Obamacare cost...

[byu71]

Congress's Exemption from Obamacare:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...care-john-fund

It does surprise me how little the outrage over this is. In this thread or another one someone said the exemption they are getting is a little thing or not that big a deal. I can't remember the explanation as to why it is no big deal.

[dabrockster]

It does surprise me how little the outrage over this is. In this thread or another one someone said the exemption they are getting is a little thing or not that big a deal. I can't remember the explanation as to why it is no big deal.

Agreed..

[il Padrino Ute]

It does surprise me how little the outrage over this is. In this thread or another one someone said the exemption they are getting is a little thing or not that big a deal. I can't remember the explanation as to why it is no big deal.

It pisses me off. Tyrants never feel it necessary to abide by the law.

[il Padrino Ute]

[Blueintheface]

His eyes tell the story. He doesn't believe what he is saying, and that's not always the case with his speeches.

[VirginiaCougar]

It does surprise me how little the outrage over this is. In this thread or another one someone said the exemption they are getting is a little thing or not that big a deal. I can't remember the explanation as to why it is no big deal.

There are a number of reasons that BOTH Republican and Democratic Staffs are upset at the "gotcha" Vitter amendment. The most important is that individuals if they have insurance through their employer will keep it and Vitter is trying to eliminate Congressional staffs from the same benefit. The subsidized amount is smaller than many private company subsidies of their employees health care. It is slimy politics from a very slimy politician. He is basically trying to eliminate the Health Care Benefit enjoyed by those employees which is similar to coverage by millions of other employed Americans.

He is abusing the purpose of the Health Care exchanges. They are intended to provide more reasonable access to those without traditional access to Health Insurance. His intent is to cut the overall compensation package of Congressional staffers by that 5-10K. If you know anything about staff wages, most don't make anywhere near what you think. Certainly not enough raise a family. Only those few at the top of the pay scale make enough to raise a family in the DC area. To give you some numbers, an average Legislative Assistant (a very common staffer) makes around 43K (will work at least 60 hours most weeks) and a Constituent Services Rep makes around 38K. Vitter wants to basically cut those wages by thousands by having them cover those expenses themselves.

The idea (flawed, yes - but it was an attempt to appease Republicans) was to create the exchanges to increase access. Not to have employers screw over more employees and push additional expenses on them while they are making ever more profits. Vitter is grandstanding by doing something similar with the Staff. It makes points with the ideological media covering it (like Naitonal Review), but it is nasty stuff.

[VirginiaCougar]

It pisses me off. Tyrants never feel it necessary to abide by the law.

I don't think you have the slightest idea what the word tyranny means. You certainly don't show it in this post.

[Katy Lied]

There are a number of reasons that BOTH Republican and Democratic Staffs are upset at the "gotcha" Vitter amendment. The most important is that individuals if they have insurance through their employer will keep it and Vitter is trying to eliminate Congressional staffs from the same benefit. The subsidized amount is smaller than many private company subsidies of their employees health care.

Nonsense. More and more employers are announcing that they are going to forgo insurance coverage of their employees, forcing them to the insurance exchanges. This is just one more employer doing so.

I agree that congressional staffers make less than you think. But with a poli sci degree, these staffers go on to take lucrative jobs in the private sector with no more experience than their years on the hill. Think of it as an apprenticeship with low wages, after which you move up into an extremely high paying job.

If the congress wants to pay their staffers more, then pay them more. Quit giving them more suck time on the big teat in lieu of a real raise.

[Uncle Ted]

If the congress wants to pay their staffers more, then pay them more. Quit giving them more suck time on the big teat in lieu of a real raise.

Yes, get that lazy Fed to print up some more money.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

There are a number of reasons that BOTH Republican and Democratic Staffs are upset at the "gotcha" Vitter amendment. The most important is that individuals if they have insurance through their employer will keep it and Vitter is trying to eliminate Congressional staffs from the same benefit. The subsidized amount is smaller than many private company subsidies of their employees health care. It is slimy politics from a very slimy politician. He is basically trying to eliminate the Health Care Benefit enjoyed by those employees which is similar to coverage by millions of other employed Americans.

He is abusing the purpose of the Health Care exchanges. They are intended to provide more reasonable access to those without traditional access to Health Insurance. His intent is to cut the overall compensation package of Congressional staffers by that 5-10K. If you know anything about staff wages, most don't make anywhere near what you think. Certainly not enough raise a family. Only those few at the top of the pay scale make enough to raise a family in the DC area. To give you some numbers, an average Legislative Assistant (a very common staffer) makes around 43K (will work at least 60 hours most weeks) and a Constituent Services Rep makes around 38K. Vitter wants to basically cut those wages by thousands by having them cover those expenses themselves.

The idea (flawed, yes - but it was an attempt to appease Republicans) was to create the exchanges to increase access. Not to have employers screw over more employees and push additional expenses on them while they are making ever more profits. Vitter is grandstanding by doing something similar with the Staff. It makes points with the ideological media covering it (like Naitonal Review), but it is nasty stuff.

I think if anyone has an hour to spare, they need to check out this hour long interview that George Will did with Reason. Then you'll better understand the angle that VC is coming from. The common prevailing idea that people have there is that all the rubes in the hinterlands don't have the slightest clue about how to govern themselves.

I doubt that VC is worried about the fact that I'm going to have to probably pay about $3,000 more next year because of Obamacare. But he's sure worried about these congressional staff people who are either employed by those responsible for or were involved with the drafting of this legislation.

While I have problem with Vitter and his hiring of prostitutes, I don't have a problem with this amendment of forcing Congressional staffs to suffer through Obamacare like everyone else. Yes, some people will continue to have employer-provided health insurance, but an increasing number are being forced on the exchanges because of their employers' fiscal restraints. Since the federal government never has these fiscal restraints, Congressional staffs were going to be the last ones to have to deal with the bullshit that's emanated from this particularly odious piece of legislation. Here's a rare opportunity for some people in Washington to have to deal with a real life problem that is a result of their legislation.

[Katy Lied]

Yes, get that lazy Fed to print up some more money.

I guess I meant stop taking junkets and pay your employees more.

[VirginiaCougar]

I think if anyone has an hour to spare, they need to check out this hour long interview that George Will did with Reason. Then you'll better understand the angle that VC is coming from. The common prevailing idea that people have there is that all the rubes in the hinterlands don't have the slightest clue about how to govern themselves.

I doubt that VC is worried about the fact that I'm going to have to probably pay about $3,000 more next year because of Obamacare. But he's sure worried about these congressional staff people who are either employed by those responsible for or were involved with the drafting of this legislation.

While I have problem with Vitter and his hiring of prostitutes, I don't have a problem with this amendment of forcing Congressional staffs to suffer through Obamacare like everyone else. Yes, some people will continue to have employer-provided health insurance, but an increasing number are being forced on the exchanges because of their employers' fiscal restraints. Since the federal government never has these fiscal restraints, Congressional staffs were going to be the last ones to have to deal with the bullshit that's emanated from this particularly odious piece of legislation. Here's a rare opportunity for some people in Washington to have to deal with a real life problem that is a result of their legislation.

VC doesn't doubt that you are paying more, but he does serious doubt that the 3K comes from Obamacare. Much of the cost increases blamed on Obama are part of historical trends that long predate it. But it is a convenient scapegoat, that is for sure. If you were to list a much smaller amount as an increase directly related to Obamacare, I would buy it and would sympathize. It is an imperfect piece of legislation. But what is being implemented this year in Obamacare can not cause those types of increases independent of other issues.

What VC also doesn't buy are employer fiscal constraints which you mention as the reason. Sorry, but corporate profits are up and the arguement that business can't afford these changes is absurd for the most part (some small businesses are exceptions to this, but Obamacare actually deals with that as well).

What the amendment does is attack staffers, Democrat and Republican. Folks who don't make a lot of money (that is because of real fiscal constraints - Federal employees generally less than private sector with the same skill set). Congressional Staff/Office budgets are not as big as you would think. They are fairly conservative. With the sequester, they can't even offer a small stipend to interns to help with housing as they used to.

Bottom line, this is pretty much an empty attack that makes waves with the LimbHaniBeck crowd, but not in reality.

[VirginiaCougar]

Yep, that is all that Congressmen and their staffs do - junkets.

Boy do I like these simply little gotcha phrases far removed from what actually happens. (The Fed comment is another) There are trips, but they are not as frequent as you would assume. They also are usually directly related to committee assignments. Knowing more about your assignments, I know - a bad thing.

Also, often they are funded by private sources for specific purposes/issues. Sometimes by their respective states, as they may want to increase local trade to that country, etc. I do think we should consider the role of these private dollars, but you know after Citizens United (which had nothing to do with Citizens, Unity, or even free speech for that matter) - we live in a much more dangerous world as far as money and Congress goes. It is true that some members abuse these trips, but you offer an empty logical fallacy here.

[Uncle Ted]

Yep, that is all that Congressmen and their staffs do - junkets.

Boy do I like these simply little gotcha phrases far removed from what actually happens. (The Fed comment is another) There are trips, but they are not as frequent as you would assume. They also are usually directly related to committee assignments. Knowing more about your assignments, I know - a bad thing.

Also, often they are funded by private sources for specific purposes/issues. Sometimes by their respective states, as they may want to increase local trade to that country, etc. I do think we should consider the role of these private dollars, but you know after Citizens United (which had nothing to do with Citizens, Unity, or even free speech for that matter) - we live in a much more dangerous world as far as money and Congress goes. It is true that some members abuse these trips, but you offer an empty logical fallacy here.

Hey, but since President Obama shut down the white house tours there should be lots of money. Let's get the Pelosi plane going.

[VirginiaCougar]

Hey, but since President Obama shut down the white house tours there should be lots of money. Let's get the Pelosi plane going.

Two more perfect examples. Then you added a gotcha Conservative "watchdog" for good measure.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp

(And I am not a Pelosi fan in any way. )



Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4