Yet another White House delay for the smelly turd that is Obamacare

This did not happen. Someone is lying to you

 

Sorry Mark, I trust Burgess more than you, lol.

 

The people in the government are employed by a large employer. That is a fact. Employers are mandated to provide health insurance for their employees.

This was a case where a large employer legally was unable to provide any financial support to pay for a premium for its employees. It was a technical screwup when the bill was drafted.

To your point, I agree. The ACA isn't close to perfect and a lot of people aren't getting the help they deserve. I personally am for a single payer but that's me. But that has nothing to do with clarifying a moment of legal limbo for members of Congress and their staff.

 

No skin off my nose.

What democrats asked for was help with subsidies to help pay for MANDATORY inclusion in ACA. Not to opt out of the program.

But believe what you want.

 

No they didnt. Democrats AND Republicans asked for clarification on how the Office of Personnel Management could provide health care for members of Congress and their staff. The OPM then clarified it and said that the government can provide direct financial support to pay for premiums.

There was a bipartisan effort to clarify the OPM's role in providing health care via the exchange. There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise outside. This is Congressman Burgess trying to turn this into a political issue when it isn't.

 

That's just not true. Democrats and some Republicans did ask for the rules to be written to exclude them. What can I say though, you believe your sources, I believe mine. Unless you work in DC and are in those meetings, you have to put your faith behind one party or another. You choose to believe it isn't happening. I believe it is. Grassley himself said Democrats were trying to carve out high-level staffers.

 

When Newt is the most reasonable person in your party, you have a serious problem. As an independent voter, I've been waiting for a republican nominee I could actually vote, but they go farther off the deep end by the second. I sure hope Christie gets the GOP nomination because it will actually give me a choice this upcoming election.

 

Another Neocon. No thanks.

 

If you just did your own research, you'd know better. He's simply lying or misinformed. No one opted out of anything.

You just simply don't understand the technical details of what happened. Congress was put in a ridiculous loophole that made no sense thanks to a badly worded amendment. Members of both parties asked the admin to fix it. They did. End of story.

This has all been widely reported on, details and everything. None of it is sneaky or behind the scenes or anything else.

 

If your sources are the same ones that are giving you lessons on civics and criminal law...you should find better sources.

 

Please explain in detail what policies Christie supports that label him a neocon.

 

You're spinning details here.

Here's how the actual chain of events went.

1st, Congress discovers that the government cannot contribute to paying part of their insurance premiums via the exchange since the government is classified as an employer with over 50 employees.

2nd, some members of Congress (with Democrats and Republicans) propose passing legislation to repeal the requirement that Congress use the exchange in order to allow the federal government to pay for part of their premium. By the letter of the law, a lot of people were convinced that this was the only way to legally get the Feds to help pay for part of their premium.

3rd, a bunch of clowns like Congressman Burgess figure out that this is a good moment to yell about nothing and start complaining that Congress is "opting out" of Obamacare when really they were trying to fix a poorly worded amendment that would have forced a decent number of federal employees to pay for 100% of their insurance out of pocket.

4th, later some people in Congress decide that the politically expedient thing to do is to get the OPM to clarify that it in fact can pay for part of the premiums via the insurance exchange which it later does. This is where we are now.


There was never any opting out of the ACA. There was an attempt to fix the law and force the federal government to conform to the same rules as large employers (i.e. buy into an insurance plan that is not on the exchange) but a bunch of blowhards decided to purposely confuse the issue in order to makeup a nonsensical talking point. Congrats on taking the bait.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324635904578644202946287548.html


Help me understand this better. Are they not trying to carve themselves out so they can continue to receive the same generous subsidies they had been accustomed to?

 

Sorry, but I don't just take your word for it. I read and listen, but just because you say it isn't so, isn't enough to convince me. Give me links, give me proof, I'm willing to listen, but I can't just take some random guy's word for it, no offense.

Your probably right, there is some spinning going on here, but I think it has some basis, and do you really think that Democrats aren't going to spin things right back their way?

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/christie_chronicles/Big-.html

 

Do you consider an employer paying for health care a subsidy? if not, what subsidy are you referring to?

geeimsobored explained it to you about as clearly as can be done.

 

Never has a more false or worse idea been posted in D&D.

Thinking you "have to put your faith" in one of two extremes, as opposed to searching for objective sources and objective information, is a symptom of a national disease. Fight it.

 

My employer pays most of my health insurance premium every month. Am I receiving a generous subsidy that should not exist?

I didn't realize working for the federal government means that you aren't entitled to the same employer funded health care that I get.

 

If the law says if you make more than $174,000 you don't qualify for certain subsidies, and you are rewriting the rules so that they can still receive those subsidies, is that not a carve out? Private business is private business, if THEY want to subsidize your insurance, that's THEIR money. If the government wants to continue subsidizing at a higher level than the rest of the country, it is OUR money.

The law would not have given subsidies to those paid over 174,000. Just like the rest of the country. Why should they now receive subsidies?

Why do you assume I have put my faith into an extreme? On this particular issue, I have been told to my face something, I trust the person, I believe him on this particular issue. Doesn't mean I don't research other sources, or look into the issue myself. But when I get it straight from the buck's mouth, to me, it carries more weight than some writer, or poster on a forum.

Simply saying, no you're wrong, this is what is happening, is not convincing. Not that easy to find objective information these days, everyone has a bias, everyone has a motive. Eventually, you have to put your trust into something. I choose to trust an opposing view than yours. We can discuss our differences, or we can hurl insults at each other (not really talking about you in particular).

 

Because they are having their employer-paid health care taken away. What their employer was paying for their health care is now going to pay for their health care on the exchange. They are getting nothing more than before.

You said:

Are they not trying to carve themselves out so they can continue to receive the same generous subsidies they had been accustomed to?

What is the generous subsidy they were getting and accustomed to?