snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 16 September 2013, 02:52 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 17,995
D'oh! Congressís Exemption from Obamacare

The Senate may still have a reputation as a genteel club, but lawmakers seemed to abandon rules of decorum completely last week in arguments about whether Congress should be treated like the rest of the country when it comes to Obamacare.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...care-john-fund
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 16 September 2013, 03:49 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,354
Default

Unlike the federal government, my employer is going to continue to insure me after the ACA kicks in. The Grassley provision ensures that Congress is getting treated differently than most Americans with large employers who provide health insurance to some extent.

Grassley and Vitter are prime examples of those in the House of Representatives who are just out to drag this country down so they can blame it on Obama. What a zoo!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 16 September 2013, 03:56 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 19,862
Default

Except Vitter claims (without proof or evidence) that most (all?) employers will quit providing insurance to their employees once the ACA fully kicks in. So, assuming that leap of illogic is true, would mean the rest of it is a valid supposition.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 16 September 2013, 04:02 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,354
Mister Ed

On second thought, calling Congress a zoo is an insult to zoo animals. Sorry, zoo animals!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 16 September 2013, 04:10 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 17,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Except Vitter claims (without proof or evidence) that most (all?) employers will quit providing insurance to their employees once the ACA fully kicks in.
Do you have any cites for Vitter claiming that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
Unlike the federal government, my employer is going to continue to insure me after the ACA kicks in. The Grassley provision ensures that Congress is getting treated differently than most Americans with large employers who provide health insurance to some extent.
Well, that is in some sense true, but there is some sense in having Congress and its staff subjected to the laws it passes. As I understand it, they also were not under the Civil Service rules (because they are not in the executive branch and serve at the pleasure of the Congressmen involved) but placing them under CS rules for employment conditions - other than hiring and firing - might have been a sensible middle ground, more reflective of the fact that they are working for a large employer which has long provided health insurance options for its full-time employees.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 16 September 2013, 04:20 PM
crescent's Avatar
crescent crescent is offline
 
Join Date: 13 August 2008
Location: St. George, UT
Posts: 2,074
Default

I am a little unclear on things here. I have been under the impression that Legislators and their staff have the same insurance plans and options as regular federal employees.

Was I wrong? Is the plan to move the Legislators and staff off of the Federal Health Benefit Plan and make them use Obamacare in the same way someone without employer provided care would need to use it?

Except that now the employer is providing subsidies? So, they were treated like civil service employees, and then they were not, and now they are still not, but in a different way.

Politics is ugly.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 16 September 2013, 05:01 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 19,862
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack View Post
Do you have any cites for Vitter claiming that?
Not in so many words, but that's because of his weaselly definitions. He is saying that no American at the income level of Congress and their staff would get government subsidies for their health care. Except that the government subsidies are really employer subsidies. So, without the weaselly definition, he is suggesting that no American would get employer assistance with their health care.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 16 September 2013, 07:06 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,679
Roll eyes

Typical deliberately misleading headline.

Congress is not, nor are they trying to be, "exempt" from Obamacare. The issue is that a standard benefit the federal government affords its employees (just like many other employers do) is subsidizing their health insurance premiums. Congress simply wants those subsidies to continue for them when they are forced out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and into the insurance exchanges set up by the Affordable Care Act.

It's amusing that when Congress initially wasn't eligible to purchase insurance through the exchanges created by the ACA, critics charged that Congress was "exempt" from Obamacare. Now that members of Congress are required to buy insurance through those exchanges, the same critics are still claiming Congress is "exempt" from Obamacare.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 16 September 2013, 07:19 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 17,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Not in so many words, but that's because of his weaselly definitions. He is saying that no American at the income level of Congress and their staff would get government subsidies for their health care. Except that the government subsidies are really employer subsidies. So, without the weaselly definition, he is suggesting that no American would get employer assistance with their health care.
Nothing weaselly there at all - any person with that level of income who did not get employer part-payment (not a 'subsidy, of course, but part of the compensation package) would be eligible for Obamacare subsidies. There are plenty of people who have incomes at those levels who do not get employer health-insurance payment in the paskage.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 16 September 2013, 07:19 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,354
Default

Because it's political rather than factual. This will keep happening until the ACA is as entrenched as Medicare. Because successful health care reform would be poison to the opposition.

ETA: in reply to snopes' post.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 16 September 2013, 09:24 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 19,862
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack View Post
Nothing weaselly there at all - any person with that level of income who did not get employer part-payment (not a 'subsidy, of course, but part of the compensation package) would be eligible for Obamacare subsidies. There are plenty of people who have incomes at those levels who do not get employer health-insurance payment in the paskage.
He said that people at the specified salary level* would not be eligible for government subsidies. So the salary level he is talking about would have to be above the ACA levels for government subsidies. The level depends on the number of dependents, but a family of 4 would have to make about $94K a year before there is no government cap (which is how the subsidy is applied) on health care costs. It would be a rare salaried job that paid
$94K without some sort of health care. (Or pair of $47K jobs where neither included some sort of health care.)

*Which he never actually specifies.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 16 September 2013, 11:14 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 11,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Except Vitter claims (without proof or evidence) that most (all?) employers will quit providing insurance to their employees once the ACA fully kicks in.
That sounds like one of my coworkers before the ACA passed, and the public option was still part of the proposal. He was convinced that if the ACA passed and included the public option, our employer would use that as an excuse to cut costs by stopping providing us with health insurance without a corresponding increase in our pay. He didn't have any evidence that they would do such a thing, but he "just knew" that they would.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Here's Hoping That Obamacare Is Better Than That Appalling Obamacare Simply Madeline Soapbox Derby 5 27 August 2013 10:09 PM
Library of Congress porn classification snopes NFBSK 3 15 December 2012 07:24 AM
Poster child for what is wrong in Congress snopes Questionable Quotes 0 23 July 2010 04:23 AM
Congress and the IRS htonl Politics 0 03 February 2009 07:32 PM
U.S. Congress banned typewriters? snopes History 5 08 September 2007 09:28 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.