Obamacare not good enough for Congressmen or their staff

[sfb]

I appreciate the advice CJ7, and I know you are right, but I'm too stubborn to stop providing facts in response to opinions posted as facts... so here's another one for Whirlaway.

The article you linked to was written 3 months ago by the President of a very conservatively biased think tank that operates under the public goal of:

"The Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy promotes the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility. The Institute believes these principles are best encouraged through policies that emphasize a free economy, private initiative, and limited government."

Now that in and of itself doesn't mean anything more than it is an opinion article written by a conservative person. However if you read the article I posted a link to it specifically talks about this stance and provides arguments against them. They are both Op/Ed pieces so neither of us can claim a nonpartisan or bipartisan angle.

However the article I posted refers to the Urban Institute study which is pretty darn close to a non-biased organization if not there already. And of course it helped that it was a peer reviewed study, I hear those reviews are generally a good thing to utilize, though apparently some people don't

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by sfb

I appreciate the advice CJ7, and I know you are right, but I'm too stubborn to stop providing facts in response to opinions posted as facts... so here's another one for Whirlaway.

The article you linked to was written 3 months ago by the President of a very conservatively biased think tank that operates under the public goal of:

"The Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy promotes the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility. The Institute believes these principles are best encouraged through policies that emphasize a free economy, private initiative, and limited government."

Now that in and of itself doesn't mean anything more than it is an opinion article written by a conservative person. However if you read the article I posted a link to it specifically talks about this stance and provides arguments against them. They are both Op/Ed pieces so neither of us can claim a nonpartisan or bipartisan angle.

However the article I posted refers to the Urban Institute study which is pretty darn close to a non-biased organization if not there already. And of course it helped that it was a peer reviewed study, I hear those reviews are generally a good thing to utilize, though apparently some people don't

did I mention whirlie et al have the propensity to vanish like a rat down a drain pipe when logic is applied to facts . ??

carry on

[Whirlaway]

The law mandates everyone has to have coverage...how is that NOT applying to everyone ?

In addition, Obamacare will mandate minimum policy coverage (like free birth control); again, has is that NOT applying to everyone ?



Fucking Obama moron. Your ignorance is a waste of time.

[Whirlaway]

Your article was written by Rick Ungar; who self describes himself as "writing from the left"...........and as pointed out in the ULI study; those who have never paid for insurance and/or those who will receive substantial premium subsidies (paid for by taxpayers) of course will not experience "rate shock"...........but the rest of us will.

How you think we can bring 20 to 30 million new consumers into the process; and not increase doctors/clinics/pharmacutical production/medical device production/ etc., and NOT have a rate increase is beyond belief.

But I will chalk your postion up to Obama's who told us that his plan will bend the cost curve downward......

Enough said.....

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The law mandates everyone has to have coverage...how is that NOT applying to everyone ?

In addition, Obamacare will mandate minimum policy coverage (like free birth control); again, has is that NOT applying to everyone ?



Fucking Obama moron.

what part of having an affect and applying to, don't you understand .. until you figure out the big words, Im done here.

[LovingKayla]

Even the minority leader says its a train wreck. And btw, yes, you are affected. All of you. Our insurance with met life and the other one I can't think of the name have already started. It'll get worse the closer to next year we get. This really isn't worth arguing on eccie. It'll play out all by itself. I'm ok with anyone that choose to believe they won't e affected. Who cares? You'll find out soon enough.

[Whirlaway]

What a fucking moronic response..................

Originally Posted by CJ7

what part of having an affect and applying to, don't you understand .. until you figure out the big words, Im done here.

[Doove]

What dipshits.

And no, i'm not talking about the members of Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...al-punishment/

[bojulay]

Does Obamacare include some kind of regulation on insurance premiums
and deductibles?

The insurance companies are going to use every loophole they
can find and every means available to make back the money they will lose.

On that you can rely.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

What a fucking moronic response..................

since the article has been proven to be rightwing bs, you defending it says it all

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by bojulay

Does Obamacare include some kind of regulation on insurance premiums
and deductibles?

The insurance companies are going to use every loophole they
can find and every means available to make back the money they will lose.

On that you can rely.

yup, like I told whirlie, when the law goes into full action, insurance companies cant gouge old people for being old .. at present old shits pay whatever the ins company wants to charge them, pretty soon an ins co will only be able to charge an old fart 2x's the amount they charge a 21 year old, regardless of their health condition.

that's pretty fucked up isn't it ?
eos

[satexasguy]

CJ, I take it you didn't bother reading the article. So let me give you the important part - an amendment was added to the bill in 2009 that requires all congressmen and STAFF to enroll in Obamacare Exchanges instead of using their current health care plan. Now staffers are having a fit over that requirement and want that amendment removed. What part of that is BS?

As for staffers being able to afford their own healthcare insurance - not true. In case you are unaware of this, congressmen have staff located in various cities within their districts. These staffers are not paid all that much. I know, I support a few congressional offices.

My point is that if the proponents of Obamacare think it is good enough for the average American, then it should be good enough for congress and their staff. But of course, you and your fellow liberal terds think that what is good for the average American is not good enough for your appointed dipshit semi-god politicians.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by satexasguy

CJ, I take it you didn't bother reading the article. So let me give you the important part - an amendment was added to the bill in 2009 that requires all congressmen and STAFF to enroll in Obamacare Exchanges instead of using their current health care plan. Now staffers are having a fit over that requirement and want that amendment removed. What part of that is BS?

As for staffers being able to afford their own healthcare insurance - not true. In case you are unaware of this, congressmen have staff located in various cities within their districts. These staffers are not paid all that much. I know, I support a few congressional offices.

My point is that if the proponents of Obamacare think it is good enough for the average American, then it should be good enough for congress and their staff. But of course, you and your fellow liberal terds think that what is good for the average American is not good enough for your appointed dipshit semi-god politicians.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rom-obamacare/



But no one is discussing “exempting” congressional staffers from Obamacare. They’re discussing creating some method through which the federal government can keep making its current contribution to the health insurance of congressional staffers.
“Even if OPM rules against us,” one staffer said, “it’s inaccurate to imply that any talks are aimed at exempting federal employees from routine mandates of ACA since any talks are about resolving the unique bind that the Grassley amendment puts federal employees in.”
This isn’t, in other words, an effort to flee Obamacare. It’s an effort to fix a drafting error that prevents the federal government from paying into insurance exchanges on behalf of congressional staffers who got caught up in a political controversy


ergo, the article you posted IS PURE BS, and I might suggest the congressional offices you support fill you in on the truth.

just sayin n such

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by CJ7

look shitstain, if you have an existing policy you don't have to buy a policy or pay a penalty for already having ins ..

how stupid did you say you were?

CJ7 is right, if get health insurance where you work, you won't need Obamacare. Obamacare is only for the people who can't get insurance where they work. The staffers will have to get their health insurance from the government exchanges starting 1/1/14. Members of Congress will be on their own plan.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by CJ7

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rom-obamacare/



But no one is discussing “exempting” congressional staffers from Obamacare. They’re discussing creating some method through which the federal government can keep making its current contribution to the health insurance of congressional staffers.
“Even if OPM rules against us,” one staffer said, “it’s inaccurate to imply that any talks are aimed at exempting federal employees from routine mandates of ACA since any talks are about resolving the unique bind that the Grassley amendment puts federal employees in.”
This isn’t, in other words, an effort to flee Obamacare. It’s an effort to fix a drafting error that prevents the federal government from paying into insurance exchanges on behalf of congressional staffers who got caught up in a political controversy


ergo, the article you posted IS PURE BS, and I might suggest the congressional offices you support fill you in on the truth.

just sayin n such

From what I understand, even the so called "opt outs" are temporary, Sooner or later, everybody will be in the program, one way or another.