Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ah ya got me there...
Nevertheless, it's nice that the source you gave admitted this oft-asked question by just about every other con out there is inane.
whats not nice is she could not provide the answer........'nevertheless'...is that like 'not withstanding'....the term obama decided no longer means what its meant for , well a long as lawyers and the law has been around, so as to make it legal for the OPM to give congresscritters and their staffs their shot to have their cake not have to eat it too?
I just read this three times and I still don't know WTH you're asking here.
whats not nice is she could not provide the answer........'nevertheless'...is that like 'not withstanding'....the term obama decided no longer means what its meant for , well a long as lawyers and the law has been around, so as to make it legal for the OPM to give congresscritters and their staffs their shot to have their cake not have to eat it too?
I just read this three times and I still don't know WTH you're asking here.
humm, I thought you were up on this.
opm office of personnel management, obama told them to ignore the Grassley amendment wording as in 'Notwithstanding' previous bills, plans etc. so as to insure congress and staff would have to join the exchanges, like the rest of us.
Instead, they got to make the cake, and they don't have to eat it.....just us peons.
I just read this three times and I still don't know WTH you're asking here.
humm, I thought you were up on this.
opm office of personnel management, obama told them to ignore the Grassley amendment wording as in 'Notwithstanding' previous bills, plans etc. so as to insure congress and staff would have to join the exchanges, like the rest of us.
Instead, they got to make the cake, and they don't have to eat it.....just us peons.
I think I see what you're getting at. My answer would be to shrug my shoulders. You can make an argument that the Prez shouldn't be making such an instruction, but at the same time, the Grassley amendment is crap in the first place.
Congresscritters and staff already have employer-based insurance, just like I and a good many other Americans do...IOW, it isn't "just us peons". No reason for them to have to go on exchanges under a law where the exchanges have been set up to help people who are uninsured or underinsured get the coverage they need.
I just read this three times and I still don't know WTH you're asking here.
humm, I thought you were up on this.
opm office of personnel management, obama told them to ignore the Grassley amendment wording as in 'Notwithstanding' previous bills, plans etc. so as to insure congress and staff would have to join the exchanges, like the rest of us.
Instead, they got to make the cake, and they don't have to eat it.....just us peons.
I think I see what you're getting at. My answer would be to shrug my shoulders. You can make an argument that the Prez shouldn't be making such an instruction, but at the same time, the Grassley amendment is crap in the first place.
Congresscritters and staff already have employer-based insurance, just like I and a good many other Americans do...IOW, it isn't "just us peons". No reason for them to have to go on exchanges under a law where the exchanges have been set up to help people who are uninsured or underinsured get the coverage they need.
humm, I thought you were up on this.
opm office of personnel management, obama told them to ignore the Grassley amendment wording as in 'Notwithstanding' previous bills, plans etc. so as to insure congress and staff would have to join the exchanges, like the rest of us.
Instead, they got to make the cake, and they don't have to eat it.....just us peons.
I think I see what you're getting at. My answer would be to shrug my shoulders. You can make an argument that the Prez shouldn't be making such an instruction, but at the same time, the Grassley amendment is crap in the first place.
Congresscritters and staff already have employer-based insurance, just like I and a good many other Americans do...IOW, it isn't "just us peons". No reason for them to have to go on exchanges under a law where the exchanges have been set up to help people who are uninsured or underinsured get the coverage they need.
shrug?
no sorry, don't try that. whats that term that was thrown around during the shutdown " its the law of the land", last I checked that amendment was....the LAW. Your explanation doesn't wash. The LAW says subsidies are for ...state exchanges only btw.Thye are going out to the exchanges BUT they get to keep their subsidies......sorry, thats not what the law delineates. Period.
so the opm continuing to provide them with very generous subsidies so they don't have to feel or experience what the public does passes a sniff test to you? wow......
Originally we declared Vitters assertion to be wrong since any company can decide to help pay for policies that its workers purchase on the exchange so allowing representatives and staff to do so would not be an exemption. That notion has been challenged by conservative critics of Obamacare who argue that under existing federal statutes Congress had to specifically pass legislation authorizing the premium subsidies for any insurance program other than FEHBP. Since congress did not do this, the administration, at the behest of Congressional Democrats, and, according to Politico, Speaker John Boehner, unilaterally extended premium contributions. By doing this, the critics argue, the administration exempted Congress from the law.
The administration takes issue with this, asserting that another provision in existing federal law gives the Office of Personnel Management the power to contribute to health insurance for federal employees and the ACA did not remove lawmakers and Congressional staff from the statutory definition of federal employee.
This sounds like something the courts will have to sort out. So, rather than declaring Vitters assertion to be false, prudence suggests that we label it, in dispute.
Access to HealthCare.gov has been a miserably frustrating experience for way too many Americans, she said in her opening statement. So let me say directly to these Americans: You deserve better. I apologize. Im accountable to you for fixing these problems. And Im committed to earning your confidence back by fixing the site.
This was a sneaky and dastardly thing for her to do: sneaky, because it wasnt in the advance testimony she gave the committee, and dastardly, because in todays Washington, any acceptance of responsibility is so rare that the Republicans who were counting on her evading and deflecting were caught off-guard.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) seemed not to have heard the secretarys apology. Youre now blaming it on the contractors and saying its Verizons fault, she said.
Let me be clear. Im not pointing fingers at Verizon, Sebelius said. We own the site.
I'm curious, Erik...do you REALLY believe that outrage over Benghanzi is "feigned"? Do you REALLY believe that outrage over our spending three plus years and a hundred million dollars on a web site that doesn't work is "feigned"?
I think I see what you're getting at. My answer would be to shrug my shoulders. You can make an argument that the Prez shouldn't be making such an instruction, but at the same time, the Grassley amendment is crap in the first place.
Congresscritters and staff already have employer-based insurance, just like I and a good many other Americans do...IOW, it isn't "just us peons". No reason for them to have to go on exchanges under a law where the exchanges have been set up to help people who are uninsured or underinsured get the coverage they need.
shrug?
no sorry, don't try that. whats that term that was thrown around during the shutdown " its the law of the land", last I checked that amendment was....the LAW. Your explanation doesn't wash. The LAW says subsidies are for ...state exchanges only btw.Thye are going out to the exchanges BUT they get to keep their subsidies......sorry, thats not what the law delineates. Period.
so the opm continuing to provide them with very generous subsidies so they don't have to feel or experience what the public does passes a sniff test to you? wow......
I'm gonna have to concede that this is another part of this I wasn't as up on as I thought. I'll just leave you with this:
Originally we declared Vitter’s assertion to be wrong since any company can decide to help pay for policies that its workers purchase on the exchange so allowing representatives and staff to do so would not be an “exemption.” That notion has been challenged by conservative critics of Obamacare who argue that under existing federal statutes Congress had to specifically pass legislation authorizing the premium subsidies for any insurance program other than FEHBP. Since congress did not do this, the administration, at the behest of Congressional Democrats, and, according to Politico, Speaker John Boehner, unilaterally extended premium contributions. By doing this, the critics argue, the administration “exempted” Congress from the law.
The administration takes issue with this, asserting that another provision in existing federal law gives the Office of Personnel Management the power to contribute to health insurance for federal “employees” and the ACA did not remove lawmakers and Congressional staff from the statutory definition of federal “employee.”
This sounds like something the courts will have to sort out. So, rather than declaring Vitter’s assertion to be false, prudence suggests that we label it, “in dispute.”
Fact Check: Did President Obama exempt members of Congress from Obamacare? ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
I'm curious, Erik...do you REALLY believe that outrage over Benghanzi is "feigned"? Do you REALLY believe that outrage over our spending three plus years and a hundred million dollars on a web site that doesn't work is "feigned"?
Yup.
Ultimately, it's all about sticking it to the President.
