Game Over For Obama

[Trajan]

dude, you're obtuse BS is beginning to wear thin.....last I checked snips of sentences didn't/don’t convey the meaning of the whole, especially when you obviously have zero knowledge and grasp of what we are discussing , on top of making sweeping statements etc., my suggestion is; read the entire paragraph, digest the entire paragraph......here, I 'll break it down for you into bite size pieces;

thru the exchange system, subsidy thru a plan via the EXCHANGE see? the only federal subsidy you or I ( well not me but you get it) are qualified for is VIA THE EXCHANGE.....you seem to stop reading when its convenient for you.


here;

any employer contribution under such chapter on behalf of the President, the Vice President, any political appointee, any Member of Congress, and any Congressional employee may be paid only to the issuer of a qualified health plan in which the individual enrolled through such Exchange and not to the issuer of a plan offered through the Federal employees health benefit program under such chapter.

and-

Section 1312(d)

“Notwithstanding any other provision of 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).”


now for the public, the normal folks who buy health insurance through the Obamacare exchanges only get a federal subsidy or tax credit if their income is below 400% of the poverty line, for a family of 4, it’s a ridiculous (imho) $94,200, If they surpass that 400% level, then, generally no subsidy.

For a congress critter making 170K a year, he or she would need 8 kids to qualify for the 10K ( couple, 5K single) subsidy they are getting now....the Exchange formula does not provide for that, it’s a no go.
But, that changed under the OPM deal Obama arranged in August, the average member of Congress who makes $174,000 a year will be able to keep his approx. $10,000 subsidy ( to use ANYWHERE btw), like he used to get under his old plan, before Obamacare. Staffers who buy through the exchange will also get to keep their old subsidies they were receiving despite the amendment which pulls them off of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) as well .

Are we clear now?

Here, asking you to go to a link I guess is just to much work….


employer mandate- Shared Responsibility for Employers (ACA §1513 and §10106)............whats the first sentence say?

here-

employer mandate section 4908H

d) EFFECTIVE DATE
.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.


and the cap on out of pocket expenses?


SEC. 1302. . ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS REQUIREMENTS
(1) ANNUAL LIMITATION ON COST -
SHARING

(A) 2014.—The cost-sharing incurred under a health
plan with respect to self-only coverage or coverage other
than self-only coverage for a plan year beginning in 2014
shall not exceed the dollar amounts in effect under section
223(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for
self-only and family coverage, respectively, for taxable years
beginning in 2014

SEC. 1302, sub section-1302(c)(1)
(c) DETERMINATION OF REDUCTION IN COST SHARING
(1) REDUCTION IN OUT OF POCKET LIMIT

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

 

[Edgetho]

After reading that, I can see how obama might interpret that to mean that the Congresscritters and their staff can still be subsidized.

In the old days, people with patience like yours would be canonized

 

[Trajan]

So I guess we're done here?

 

[Derideo_Te]

So I guess we're done here?

We are done because the ACA law states that federal employees who are subject to the ACA exchanges are still entitled to the same subsidy that they would have had if they were still on the federal health plan.

 

[Trajan]

So I guess we're done here?

We are done because the ACA law states that federal employees who are subject to the ACA exchanges are still entitled to the same subsidy that they would have had if they were still on the federal health plan.

no, it doesn't; they don't get the same subsidy they did under the FEHBP, its in plain English -

Notwithstanding chapter 89 of title 5, (thats the the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program), they have to use an obamacare exchange,

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).”



Any subsidy would flow into and through the exchange, the exchange sets the parameters and calculates the subsidy for the plans they offer, very few if any would be qualified for the subsidy (due to income etc.) they were getting in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program , thats why congress went berserk, hello, if it didn't then obama would not had to have done one blessed thing as they would not have anything to bitch about...



now, lets go back to the other 2, the employer mandate and the cap on out of pockets expenses, I posted the laws sections from the bill, so, did he change the dates or not?


Answer- yes, he did, you're wrong....thats 3 hes changed in contravention of the Law.

 

[oreo]

No President, not even Obama can get away with lying to the American public over 40 times, in his "if you like your insurance you can keep it." Then to add insult to injury--his promise that premiums under Obamacare would be lower--and "that he could save a family of 4 $2500.00. That's not true premiums have doubled and tripled to what these 5.5 million-so far--that have been canceled.

And this is what has brought his poll numbers off of a cliff. And no you don't come back from this. Lying to Americans has never been tolerated. No one trusts him anymore, and or considers what he says as credible or true. He's done. Obama is the lamest of the lame duck Presidents in our nations history.

PURPOSE OF OBAMACARE: to insure the uninsured EFFECT OF OBAMACARE: uninsuring the insured.

 

[Indeependent]

No President, not even Obama can get away with lying to the American public over 40 times, in his "if you like your insurance you can keep it." Then to add insult to injury--his promise that premiums under Obamacare would be lower--and "that he could save a family of 4 $2500.00. That's not true premiums have doubled and tripled to what these 5.5 million-so far--that have been canceled.

And this is what has brought his poll numbers off of a cliff. And no you don't come back from this. Lying to Americans has never been tolerated. No one trusts him anymore, and or considers what he says as credible or true. He's done. Obama is the lamest of the lame duck Presidents in our nations history.

PURPOSE OF OBAMACARE: to insure the uninsured EFFECT OF OBAMACARE: uninsuring the insured.

NYS premiums have remained the same.
In which states have premiums sky-rocketed?

 

[Derideo_Te]

So I guess we're done here?

We are done because the ACA law states that federal employees who are subject to the ACA exchanges are still entitled to the same subsidy that they would have had if they were still on the federal health plan.

no, it doesn't; they don't get the same subsidy they did under the FEHBP, its in plain English -

Notwithstanding chapter 89 of title 5, (thats the the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program), they have to use an obamacare exchange,

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).”



Any subsidy would flow into and through the exchange, the exchange sets the parameters and calculates the subsidy for the plans they offer, very few if any would be qualified for the subsidy (due to income etc.) they were getting in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program , thats why congress went berserk, hello, if it didn't then obama would not had to have done one blessed thing as they would not have anything to bitch about...



now, lets go back to the other 2, the employer mandate and the cap on out of pockets expenses, I posted the laws sections from the bill, so, did he change the dates or not?


Answer- yes, he did, you're wrong....thats 3 hes changed in contravention of the Law.

Nope, these are two entirely different types of subsidy. The tax credit subsidy for low and moderate incomes is not the same thing as the federal govt employee subsidy. As federal employees they are entitled to healthcare as part of their benefits. The only part that changed was the source of the healthcare provider. Their healthcare benefit subsidy is now being directed to whichever provider they choose via the exchange.

d) EFFECTIVE DATE
.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.

Since it doesn't specify which "months" then any "months" after that date still fall within the letter of the law. FYI legislation is often written in this format since it is well known that implementation is not cut & dried for complex laws. It allows the Executive Branch the flexibility it needs to make sure that all of the pieces are on place. Yes, weasel lawyers use exactly this kind of wording as "loopholes" too. However reality dictates that it is simply not possible to draft complex legislation and lock down dates since there is no guarantee that it will be passed and signed in time to meet those dates. There are also other economic factors that the EB will need to consider during implementation so the flexibility is built into it up front.

As far as the caps are concerned they have been gradually implemented over the last 3 years. Check with your tax accountant and they will tell you that this is the case. Once again adjusting the implementation dates is well within the jurisdiction of the EB if they deem it necessary.

 

[Trajan]

We are done because the ACA law states that federal employees who are subject to the ACA exchanges are still entitled to the same subsidy that they would have had if they were still on the federal health plan.

no, it doesn't; they don't get the same subsidy they did under the FEHBP, its in plain English -

Notwithstanding chapter 89 of title 5, (thats the the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program), they have to use an obamacare exchange,

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).”



Any subsidy would flow into and through the exchange, the exchange sets the parameters and calculates the subsidy for the plans they offer, very few if any would be qualified for the subsidy (due to income etc.) they were getting in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program , thats why congress went berserk, hello, if it didn't then obama would not had to have done one blessed thing as they would not have anything to bitch about...



now, lets go back to the other 2, the employer mandate and the cap on out of pockets expenses, I posted the laws sections from the bill, so, did he change the dates or not?


Answer- yes, he did, you're wrong....thats 3 hes changed in contravention of the Law.

Nope, these are two entirely different types of subsidy. The tax credit subsidy for low and moderate incomes is not the same thing as the federal govt employee subsidy. As federal employees they are entitled to healthcare as part of their benefits.

what is it about this you don't want to understand?

Notwithstanding chapter 89 of title 5, (thats the the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program),

this is who is eligible, PERIOD for Federal subsidies via obamacare exchanges;

Household Size Federal Poverty Level (Percentage Of) 100% 133% 150% 200% 300% 400%
1 $11,490 $15,282 $17,235 $22,980 $34,470 $45,960
2 $15,510 $20,628 $23,265 $31,020 $46,530 $62,040
3 $19,530 $25,975 $29,295 $39,060 $58,590 $78,120
4 $23,550 $31,322 $35,325 $47,100 $70,650 $94,200
5 $27,570 $36,668 $41,355 $55,140 $82,710 $110,280
6 $31,590 $42,015 $47,385 $63,180 $94,770 $126,360
7 $35,610 $47,361 $53,415 $71,220 $106,830 $142,440
8 $39,630 $52,708 $59,445 $79,260 $118,890 $158,520
Each add'l $4,020 $5,347 $6,030 $8,040 $12,060 $16,080


one more time; IF they were ok to still receive the same FEHBP subsidy allowances why did they revolt? what would be the point of issuing instructions to the OPM if there was nothing to issue instructions over? [/quote]

The only part that changed was the source of the healthcare provider. Their healthcare benefit subsidy is now being directed to whichever provider they choose via the exchange.

the subsidy benefits are set BY the exchange, what the exchange calculates is what they get ( see the above poverty level; subsidy chart) , not the inflated here to fore FEHBP subsidy where in a congressman got 10K while drawing a 170K salary.....- AGAIN -IF that was so, there would have been no reason for obama to get involved....

d) EFFECTIVE DATE
.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.

Since it doesn't specify which "months" then any "months" after that date still fall within the letter of the law. FYI legislation is often written in this format since it is well known that implementation is not cut & dried for complex laws. It allows the Executive Branch the flexibility it needs to make sure that all of the pieces are on place. Yes, weasel lawyers use exactly this kind of wording as "loopholes" too. However reality dictates that it is simply not possible to draft complex legislation and lock down dates since there is no guarantee that it will be passed and signed in time to meet those dates. There are also other economic factors that the EB will need to consider during implementation so the flexibility is built into it up front.

months? they didn't say what months? they certainly didn't say a year, 2015, did they? see how that works? .....seriously? you're either dishonest or have very serious comprehension issues.....

As far as the caps are concerned they have been gradually implemented over the last 3 years. Check with your tax accountant and they will tell you that this is the case. Once again adjusting the implementation dates is well within the jurisdiction of the EB if they deem it necessary.

thats gobbledygook, the law states, they created dates for implementation they are below, again-

SEC. 1302. . ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS REQUIREMENTS
(1) ANNUAL LIMITATION ON COST -
SHARING

(A) 2014.—The cost-sharing incurred under a health
plan with respect to self-only coverage or coverage other
than self-only coverage for a plan year beginning in 2014
shall not exceed the dollar amounts in effect under section
223(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for
self-only and family coverage, respectively, for taxable years
beginning in 2014

SEC. 1302, sub section-1302(c)(1)
(c) DETERMINATION OF REDUCTION IN COST SHARING
(1) REDUCTION IN OUT OF POCKET LIMIT

check with my accountant..

 

[Derideo_Te]

.....seriously? you're either dishonest or have very serious comprehension issues.....

If the ACA legislation was as you allege then why hasn't the GOP taken the Administration to task on these alleged violations? According to you they have legitimate grounds for taking legal action. But none of what you allege is being used against the Administration. Could it be that they can't do it because your interpretation of the ACA is not the right one?

Furthermore since you cannot refrain from constantly making spurious accusations without justification that are utterly unproductive and inappropriate there is no point in continuing. The ACA stands as written and your allegations have not withstood scrutiny. Feel free to respond as you wish but I refuse to engage any further in a debate with anyone who is incapable of, as Intense described it, "civil discourse". Have a nice day.

 

[henryporter]

So, Obama is doomed yet another time? Golly, we've never heard that before. Must be true this time, because things are totally different from all the other times he was doomed.

Loosing your insurance cuts to the quick, intimately.

Unlike a Solyndra or Fast and Furious

You really should name a single person who actually lost their insurance. I will grant you people who were paying $200 a month for a worthless ID card are now saving $200 a month.

And were now seeing that as software gets sorted, insurance policy sales are picking up. Come next November even if Republicans managed to keep control of the house, tea baggers 15 minutes will be over after November. Be proud though, baggers will surely take us to default in February and it's already nearly impossible to calculate the damage to the country they have done and what baggers have cost us economically.

 

[Trajan]

.....seriously? you're either dishonest or have very serious comprehension issues.....

If the ACA legislation was as you allege then why hasn't the GOP taken the Administration to task on these alleged violations? According to you they have legitimate grounds for taking legal action. But none of what you allege is being used against the Administration. Could it be that they can't do it because your interpretation of the ACA is not the right one?

Furthermore since you cannot refrain from constantly making spurious accusations without justification that are utterly unproductive and inappropriate there is no point in continuing. The ACA stands as written and your allegations have not withstood scrutiny. Feel free to respond as you wish but I refuse to engage any further in a debate with anyone who is incapable of, as Intense described it, "civil discourse". Have a nice day.

I call it as I see it, I think I have been more than patient and have worked to explain the positions in detail, in lieu of what I am getting in return..........your statements have been vacuous in any comparative analysis, I have provided the links and language you asked for and need, I can too provide links to articles from say Cato, that speaks to a possible justification for the congressional staff to get the extra $$, BUT, explains too, that obamas move was illegal. You'd know this if you had actually done any reading at all on the topic, you asked, I provided.


If you want to argue that somehow, congressman etc. are entitles to/require a subsidy(s), the rest of the country underneath the 400% poverty line don't (as the chart I linked to stipulates), well, go ahead but you have zero proof that its legal, and, have been provided proof to the contrary, yet? Do you have a link that speaks to the legal right of a congressman with 1 child drawing a 150K salary getting a stipend above and beyond the poverty line exchange/aca subsidy formula?

As to the legal issue as to how to wind this back- right now they are stuck on how to ascribe standing, as in who the complainant would be when they bring suit. This was a new wrinkle you threw in there to, which tells me you are still struggling with a solid reason to not have to admit the amendment stands as written and no one gets more or extra subsidy(s) over the acts stipulations as to income levels.


and the rest? the employer mandate?

the dates are right there in the act, 2015 is NOT 2014, you can conflate/ construe the word/term "monthS" anyway you like.......that dog doesn't hunt.


and the cap on out of pocket expenses? same ........

in light of plain English being what it is, I have no were else to go except to conclude you are being willfully, intellectually dishonest or you cannot comprehend simple dates/language. And there it is.

 

[OODA_Loop]

So, Obama is doomed yet another time? Golly, we've never heard that before. Must be true this time, because things are totally different from all the other times he was doomed.

Loosing your insurance cuts to the quick, intimately.

Unlike a Solyndra or Fast and Furious

You really should name a single person who actually lost their insurance. I will grant you people who were paying $200 a month for a worthless ID card are now saving $200 a month.

And were now seeing that as software gets sorted, insurance policy sales are picking up. Come next November even if Republicans managed to keep control of the house, tea baggers 15 minutes will be over after November. Be proud though, baggers will surely take us to default in February and it's already nearly impossible to calculate the damage to the country they have done and what baggers have cost us economically.

Yep Must be the "Baggers".

Thanks for saving us from our worthless insurance plans too. Americans love that insult to injury.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You really should name a single person who actually lost their insurance. I will grant you people who were paying $200 a month for a worthless ID card are now saving $200 a month.

Cathy Wagner

Colorado Woman Who Championed Obamacare Loses Insurance Plan « CBS Denver

 

[Ava]

He can continue what he's been doing throughout his Presidency.
Going on the road all the time.
Well he's good at making speeches...
"If you like your plan,If you like your doctor you can keep them"

Well then again maybe not.....

He can always stay at home and help Michelle with her workouts...

And he can sing to her, as she recently told some school children, he sings in the shower. Wonder what he is singing these days....Hmm

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2scxJNXjMI]The Day ObamaCare Died - American Pie Parody - YouTube[/ame]