Okay, we will give them those 16, but how many actual negatives are facts?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
16 Myths about Obama Care
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
#5. Congress is exempt from Obamacare
There is right now an attempt to get congressional staff an exemption to the requirement that they must buy their insurance from the exchanges. Seems that young political activists that want jobs in DC turn their noses up at the quality and cost of the insurance on the exchanges and would rather work in the private sector and receive employer provided insurance. Congresspeople are finding they can't hire the best and brightest with this inferior job perk. So within days this could become a factual statement.
Congress's ObamaCare Exemption
... Harry Reid revised the Grassley amendment when he rammed through his infamous ObamaCare bill that no one had read for a vote on Christmas eve. But he neglected to include language about what would happen to the premium contributions that the government makes for its employees. Whether it was intentional or not, the fairest reading of the statute as written is that if Democrats thought somebody earning $174,000 didn't deserve an exchange subsidy, then this person doesn't get a subsidy merely because he happens to work in Congress.
But the statute means that about 11,000 Members and Congressional staff will lose the generous coverage they now have as part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Instead they will get the lower-quality, low-choice "Medicaid Plus" of the exchanges. The Members—annual salary: $174,000—and their better paid aides also wouldn't qualify for ObamaCare subsidies. That means they could be exposed to thousands of dollars a year in out-of-pocket insurance costs.
The result was a full wig out on Capitol Hill, with Members of both parties fretting about "brain drain" as staff face higher health-care costs. Democrats in particular begged the White House for help, claiming the Reid language was merely an unintentional mistake. President Obama told Democrats in a closed-door meeting last week that he would personally moonlight as HR manager and resolve the issue.
And now the White House is suspending the law to create a double standard. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that runs federal benefits will release regulatory details this week, but leaks to the press suggest that Congress will receive extra payments based on the FEHBP defined-contribution formula, which covers about 75% of the cost of the average insurance plan. For 2013, that's about $4,900 for individuals and $10,000 for families.
How OPM will pull this off is worth watching. Is OPM simply going to cut checks, akin to "cashing out" fringe benefits and increasing wages? Or will OPM cover 75% of the cost of the ObamaCare plan the worker chooses—which could well be costlier than what the feds now contribute via current FEHBP plans? In any case the carve-out for Congress creates a two-tier exchange system, one for the great unwashed and another for the politically connected.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324635904578644202946287548.html
... Harry Reid revised the Grassley amendment when he rammed through his infamous ObamaCare bill that no one had read for a vote on Christmas eve. But he neglected to include language about what would happen to the premium contributions that the government makes for its employees. Whether it was intentional or not, the fairest reading of the statute as written is that if Democrats thought somebody earning $174,000 didn't deserve an exchange subsidy, then this person doesn't get a subsidy merely because he happens to work in Congress.
But the statute means that about 11,000 Members and Congressional staff will lose the generous coverage they now have as part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Instead they will get the lower-quality, low-choice "Medicaid Plus" of the exchanges. The Members—annual salary: $174,000—and their better paid aides also wouldn't qualify for ObamaCare subsidies. That means they could be exposed to thousands of dollars a year in out-of-pocket insurance costs.
The result was a full wig out on Capitol Hill, with Members of both parties fretting about "brain drain" as staff face higher health-care costs. Democrats in particular begged the White House for help, claiming the Reid language was merely an unintentional mistake. President Obama told Democrats in a closed-door meeting last week that he would personally moonlight as HR manager and resolve the issue.
And now the White House is suspending the law to create a double standard. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that runs federal benefits will release regulatory details this week, but leaks to the press suggest that Congress will receive extra payments based on the FEHBP defined-contribution formula, which covers about 75% of the cost of the average insurance plan. For 2013, that's about $4,900 for individuals and $10,000 for families.
How OPM will pull this off is worth watching. Is OPM simply going to cut checks, akin to "cashing out" fringe benefits and increasing wages? Or will OPM cover 75% of the cost of the ObamaCare plan the worker chooses—which could well be costlier than what the feds now contribute via current FEHBP plans? In any case the carve-out for Congress creates a two-tier exchange system, one for the great unwashed and another for the politically connected.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324635904578644202946287548.html
The Death Panels are in there because Obama has intended to cut Medicare--hence the layoffs in the Cleveland Clinic because of the lower Medicare and Medicaid payments. What will happen is that there will not be the money to pay for some treatments. Obama himself told a lady that her elderly mother would not be eligible for a pacemaker.
I think what we have here are Democrat talking points as only 40% of the public wants the plan--about the same percentage as there are hardcore Democrats. Independents and Republicans are against the plan.
One way that the Democrats could pick up a lot of steam is to ask McCain to switch parties and serves as Director of Obamacare. They could promise to take him out to eat at a fancy DC restaurant and then promise to buy a few cases of beer from him the next time they go to Arizona to sue someone in Arizona.
I think what we have here are Democrat talking points as only 40% of the public wants the plan--about the same percentage as there are hardcore Democrats. Independents and Republicans are against the plan.
One way that the Democrats could pick up a lot of steam is to ask McCain to switch parties and serves as Director of Obamacare. They could promise to take him out to eat at a fancy DC restaurant and then promise to buy a few cases of beer from him the next time they go to Arizona to sue someone in Arizona.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
So is the White House, as Ed Henry from Fox News pointed out yesterday at Jay Carney's "briefing" (these would more appropriately be called propaganda sessions, given Carney always lies and then denies or obfuscates) when Henry asked him, if he wasn't exempt, would he enroll in the ACA. Carney said of course he would.
Yeah, right, and he's got beachfront property in Arizona to sell you, too.
Was talking to a brother in Christ at church this morning who said he has been cut from 40 hours a week to 35. What they did was take away their paid lunch, so they are still doing the same work (8-4), but are now considered part time. Thank you Mr Obama, what a wonderful plan you all came up with!
That doesn't make sense. Under obamacare 35 hours is still full time.
idk, that's what he told me. Maybe it has something to do with cost savings due to the burden of ObamaCare on employers.