurance plan. What other employers are being given that ability?

Why is this a perk? Other employers can directly fund their employees' health care plans. Sure this is different than the options available to private employers because it directs them to a specific set of coverage plans, but IMO it's not really better or worse. This is an amendment by which a key Republican senator who opposed various parts of the ACA at various stages hammered home a point, essentially saying "if you think these exchanges are so great, then use them yourself!" That's a special perk? Really? What's so great about it? And if so, why are you complaining about it now instead of when the Amendment was added by Grassley?

Different? Sure. A perk or special benefit? Not at all.

Above you said it was more restrictive, now it's "not really better or worse"?

If it makes you happy I'll retract the previous statement. Logically it seems more restrictive to me, but I don't know enough about the marketplace to draw that conclusion.

Now that we've addressed your nitpick, let's talk substance. What's the complaint? It's now been well over 4 hours since people started complaining about this, and I have yet to anyone explain why it's a problem with anything beyond "Looks like those clowns in Congress did it again ... what a bunch of clowns."

Do you think the Grassley Amendment was a bad idea? If so, why? And why are you complaining about it now instead of when Grassley pushed for it to be added? Or do you just think the OPM improperly interpreted the intent of the Amendment?

 

[matttyl]

If it makes you happy I'll retract the previous statement. Logically it seems more restrictive to me, but I don't know enough about the marketplace to draw that conclusion.

Now that we've addressed your nitpick, let's talk substance. What's the complaint? It's now been well over 4 hours since people started complaining about this, and I have yet to anyone explain why it's a problem with anything beyond "Looks like those clowns in Congress did it again ... what a bunch of clowns."

Do you think the Grassley Amendment was a bad idea? If so, why? And why are you complaining about it now instead of when Grassley pushed for it to be added? Or do you just think the OPM improperly interpreted the intent of the Amendment?

Great, I got one little victory out of this, at least! As for as not knowing enough about the marketplace, no worries, no one does yet. I've yet to see any plan descriptions or actual set prices for anything. I don't know much about the FEHB as I'm not a part of it, but these staffers will likely have more options on their health insurance menus now, lot less. Choice is good, right? Not even employee will have to "take the plan offered" by their employer, but rather make the decision of what option is best for them personally.

Concerning the Amendment, I think it was a great idea (and that the OPM improperly interpreted it). In fact, I think it should go further than just Congress, it should apply to a lot of large employers as well (as long as we're going through with the ACA). Large employers (like the FEHB) provide a risk-pooling function with their plans and allow more people access to coverage that they may not be able to get personally. If we're going to have ACA plans, they will do the exact same thing on a MUCH larger scale - and likely do so with more options for employees, not less, so younger folks can get more basic "bronze" coverage while older folks or risk averse folks can get more comprehensive coverage.

If Congress wanted to just save the money that would have been spent toward employee coverage on the FEHB and divided it out to employees as income, I wouldn't have any issue with it at all. That's what will likely be done with thousands of other employers, both large and small who will drop their expensive group coverage to allow people the choice of plans on the individual markets.

 

[TobiasFunke]

If it makes you happy I'll retract the previous statement. Logically it seems more restrictive to me, but I don't know enough about the marketplace to draw that conclusion.

Now that we've addressed your nitpick, let's talk substance. What's the complaint? It's now been well over 4 hours since people started complaining about this, and I have yet to anyone explain why it's a problem with anything beyond "Looks like those clowns in Congress did it again ... what a bunch of clowns."

Do you think the Grassley Amendment was a bad idea? If so, why? And why are you complaining about it now instead of when Grassley pushed for it to be added? Or do you just think the OPM improperly interpreted the intent of the Amendment?

Great, I got one little victory out of this, at least! As for as not knowing enough about the marketplace, no worries, no one does yet. I've yet to see any plan descriptions or actual set prices for anything. I don't know much about the FEHB as I'm not a part of it, but these staffers will likely have more options on their health insurance menus now, lot less. Choice is good, right? Not even employee will have to "take the plan offered" by their employer, but rather make the decision of what option is best for them personally.

Concerning the Amendment, I think it was a great idea (and that the OPM improperly interpreted it). In fact, I think it should go further than just Congress, it should apply to a lot of large employers as well (as long as we're going through with the ACA). Large employers (like the FEHB) provide a risk-pooling function with their plans and allow more people access to coverage that they may not be able to get personally. If we're going to have ACA plans, they will do the exact same thing on a MUCH larger scale - and likely do so with more options for employees, not less, so younger folks can get more basic "bronze" coverage while older folks or risk averse folks can get more comprehensive coverage.

If Congress wanted to just save the money that would have been spent toward employee coverage on the FEHB and divided it out to employees as income, I wouldn't have any issue with it at all. That's what will likely be done with thousands of other employers, both large and small who will drop their expensive group coverage to allow people the choice of plans on the individual markets.

Sounds like we arrived at a decent end point, other than minor disagreement about OPM interpretation/application of the Amendment.

My issue was with the people who were reflexively outraged by the news report and agreed with the Vitter quote at the end and wanted to bash all things Congress/feds instead of taking the time to understand what was going on here (and frankly how insignificant it was). Doesn't sound like you fall into that camp based on this post.

FWIW, I'm in FEHB. There's a lot of choice there too. Like I said, it's a major factor in a lot of white collar folks deciding to take pay cuts to work for the government, myself included.

 

[matttyl]

Well I do agree with the quote at the end, which is in a way what I said in my previous post. I think more people making these laws should be a part of these exchanges they are creating (exactly what the Amendment was doing). That is, if we are in fact making these exchanges which is a completely different point altogether. Honestly, I think it should go further and encompass folks in the White House, Department of Health and Human Services, Congressional Budget Office, and others who are making this law.

I think it's very, very important for these people to live under the rules they are creating - and experience first hand the increased costs that the regulations will have. These regulations will force higher premium burdens on millions of currently insured Americans, many who will not qualify for any subsidy and won't get any pay raise from their employer. Again, no issue if the staffers also get a pay raise in lieu of a direct payment to the exchange - and that the pay raise be money that was going to be used for their FEHB premium.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Well I do agree with the quote at the end, which is in a way what I said in my previous post. I think more people making these laws should be a part of these exchanges they are creating (exactly what the Amendment was doing). That is, if we are in fact making these exchanges which is a completely different point altogether. Honestly, I think it should go further and encompass folks in the White House, Department of Health and Human Services, Congressional Budget Office, and others who are making this law.

I think it's very, very important for these people to live under the rules they are creating - and experience first hand the increased costs that the regulations will have. These regulations will force higher premium burdens on millions of currently insured Americans, many who will not qualify for any subsidy and won't get any pay raise from their employer. Again, no issue if the staffers also get a pay raise in lieu of a direct payment to the exchange - and that the pay raise be money that was going to be used for their FEHB premium.

Vitter made the same bizarre mistake that many people here made- confusing action by OPM with action by Congress. And the question of whether people are subject to the exchanges is a completely different question than whether the feds can subsidize health care like other large scale employers.

How do you think they're not "living under the rules they're creating"? The federal government is an employer just like any other. With the exception of members and staff being funneled to the exchanges (which you said you approve of), it gives its employees a range of choices of coverage and subsidizes those costs. Same as most everyone else who works for a big company

BTW I don't understand why you care if $ goes to FEHB premiums or is added to salary. It's all the same to the taxpayer. And eliminating FEHB would require a huge overhaul of other federal employment laws, including caps on salaries, and create a short-term bureaucratic nightmare. Why?

 

[MaxThreshold]

"Affordable Care Act"...this still cracks me up.

 

[matttyl]

I meant money either going from feds to exchange on behalf of employee (which required the OPM action, aka backdoor loophole) or money going from feds to employee directly as income which is taxable which is in fact what many companies currently do and will continue to do (those who don't offer a plan). I don't like the idea of congress having this "backdoor loophole" that other employers/employees (who don't have group coverage) don't have access to.

If these employees are part of the FEHB, then they aren't "living under the rules they're creating" (exchange plans). That's what the Amendment was for. I totally agree with the Amendment, and think it should have been more far-reaching. I don't agree with the OPM action allowing for this backdoor funding.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I meant money either going from feds to exchange on behalf of employee (which required the OPM action, aka backdoor loophole) or money going from feds to employee directly as income which is taxable which is in fact what many companies currently do and will continue to do (those who don't offer a plan). I don't like the idea of congress having this "backdoor loophole" that other employers/employees (who don't have group coverage) don't have access to.

If these employees are part of the FEHB, then they aren't "living under the rules they're creating" (exchange plans). That's what the Amendment was for. I totally agree with the Amendment, and think it should have been more far-reaching. I don't agree with the OPM action allowing for this backdoor funding.

So you believe that federal employees should be forced into the exchanges, even though private sector folks aren't?

 

[MaxThreshold]

I meant money either going from feds to exchange on behalf of employee (which required the OPM action, aka backdoor loophole) or money going from feds to employee directly as income which is taxable which is in fact what many companies currently do and will continue to do (those who don't offer a plan). I don't like the idea of congress having this "backdoor loophole" that other employers/employees (who don't have group coverage) don't have access to.

If these employees are part of the FEHB, then they aren't "living under the rules they're creating" (exchange plans). That's what the Amendment was for. I totally agree with the Amendment, and think it should have been more far-reaching. I don't agree with the OPM action allowing for this backdoor funding.

So you believe that federal employees should be forced into the exchanges, even though private sector folks aren't?

If you think private sectors employees won't be forced into the exchanges then you're more clueless than we all originally thought.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I meant money either going from feds to exchange on behalf of employee (which required the OPM action, aka backdoor loophole) or money going from feds to employee directly as income which is taxable which is in fact what many companies currently do and will continue to do (those who don't offer a plan). I don't like the idea of congress having this "backdoor loophole" that other employers/employees (who don't have group coverage) don't have access to.

If these employees are part of the FEHB, then they aren't "living under the rules they're creating" (exchange plans). That's what the Amendment was for. I totally agree with the Amendment, and think it should have been more far-reaching. I don't agree with the OPM action allowing for this backdoor funding.

So you believe that federal employees should be forced into the exchanges, even though private sector folks aren't?

If you think private sectors employees won't be forced into the exchanges then you're more clueless than we all originally thought.

Why would private sector employers be forced into using exchanges? Don't they have a choice?

 

[MaxThreshold]

I meant money either going from feds to exchange on behalf of employee (which required the OPM action, aka backdoor loophole) or money going from feds to employee directly as income which is taxable which is in fact what many companies currently do and will continue to do (those who don't offer a plan). I don't like the idea of congress having this "backdoor loophole" that other employers/employees (who don't have group coverage) don't have access to.

If these employees are part of the FEHB, then they aren't "living under the rules they're creating" (exchange plans). That's what the Amendment was for. I totally agree with the Amendment, and think it should have been more far-reaching. I don't agree with the OPM action allowing for this backdoor funding.

So you believe that federal employees should be forced into the exchanges, even though private sector folks aren't?

If you think private sectors employees won't be forced into the exchanges then you're more clueless than we all originally thought.

Why would private sector employers be forced into using exchanges? Don't they have a choice?

Think about it for a second. If it's cheaper to pay the fine then where are the employees forced to go for Health Care?

 

[tommyGunZ]

I meant money either going from feds to exchange on behalf of employee (which required the OPM action, aka backdoor loophole) or money going from feds to employee directly as income which is taxable which is in fact what many companies currently do and will continue to do (those who don't offer a plan). I don't like the idea of congress having this "backdoor loophole" that other employers/employees (who don't have group coverage) don't have access to.

If these employees are part of the FEHB, then they aren't "living under the rules they're creating" (exchange plans). That's what the Amendment was for. I totally agree with the Amendment, and think it should have been more far-reaching. I don't agree with the OPM action allowing for this backdoor funding.

So you believe that federal employees should be forced into the exchanges, even though private sector folks aren't?

If you think private sectors employees won't be forced into the exchanges then you're more clueless than we all originally thought.

Why would private sector employers be forced into using exchanges? Don't they have a choice?

Think about it for a second. If it's cheaper to pay the fine then where are the employees forced to go for Health Care?

A private health care company?

 

[matttyl]

I meant money either going from feds to exchange on behalf of employee (which required the OPM action, aka backdoor loophole) or money going from feds to employee directly as income which is taxable which is in fact what many companies currently do and will continue to do (those who don't offer a plan). I don't like the idea of congress having this "backdoor loophole" that other employers/employees (who don't have group coverage) don't have access to.

If these employees are part of the FEHB, then they aren't "living under the rules they're creating" (exchange plans). That's what the Amendment was for. I totally agree with the Amendment, and think it should have been more far-reaching. I don't agree with the OPM action allowing for this backdoor funding.

So you believe that federal employees should be forced into the exchanges, even though private sector folks aren't?

Yes, I do.

 

[matttyl]

I meant money either going from feds to exchange on behalf of employee (which required the OPM action, aka backdoor loophole) or money going from feds to employee directly as income which is taxable which is in fact what many companies currently do and will continue to do (those who don't offer a plan). I don't like the idea of congress having this "backdoor loophole" that other employers/employees (who don't have group coverage) don't have access to.

If these employees are part of the FEHB, then they aren't "living under the rules they're creating" (exchange plans). That's what the Amendment was for. I totally agree with the Amendment, and think it should have been more far-reaching. I don't agree with the OPM action allowing for this backdoor funding.

So you believe that federal employees should be forced into the exchanges, even though private sector folks aren't?

If you think private sectors employees won't be forced into the exchanges then you're more clueless than we all originally thought.

Why would private sector employers be forced into using exchanges? Don't they have a choice?

Think about it for a second. If it's cheaper to pay the fine then where are the employees forced to go for Health Care?

A private health care company?

Who now has to sell plans inside of the exchange.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I meant money either going from feds to exchange on behalf of employee (which required the OPM action, aka backdoor loophole) or money going from feds to employee directly as income which is taxable which is in fact what many companies currently do and will continue to do (those who don't offer a plan). I don't like the idea of congress having this "backdoor loophole" that other employers/employees (who don't have group coverage) don't have access to.

If these employees are part of the FEHB, then they aren't "living under the rules they're creating" (exchange plans). That's what the Amendment was for. I totally agree with the Amendment, and think it should have been more far-reaching. I don't agree with the OPM action allowing for this backdoor funding.

So you believe that federal employees should be forced into the exchanges, even though private sector folks aren't?

Yes, I do.

Why?

 

[matttyl]

I meant money either going from feds to exchange on behalf of employee (which required the OPM action, aka backdoor loophole) or money going from feds to employee directly as income which is taxable which is in fact what many companies currently do and will continue to do (those who don't offer a plan). I don't like the idea of congress having this "backdoor loophole" that other employers/employees (who don't have group coverage) don't have access to.

If these employees are part of the FEHB, then they aren't "living under the rules they're creating" (exchange plans). That's what the Amendment was for. I totally agree with the Amendment, and think it should have been more far-reaching. I don't agree with the OPM action allowing for this backdoor funding.

So you believe that federal employees should be forced into the exchanges, even though private sector folks aren't?

Yes, I do.

Why?

First off all, I only say this with the prior assumtion that the ACA, the way it's currently structured will be put in place (which I believe you already know my feelings about).

They are the ones creating the laws which will cause millions of Americans to "be forced into the exchanges" against their will, why are they different? Many business, both large and small, as well as self employed people will have to do the same and "force" their employees onto the exchange as well (actually they aren't forcing anything, the government is forcing them).

If you don't feel they should obtain coverage through an exchange, why not? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm sure you're answer would be something like "well, they already have affordable insurance available to them through their current plan." Well, so do millions of currently insured Americans today, but their choice is being taken away.

EDIT - Further, as long as we're going to go forward with the ACA the way it is, more than just federal employees should be forced into the exchanges. After all, these things will only work is everyone participates, right?

 

[MaxThreshold]

I meant money either going from feds to exchange on behalf of employee (which required the OPM action, aka backdoor loophole) or money going from feds to employee directly as income which is taxable which is in fact what many companies currently do and will continue to do (those who don't offer a plan). I don't like the idea of congress having this "backdoor loophole" that other employers/employees (who don't have group coverage) don't have access to.

If these employees are part of the FEHB, then they aren't "living under the rules they're creating" (exchange plans). That's what the Amendment was for. I totally agree with the Amendment, and think it should have been more far-reaching. I don't agree with the OPM action allowing for this backdoor funding.

So you believe that federal employees should be forced into the exchanges, even though private sector folks aren't?

Yes, I do.

Why?

First off all, I only say this with the prior assumtion that the ACA, the way it's currently structured will be put in place (which I believe you already know my feelings about).

They are the ones creating the laws which will cause millions of Americans to "be forced into the exchanges" against their will, why are they different? Many business, both large and small, as well as self employed people will have to do the same and "force" their employees onto the exchange as well (actually they aren't forcing anything, the government is forcing them).

If you don't feel they should obtain coverage through an exchange, why not? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm sure you're answer would be something like "well, they already have affordable insurance available to them through their current plan." Well, so do millions of currently insured Americans today, but their choice is being taken away.

EDIT - Further, as long as we're going to go forward with the ACA the way it is, more than just federal employees should be forced into the exchanges. After all, these things will only work is everyone participates, right?

If this law is so #######ed good, then why is everyone and their brother trying to get an exemption? And why aren't the people who actually crafted the law putting themselves on it?

Doesn't anyone find it the least bit suspicious that the same people who pushed and voted for this law (this goes for all you who voted for Obama) are the same ones who are now trying to find ways to get themselves exempt?

 

[timschochet]

So, based on reading the analysis that matttyl posted on the last page (in which even liberal analysts noted that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is too small), what we're left with is this: Obamacare only works, theoretically, if everyone has to get insurance. That's the only way it can pay for itself. But the government can't possibly force everyone to get insurance. Even if the law is on the books, there's no means to enforce it. And let's face it: the government doesn't really WANT to enforce it, because they're terrified of the backlash.

So what we have is a program which has already provided many new benefits for lots of people- and the rest of us are going to have to pay more and be hit with onerous new rules and regulations. But we'll never get rid of it now. It's too late. And while the next logical step would be to go to single payer, I'll doubt we'll ever get there, because there are enough conservatives to always prevent that from happening.

So we're stuck. We will be worse off than we are before.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So, based on reading the analysis that matttyl posted on the last page (in which even liberal analysts noted that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is too small), what we're left with is this: Obamacare only works, theoretically, if everyone has to get insurance. That's the only way it can pay for itself. But the government can't possibly force everyone to get insurance. Even if the law is on the books, there's no means to enforce it. And let's face it: the government doesn't really WANT to enforce it, because they're terrified of the backlash.

So what we have is a program which has already provided many new benefits for lots of people- and the rest of us are going to have to pay more and be hit with onerous new rules and regulations. But we'll never get rid of it now. It's too late. And while the next logical step would be to go to single payer, I'll doubt we'll ever get there, because there are enough conservatives to always prevent that from happening.

So we're stuck. We will be worse off than we are before.

Who is we? Are the 30M who are now covered worse off than before?

 

[tommyGunZ]

I meant money either going from feds to exchange on behalf of employee (which required the OPM action, aka backdoor loophole) or money going from feds to employee directly as income which is taxable which is in fact what many companies currently do and will continue to do (those who don't offer a plan). I don't like the idea of congress having this "backdoor loophole" that other employers/employees (who don't have group coverage) don't have access to.

If these employees are part of the FEHB, then they aren't "living under the rules they're creating" (exchange plans). That's what the Amendment was for. I totally agree with the Amendment, and think it should have been more far-reaching. I don't agree with the OPM action allowing for this backdoor funding.

So you believe that federal employees should be forced into the exchanges, even though private sector folks aren't?

Yes, I do.

Why?

First off all, I only say this with the prior assumtion that the ACA, the way it's currently structured will be put in place (which I believe you already know my feelings about).

They are the ones creating the laws which will cause millions of Americans to "be forced into the exchanges" against their will, why are they different? Many business, both large and small, as well as self employed people will have to do the same and "force" their employees onto the exchange as well (actually they aren't forcing anything, the government is forcing them).

If you don't feel they should obtain coverage through an exchange, why not? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm sure you're answer would be something like "well, they already have affordable insurance available to them through their current plan." Well, so do millions of currently insured Americans today, but their choice is being taken away.

EDIT - Further, as long as we're going to go forward with the ACA the way it is, more than just federal employees should be forced into the exchanges. After all, these things will only work is everyone participates, right?

If this law is so #######ed good, then why is everyone and their brother trying to get an exemption? And why aren't the people who actually crafted the law putting themselves on it?

Doesn't anyone find it the least bit suspicious that the same people who pushed and voted for this law (this goes for all you who voted for Obama) are the same ones who are now trying to find ways to get themselves exempt?

Oof.

 

[timschochet]

So, based on reading the analysis that matttyl posted on the last page (in which even liberal analysts noted that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is too small), what we're left with is this: Obamacare only works, theoretically, if everyone has to get insurance. That's the only way it can pay for itself. But the government can't possibly force everyone to get insurance. Even if the law is on the books, there's no means to enforce it. And let's face it: the government doesn't really WANT to enforce it, because they're terrified of the backlash.

So what we have is a program which has already provided many new benefits for lots of people- and the rest of us are going to have to pay more and be hit with onerous new rules and regulations. But we'll never get rid of it now. It's too late. And while the next logical step would be to go to single payer, I'll doubt we'll ever get there, because there are enough conservatives to always prevent that from happening.

So we're stuck. We will be worse off than we are before.

Who is we? Are the 30M who are now covered worse off than before?

No they are not. When I used the word "we" I was referring to those of us who already have insurance. We will have it worse, not mainly because of those 30 million, but because of the elimination of higher costs for pre-existing conditions. You can't expect to get something for nothing. Somebody's got to pay for it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So, based on reading the analysis that matttyl posted on the last page (in which even liberal analysts noted that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is too small), what we're left with is this: Obamacare only works, theoretically, if everyone has to get insurance. That's the only way it can pay for itself. But the government can't possibly force everyone to get insurance. Even if the law is on the books, there's no means to enforce it. And let's face it: the government doesn't really WANT to enforce it, because they're terrified of the backlash.

So what we have is a program which has already provided many new benefits for lots of people- and the rest of us are going to have to pay more and be hit with onerous new rules and regulations. But we'll never get rid of it now. It's too late. And while the next logical step would be to go to single payer, I'll doubt we'll ever get there, because there are enough conservatives to always prevent that from happening.

So we're stuck. We will be worse off than we are before.

Who is we? Are the 30M who are now covered worse off than before?

No they are not. When I used the word "we" I was referring to those of us who already have insurance. We will have it worse, not mainly because of those 30 million, but because of the elimination of higher costs for pre-existing conditions. You can't expect to get something for nothing. Somebody's got to pay for it.

You ever had any immediate family members in poor health tim? Did they get good care?

 

[timschochet]

So, based on reading the analysis that matttyl posted on the last page (in which even liberal analysts noted that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is too small), what we're left with is this: Obamacare only works, theoretically, if everyone has to get insurance. That's the only way it can pay for itself. But the government can't possibly force everyone to get insurance. Even if the law is on the books, there's no means to enforce it. And let's face it: the government doesn't really WANT to enforce it, because they're terrified of the backlash.

So what we have is a program which has already provided many new benefits for lots of people- and the rest of us are going to have to pay more and be hit with onerous new rules and regulations. But we'll never get rid of it now. It's too late. And while the next logical step would be to go to single payer, I'll doubt we'll ever get there, because there are enough conservatives to always prevent that from happening.

So we're stuck. We will be worse off than we are before.

Who is we? Are the 30M who are now covered worse off than before?

No they are not. When I used the word "we" I was referring to those of us who already have insurance. We will have it worse, not mainly because of those 30 million, but because of the elimination of higher costs for pre-existing conditions. You can't expect to get something for nothing. Somebody's got to pay for it.

You ever had any immediate family members in poor health tim? Did they get good care?

Yes. Most did, because we are lucky and well off in my family.

There is, however, one exception: my grandmother was mentally ill for about 20 years. Because of mental health laws imposed by then Governor Reagan, there was no way to keep her cared for without her consent. She wandered away and there were months at a time when we couldn't find her. She died on a park bench in downtown Los Angeles.

That experience happened when I was a teenager, and it seared me for life. I never want to see ANYONE without adequate health care. In that, your goals and mine are exactly the same. But we disagree on whether or not Obamacare is the best way to achieve this. I honestly don't think it is.

 

[drummer]

So, based on reading the analysis that matttyl posted on the last page (in which even liberal analysts noted that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is too small), what we're left with is this: Obamacare only works, theoretically, if everyone has to get insurance. That's the only way it can pay for itself. But the government can't possibly force everyone to get insurance. Even if the law is on the books, there's no means to enforce it. And let's face it: the government doesn't really WANT to enforce it, because they're terrified of the backlash.

So what we have is a program which has already provided many new benefits for lots of people- and the rest of us are going to have to pay more and be hit with onerous new rules and regulations. But we'll never get rid of it now. It's too late. And while the next logical step would be to go to single payer, I'll doubt we'll ever get there, because there are enough conservatives to always prevent that from happening.

So we're stuck. We will be worse off than we are before.

Who is we? Are the 30M who are now covered worse off than before?

No they are not. When I used the word "we" I was referring to those of us who already have insurance. We will have it worse, not mainly because of those 30 million, but because of the elimination of higher costs for pre-existing conditions. You can't expect to get something for nothing. Somebody's got to pay for it.

You ever had any immediate family members in poor health tim? Did they get good care?

Yes. Most did, because we are lucky and well off in my family.

There is, however, one exception: my grandmother was mentally ill for about 20 years. Because of mental health laws imposed by then Governor Reagan, there was no way to keep her cared for without her consent. She wandered away and there were months at a time when we couldn't find her. She died on a park bench in downtown Los Angeles.

That experience happened when I was a teenager, and it seared me for life. I never want to see ANYONE without adequate health care. In that, your goals and mine are exactly the same. But we disagree on whether or not Obamacare is the best way to achieve this. I honestly don't think it is.

That's horrible. Sorry for your loss.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So, based on reading the analysis that matttyl posted on the last page (in which even liberal analysts noted that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is too small), what we're left with is this: Obamacare only works, theoretically, if everyone has to get insurance. That's the only way it can pay for itself. But the government can't possibly force everyone to get insurance. Even if the law is on the books, there's no means to enforce it. And let's face it: the government doesn't really WANT to enforce it, because they're terrified of the backlash.

So what we have is a program which has already provided many new benefits for lots of people- and the rest of us are going to have to pay more and be hit with onerous new rules and regulations. But we'll never get rid of it now. It's too late. And while the next logical step would be to go to single payer, I'll doubt we'll ever get there, because there are enough conservatives to always prevent that from happening.

So we're stuck. We will be worse off than we are before.

Who is we? Are the 30M who are now covered worse off than before?

No they are not. When I used the word "we" I was referring to those of us who already have insurance. We will have it worse, not mainly because of those 30 million, but because of the elimination of higher costs for pre-existing conditions. You can't expect to get something for nothing. Somebody's got to pay for it.

You ever had any immediate family members in poor health tim? Did they get good care?

Yes. Most did, because we are lucky and well off in my family.

There is, however, one exception: my grandmother was mentally ill for about 20 years. Because of mental health laws imposed by then Governor Reagan, there was no way to keep her cared for without her consent. She wandered away and there were months at a time when we couldn't find her. She died on a park bench in downtown Los Angeles.

That experience happened when I was a teenager, and it seared me for life. I never want to see ANYONE without adequate health care. In that, your goals and mine are exactly the same. But we disagree on whether or not Obamacare is the best way to achieve this. I honestly don't think it is.

Sorry about your g-mom tim. That's horrible. Reagan's a #####.

I don't think Obamacare is the best way to get EVERYONE covered - single payer is. But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

 

[Mark Davis]

So, based on reading the analysis that matttyl posted on the last page (in which even liberal analysts noted that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is too small), what we're left with is this: Obamacare only works, theoretically, if everyone has to get insurance. That's the only way it can pay for itself. But the government can't possibly force everyone to get insurance. Even if the law is on the books, there's no means to enforce it. And let's face it: the government doesn't really WANT to enforce it, because they're terrified of the backlash.

So what we have is a program which has already provided many new benefits for lots of people- and the rest of us are going to have to pay more and be hit with onerous new rules and regulations. But we'll never get rid of it now. It's too late. And while the next logical step would be to go to single payer, I'll doubt we'll ever get there, because there are enough conservatives to always prevent that from happening.

So we're stuck. We will be worse off than we are before.

Who is we? Are the 30M who are now covered worse off than before?

No they are not. When I used the word "we" I was referring to those of us who already have insurance. We will have it worse, not mainly because of those 30 million, but because of the elimination of higher costs for pre-existing conditions. You can't expect to get something for nothing. Somebody's got to pay for it.

Surely this isn't just coming into focus for people. And it's true, once you have a large entitlement you can never be rid of it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So, based on reading the analysis that matttyl posted on the last page (in which even liberal analysts noted that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is too small), what we're left with is this: Obamacare only works, theoretically, if everyone has to get insurance. That's the only way it can pay for itself. But the government can't possibly force everyone to get insurance. Even if the law is on the books, there's no means to enforce it. And let's face it: the government doesn't really WANT to enforce it, because they're terrified of the backlash.

So what we have is a program which has already provided many new benefits for lots of people- and the rest of us are going to have to pay more and be hit with onerous new rules and regulations. But we'll never get rid of it now. It's too late. And while the next logical step would be to go to single payer, I'll doubt we'll ever get there, because there are enough conservatives to always prevent that from happening.

So we're stuck. We will be worse off than we are before.

Who is we? Are the 30M who are now covered worse off than before?

No they are not. When I used the word "we" I was referring to those of us who already have insurance. We will have it worse, not mainly because of those 30 million, but because of the elimination of higher costs for pre-existing conditions. You can't expect to get something for nothing. Somebody's got to pay for it.

Surely this isn't just coming into focus for people. And it's true, once you have a large entitlement you can never be rid of it.

Increasing the amount of people who have access to adequate health care should be something we all want, and hopefully something we never get rid of.