"Obamacare"

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I missed the slide where the president arbitrarily decides whether or not to enforce then law.  That's a critical element in today's "democracy"

Also, where are the slides talking about the bribes, coercion, and procedural maneuvering required to pass the law in the first place on a pure party-line vote? Oh, that doesn't fit the "moderate" narrative. Carry on.

[Dugout DickStone]

I don't like Obamacare.  It's definitely a part of this admin trying to leave some legacy by sacrificing a system that has flaws but mostly works.  But, win an election, repeal it.  Is that so hard? 

I dislike the "let them eat cake" shellshock theory.  It's stupid, and isn't even realistic. 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

FWIW, the let them eat cake analogy more closely aligns with the congress exempting themselves from the bullshit law. Shell shocks is more of the 'dog eat dog' method.


On the continuum of dog eat dog and no accountability spectrum, I'm leaning hard dog eat dog.

[Dugout DickStone]

FWIW, the let them eat cake analogy more closely aligns with the congress exempting themselves from the bullshit law. Shell shocks is more of the 'dog eat dog' method.


On the continuum of dog eat dog and no accountability spectrum, I'm leaning hard dog eat dog.

I couldn't agree more.  It's shocking in its audacity that congress and the labor unions are exempt.

The main reason I'm thinking obamacare has to go.

[kim carnes]

FWIW, the let them eat cake analogy more closely aligns with the congress exempting themselves from the bullshit law. Shell shocks is more of the 'dog eat dog' method.


On the continuum of dog eat dog and no accountability spectrum, I'm leaning hard dog eat dog.

I couldn't agree more.  It's shocking in its audacity that congress and the labor unions are exempt.

The main reason I'm thinking obamacare has to go.

wait, labor unions are exempt?

[Dugout DickStone]

FWIW, the let them eat cake analogy more closely aligns with the congress exempting themselves from the bullshit law. Shell shocks is more of the 'dog eat dog' method.


On the continuum of dog eat dog and no accountability spectrum, I'm leaning hard dog eat dog.

I couldn't agree more.  It's shocking in its audacity that congress and the labor unions are exempt.

The main reason I'm thinking obamacare has to go.

wait, labor unions are exempt?

Talking point I read on here.  If wrong, my bad.  I didn't research it so mea culpa if I'm wrong.

[sys]

Talking point I read on here.  If wrong, my bad.  I didn't research it so mea culpa if I'm wrong.

congress isn't exempt either.

[Dugout DickStone]

Talking point I read on here.  If wrong, my bad.  I didn't research it so mea culpa if I'm wrong.

congress isn't exempt either.

Well crap.  To the google!

[Dugout DickStone]

FWIW, the let them eat cake analogy more closely aligns with the congress exempting themselves from the bullshit law. Shell shocks is more of the 'dog eat dog' method.


On the continuum of dog eat dog and no accountability spectrum, I'm leaning hard dog eat dog.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and Congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an Amendment made by this Act).”

[EMAWmeister]

FWIW, the let them eat cake analogy more closely aligns with the congress exempting themselves from the bullshit law. Shell shocks is more of the 'dog eat dog' method.


On the continuum of dog eat dog and no accountability spectrum, I'm leaning hard dog eat dog.

It's shocking in its audacity that congress and the labor unions are exempt.

Yes. That is complete bullshit.  I think that's what (reasonable) 'pubs are upset about.  The Tea Partiers just don't want to pass anything President Darkface is connected to, and will ramble on using all of their patriotic buzzwords to explain why it is so bad.

[p1k3]

isn't half of Nancy Pelosi's district exempt too? Must be nice.

[Dugout DickStone]

FWIW, the let them eat cake analogy more closely aligns with the congress exempting themselves from the bullshit law. Shell shocks is more of the 'dog eat dog' method.


On the continuum of dog eat dog and no accountability spectrum, I'm leaning hard dog eat dog.

It's shocking in its audacity that congress and the labor unions are exempt.

Yes. That is complete bullshit.  I think that's what (reasonable) 'pubs are upset about.  The Tea Partiers just don't want to pass anything President Darkface is connected to, and will ramble on using all of their patriotic buzzwords to explain why it is so bad.

Except that I was totally mistaken.

[Dugout DickStone]

It takes a pretty big man to admit when he is wrong, and I'm just that big of a man.

[EMAWmeister]

It takes a pretty big man to admit when he is wrong, and I'm just that big of a man.

Touche. But my point about the tea party stands.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

It takes a pretty big man to admit when he is wrong, and I'm just that big of a man.

Touche. But my point about the tea party stands.

All you said was that the tea party is racist, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). 

The other groups aren't "exempt", they just have their own set of rules or waivers from the law's requirements.

Which is bullshit.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

FWIW, the let them eat cake analogy more closely aligns with the congress exempting themselves from the bullshit law. Shell shocks is more of the 'dog eat dog' method.


On the continuum of dog eat dog and no accountability spectrum, I'm leaning hard dog eat dog.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and Congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an Amendment made by this Act).”

No Limestone, you weren't wrong. The argument just comes down to the meaning of "exempt." There is no question that Obama threw Congress a lifeline, via a rule from his Office of Personnel Management, that allowed members of Congress and their staff to keep the generous subsidies they receive for healthcare, despite the fact that these subsidies are not available for anyone else enrolling in Obamacare, and despite the fact that the intent of the provision you cite above was to ensure that Congress put their money where their mouth was: if Obamacare was good enough for the rest of the country, it should be good enough for members of Congress. So absolutely the President gave Congress special protection from Obamacare, allowing them to keep their generous subsidies, whether you call that "exempt" or not. This USA Today article provides a fairly balanced explanation of what happened.

[EMAWmeister]

It takes a pretty big man to admit when he is wrong, and I'm just that big of a man.

Touche. But my point about the tea party stands.

All you said was that the tea party is racist, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). 

The other groups aren't "exempt", they just have their own set of rules or waivers from the law's requirements.

Which is bullshit.

The Tea Party wants to prevent Obama from having any kind of legacy.  They embarrass the right wing.

[michigancat]

The whole "congress is exempt" thing is an insanely stupid game played by both sides. The democratic congresspeople that decided to embrace this nonsense deservedly look like complete turds, but the nimrods that made the amendment were equally stupid for not specifying how it would be paid.

Additionally stupidity is the fact that Republican argument is basically, "Obamacare should be providing EVEN BETTER AND MORE EXPENSIVE coverage, or provide the same coverage for cheaper".

[chum1]

No one is required to have an Obamacare plan.  There are many other healthcare plans to choose from.  And Congress is the only group whose employer's healthcare benefit options are limited to Obamacare plans.  So, to say that Congress is exempt from Obamacare - especially with an implication that others are not - is more than a little misguided.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It's really quite simple. Congress passed a provision requiring all members of Congress and their staff to buy their health insurance from the Obamacare exchanges. They do so, but due to a subsequent rule issued by the Obama Admin, they receive much more generous subsidies than anyone else forced to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Nobody else with equivalent income would ever be entitled to such subsidies, let alone any subsidies at all, when purchasing from the exchanges.

Thus, members of Congress and their staff are not required to purchase insurance from the exchanges on the same terms as everyone else, which was the whole intent of the provision in the first place. So to argue that members of Congress and their staff are not receiving special protection is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). If that were not the case, then why did the Obama Admin issue the rule in the first place?

[chum1]

It's really quite simple. Congress passed a provision requiring all members of Congress and their staff to buy their health insurance from the Obamacare exchanges. They do so, but due to a subsequent rule issued by the Obama Admin, they receive much more generous subsidies than anyone else forced to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Nobody else with equivalent income would ever be entitled to such subsidies, let alone any subsidies at all, when purchasing from the exchanges.

Thus, members of Congress and their staff are not required to purchase insurance from the exchanges on the same terms as everyone else, which was the whole intent of the provision in the first place. So to argue that members of Congress and their staff are not receiving special protection is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). If that were not the case, then why did the Obama Admin issue the rule in the first place?

The problem with this criticism is that the rest of the country won't have Obamacare plans.  Overall, not that many people will.  And the people who will certainly won't have incomes similar to those in Congress.  It is similar to saying, "If Congress thinks that Medicaid is good enough for the rest of the country, then Congress should have Medicaid."

[Headinjun]

It's really quite simple. Congress passed a provision requiring all members of Congress and their staff to buy their health insurance from the Obamacare exchanges. They do so, but due to a subsequent rule issued by the Obama Admin, they receive much more generous subsidies than anyone else forced to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Nobody else with equivalent income would ever be entitled to such subsidies, let alone any subsidies at all, when purchasing from the exchanges.

Thus, members of Congress and their staff are not required to purchase insurance from the exchanges on the same terms as everyone else, which was the whole intent of the provision in the first place. So to argue that members of Congress and their staff are not receiving special protection is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). If that were not the case, then why did the Obama Admin issue the rule in the first place?

They didn't give them any special subsidies. They gave them the employer contribution that they previously paid to help them cover the cost of a plan on the exchanges. 

The conservasphere did a great job riling up,the base on that distortion.

[chum1]

It's really quite simple. Congress passed a provision requiring all members of Congress and their staff to buy their health insurance from the Obamacare exchanges. They do so, but due to a subsequent rule issued by the Obama Admin, they receive much more generous subsidies than anyone else forced to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Nobody else with equivalent income would ever be entitled to such subsidies, let alone any subsidies at all, when purchasing from the exchanges.

Thus, members of Congress and their staff are not required to purchase insurance from the exchanges on the same terms as everyone else, which was the whole intent of the provision in the first place. So to argue that members of Congress and their staff are not receiving special protection is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). If that were not the case, then why did the Obama Admin issue the rule in the first place?

Who are these people forced to purchase insurance through the exchanges?

[steve dave]

oh eff, we've got a guy who understands how this stuff works. EVERYONE SCRAM!

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It's really quite simple. Congress passed a provision requiring all members of Congress and their staff to buy their health insurance from the Obamacare exchanges. They do so, but due to a subsequent rule issued by the Obama Admin, they receive much more generous subsidies than anyone else forced to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Nobody else with equivalent income would ever be entitled to such subsidies, let alone any subsidies at all, when purchasing from the exchanges.

Thus, members of Congress and their staff are not required to purchase insurance from the exchanges on the same terms as everyone else, which was the whole intent of the provision in the first place. So to argue that members of Congress and their staff are not receiving special protection is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). If that were not the case, then why did the Obama Admin issue the rule in the first place?

The problem with this criticism is that the rest of the country won't have Obamacare plans.  Overall, not that many people will.  And the people who will certainly won't have incomes similar to those in Congress.  It is similar to saying, "If Congress thinks that Medicaid is good enough for the rest of the country, then Congress should have Medicaid."

Exactly, the members of Congress are making far more money than most of the people who will be required to buy these new Obamacare-inflated insurance policies, and yet they receive much more generous subsidies paid for with tax dollars. And I never said that everyone, or even a majority of people, would have to buy their insurance through the exchanges. But if you ram through a bill effectively requiring that even some people sign up for new, inflated insurance policies or else pay a penalty, then you ought to do the same thing, under the same terms, which means the same subsidies. "If it's good enough for thee, it's good enough for me." If Congress wants to require that people buy insurance with coverage levels they don't really need, at prices they can't really afford, then Congress ought to buy the same insurance at the same prices, which means the same subsidies.

And in any event, you continue to dodge the question, if the members of Congress did not receive any special protection, then what was the purpose of the rule issued by the Obama Admin? Answer: it was to protect Congress's special subsidies (paid for by our tax dollars), which were threatened by the anti-hypocrisy provision that they so smugly inserted above.