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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Congress and an Exemption from ?Obamacare??
Q: Is it true that there are bills in Congress that would exempt members and their staffs and families from buying into “Obamacare”?
A: No. Congress members and staffers will be required to buy insurance through the exchanges on Jan. 1.
FULL QUESTION
Is it true that there are bills in the House and Senate that will exempt members and their staff and families from buying into Obamacare?
FULL ANSWER
Several readers have asked us about Congress attempting to exempt itself from the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. A few said that a Facebook post claimed that President Barack Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and Democrats in Congress were trying to “get themselves exempted from Obamacare,” in the words of one reader.
But there is no bill in Congress calling for an exemption from the health care law. In fact, members of Congress and their staffs face additional requirements that most Americans don’t have to meet.
Are they exempting themselves from the financial burden of the law by subsidizing their costs through tax payer money? Fuck yes, they are, and this so-called 'fact check' org needs to get off the dope.
"Taxpayers" have been paying for Congress's health insurance for decades now. Why is it suddenly "outrageous"?
Congress and an Exemption from ?Obamacare??
Are they exempting themselves from the financial burden of the law by subsidizing their costs through tax payer money? Fuck yes, they are, and this so-called 'fact check' org needs to get off the dope.
"Taxpayers" have been paying for Congress's health insurance for decades now. Why is it suddenly "outrageous"?
BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE WAY THE LAW SAYS IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE.
I know you fucking lying ass bastard Democrats are quite fine with having Obama act like a fucking dictator and change the law whenever it suits him, but THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO WORK, you stupid ass kissing bitch.
And the movement is catching on across the country.
The Canary in the Coal Mine | The Weekly Standard
"Taxpayers" have been paying for Congress's health insurance for decades now. Why is it suddenly "outrageous"?
BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE WAY THE LAW SAYS IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE.
I know you fucking lying ass bastard Democrats are quite fine with having Obama act like a fucking dictator and change the law whenever it suits him, but THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO WORK, you stupid ass kissing bitch.
The "law" doesn't say anything about no longer paying for congressional Insurance, it just says that they must buy it on the exchanges.
Nowhere in the bill does it say that Members of Congress and their staffs will no longer have health insurance as part of their salaries.
And the movement is catching on across the country.
The Canary in the Coal Mine | The Weekly Standard
I agree. I wonder if this couple sharing their story, voted for the re-distributor....
Andy and Amy Mangione of Louisville, Ky. and their two boys are just the kind of people who should be helped by ObamaCare. But they recently got a nasty surprise in the mail.
"When I saw the letter when I came home from work," Andy said, describing the large red wording on the envelope from his insurance carrier, "(it said) 'your action required,benefit changes, act now.' Of course I opened it immediately."
It had stunning news. Insurance for the Mangiones and their two boys,which they bought on the individual market, was going to almost triple in 2014 --- from $333 a month to $965.
The insurance carrier [Humana] made it clear the increase was in order to be compliant with the new health care law.
"This isn't a Cadillac plan, this isn't even a silver plan," Mangione said, referring to higher levels of coverage under ObamaCare.
"This is a high deductible plan where I'm assuming a lot of risk for my health insurance for my family. And nothing has changed, our boys are healthy-- they're young --my wife is healthy. I'm healthy, nothing in our medical history has changed to warrant a tripling of our premiums. [more]
One man's ObamaCare nightmare | Fox News
On Aug. 7, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management announced that members of Congress and some of their staffs will continue to have an employer contribution toward their health insurance premiums. A news release does not mention congressional involvement in the decision.
So was Handel wrong about the role of Congress in the arrangement? Far from it, said Handel spokesman Dan McLagan, who sent us several news reports to back up his claim. Reuters reported that House and Senate leaders had been in intense negotiations with the Obama administration to reach an agreement about employer contributions. The Wall Street Journal reported that President Barack Obama told congressional Democrats in a closed-door meeting that he would resolve the matter. Some members of Congress were reportedly worried some of their employees would quit if something wasn’t done. A "brain drain" is what they called it.
McLagan also forwarded us a news release from U.S. Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, that says congressional leaders were part of the decision. Vitter was not happy about the OPM rule.
"[T]his behind-closed-doors deal, announced right after Congress is safely away from the crime scene on break, was fully supported by establishment Republicans," Vitter said. "When it comes to protecting their own, they find a way to work just beautifully with the Democrats."
PolitiFact Georgia still wondered whether it was correct for Handel’s emails to label the OPM rule as an exemption or an exception?
We asked the OPM, and an official there responded by sending us the news release, which contained links to a fact sheet about its plans and other information. In the news release, the OPM said the amount of the employer contribution toward exchange premiums is no more than would otherwise be made toward coverage under the prior health benefits program for members of Congress and eligible staff.
America has a two-party system. But it’s not Republicans versus Democrats. It’s the ruling class — Republicans and Democrats — against everyone else. Consider how President Obama just gave Congress its very own Obamacare waiver.
Obamacare includes a provision that should cost each member of Congress and each staffer $5,000 to $11,000 per year. Needless to say, the ruling class was not pleased.
Congress wasn’t about to try to exempt itself from this provision explicitly, though. If John Q. Congressman voted to give himself an Obamacare waiver that his constituents don’t get, he wouldn’t be John Q. Congressman much longer. What’s an aristocrat to do?...
On July 30, I predicted that, even though he had no authority to do so, President Obama would waive that provision at taxpayers’ expense. On August 1, he ignobly obliged the aristocracy by decreeing we peasants give each member and staffer $5,000 or $11,000, depending on whether they want self-only or family coverage. It’s good to be king.
The president’s supporters, like courtesans of old, are trying to quell a peasant uprising by denying there were any special favors. The denials ring hollow.
Obamacare imposes two costs on members of Congress and their staff. First, it kicks them out of their current health plans, leaving them to buy coverage on Obamacare’s health-insurance “exchanges.” Second, it makes no provision for the federal government to keep paying $5,000 or $11,000 toward the cost of their insurance as the Treasury does today.
The second cost is by far the larger one; it amounts to a pay cut of $5,000 or $11,000. Many staffers were threatening to quit or retire early.
When the president’s supporters claim that Congress isn’t being exempted, they mean that Obama didn’t exempt them from Cost No. 1. Which is true. But he did exempt them from Cost No. 2.
Last Wednesday, while Americans remained distracted by Syria, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) began an effort to bring Washington, D.C.’s aptly described ruling class down to the same level as the people they represent. In return for allowing his fellow senators to continue proposing amendments to an energy efficiency bill on which they have begun deliberations, Vitter is demanding a floor vote on his amendment to end an exemption to ObamaCare for Congress and their staff members. The exemption allows them to continue receiving employer subsidies to pay for their health insurance. ”My amendment is not related to this [energy] bill but I have to bring it up now because it’s very time sensitive since [ObamaCare] will go into effect on Oct. 1,” he said on the Senate floor. “I think this is a special exemption for Washington.”
“Washington” is fighting back. Sources have told Politico that a bipartisan effort is being made by Republican and Democrat staffers and aides to ensure Vitter’s amendment never gets a vote, or that it is defeated if it does. Furthermore, Senate Democrats, angry that Vitter is trying to attach his amendment to an unrelated bill (as if that hasn’t happened innumerable times before), are considering three incredibly childish amendments aimed at getting even with Vitter, along with anyone who supports him.
BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE WAY THE LAW SAYS IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE.
I know you fucking lying ass bastard Democrats are quite fine with having Obama act like a fucking dictator and change the law whenever it suits him, but THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO WORK, you stupid ass kissing bitch.
The "law" doesn't say anything about no longer paying for congressional Insurance, it just says that they must buy it on the exchanges.
Nowhere in the bill does it say that Members of Congress and their staffs will no longer have health insurance as part of their salaries.
OF COURSE DUMBASS, THAT IT ISNT IN THE BILL IS THE WHOLE FUKCING POINT!
Holy Freaking Shit, don't you understand what it means when we are saying the LAW IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED?
Obama just had his minions assert that the tax payers will now pay for Congresses costs, which is an EXEMPTION FROM THE COSTS, knucklehead.
From a self-serving perspective I like the new healthcare situation, it is taking a lot of the unknowns in my retirement planning out of the picture.
The "law" doesn't say anything about no longer paying for congressional Insurance, it just says that they must buy it on the exchanges.
Nowhere in the bill does it say that Members of Congress and their staffs will no longer have health insurance as part of their salaries.
OF COURSE DUMBASS, THAT IT ISNT IN THE BILL IS THE WHOLE FUKCING POINT!
Holy Freaking Shit, don't you understand what it means when we are saying the LAW IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED?
I do. It means that you have no idea what you're talking about.
What law is do you believe is being broken?
Obama just had his minions assert that the tax payers will now pay for Congresses costs, which is an EXEMPTION FROM THE COSTS, knucklehead.
Taxpayers providing health insurance for members of Congress as part of their salaries is not an EXEMPTION from ANYTHING, nor even a change from the way things are now.
The "law" doesn't say anything about no longer paying for congressional Insurance, it just says that they must buy it on the exchanges.
Nowhere in the bill does it say that Members of Congress and their staffs will no longer have health insurance as part of their salaries.
OF COURSE DUMBASS, THAT IT ISNT IN THE BILL IS THE WHOLE FUKCING POINT!
Holy Freaking Shit, don't you understand what it means when we are saying the LAW IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED?
I do. It means that you have no idea what you're talking about.
What law is do you believe is being broken?
Obama just had his minions assert that the tax payers will now pay for Congresses costs, which is an EXEMPTION FROM THE COSTS, knucklehead.
Taxpayers providing health insurance for members of Congress as part of their salaries is not an EXEMPTION from ANYTHING, nor even a change from the way things are now.
Nor is there any provision in the law allowing Obama to change it. The employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act contains no provision allowing the president to suspend, delay or repeal it. Section 1513(d) states in no uncertain terms that "The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.""There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."
--Justice John Paul Stephens in Clinton v. City of New York
OF COURSE DUMBASS, THAT IT ISNT IN THE BILL IS THE WHOLE FUKCING POINT!
Holy Freaking Shit, don't you understand what it means when we are saying the LAW IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED?
I do. It means that you have no idea what you're talking about.
What law is do you believe is being broken?
Obama just had his minions assert that the tax payers will now pay for Congresses costs, which is an EXEMPTION FROM THE COSTS, knucklehead.
Taxpayers providing health insurance for members of Congress as part of their salaries is not an EXEMPTION from ANYTHING, nor even a change from the way things are now.
Frankly, if you want to discuss the law here, you can have Obama tried for breaching his oath of office. He has twisted and mangled that law and delayed it repeatedly, nowhere in the Constitution does it allow a sitting president to amend or redo a law already passed by Congress. That sir is breaking the law. He swore to faithfully execute and uphold the Constitution. So far he blatantly defied it here. Obamacare should be nullified on it's face for this very reason.
""There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."
Justice John Paul Stephens in Clinton v. City of New York
Nor is there any provision in the law allowing Obama to change it. The employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act contains no provision allowing the president to suspend, delay or repeal it. Section 1513(d) states in no uncertain terms that "The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013."
Now my question to you is:
Is this the law you supported? Or is it you who doesn't have an inkling as to what he speaks?
I do. It means that you have no idea what you're talking about.
What law is do you believe is being broken?
Taxpayers providing health insurance for members of Congress as part of their salaries is not an EXEMPTION from ANYTHING, nor even a change from the way things are now.
Frankly, if you want to discuss the law here, you can have Obama tried for breaching his oath of office. He has twisted and mangled that law and delayed it repeatedly, nowhere in the Constitution does it allow a sitting president to amend or redo a law already passed by Congress. That sir is breaking the law. He swore to faithfully execute and uphold the Constitution. So far he blatantly defied it here. Obamacare should be nullified on it's face for this very reason.
""There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."
Justice John Paul Stephens in Clinton v. City of New York
Nor is there any provision in the law allowing Obama to change it. The employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act contains no provision allowing the president to suspend, delay or repeal it. Section 1513(d) states in no uncertain terms that "The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013."
Now my question to you is:
Is this the law you supported? Or is it you who doesn't have an inkling as to what he speaks?
I have never supported the "Obamacare" law. I didn't when it was proposed, I don't now. That has nothing to do with anything I've said, though.
OF COURSE DUMBASS, THAT IT ISNT IN THE BILL IS THE WHOLE FUKCING POINT!
Holy Freaking Shit, don't you understand what it means when we are saying the LAW IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED?
I do. It means that you have no idea what you're talking about.
What law is do you believe is being broken?
Taxpayers providing health insurance for members of Congress as part of their salaries is not an EXEMPTION from ANYTHING, nor even a change from the way things are now.
Frankly, if you want to discuss the law here, you can have Obama tried for breaching his oath of office. He has twisted and mangled that law and delayed it repeatedly, nowhere in the Constitution does it allow a sitting president to amend or redo a law already passed by Congress. That sir is breaking the law. He swore to faithfully execute and uphold the Constitution. So far he blatantly defied it here. Obamacare should be nullified on it's face for this very reason. The employer mandate was supposed to go into effect in three months, yet it will not go into effect until 2014.
Nor is there any provision in the law allowing Obama to change it. The employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act contains no provision allowing the president to suspend, delay or repeal it. Section 1513(d) states in no uncertain terms that "The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.""There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."
--Justice John Paul Stephens in Clinton v. City of New York
Now my question to you is:
Is this the law you supported? Or is it you who doesn't have an inkling as to what he speaks?
OF COURSE DUMBASS, THAT IT ISNT IN THE BILL IS THE WHOLE FUKCING POINT!
Holy Freaking Shit, don't you understand what it means when we are saying the LAW IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED?
I do. It means that you have no idea what you're talking about.
What law is do you believe is being broken?
Obama just had his minions assert that the tax payers will now pay for Congresses costs, which is an EXEMPTION FROM THE COSTS, knucklehead.
Taxpayers providing health insurance for members of Congress as part of their salaries is not an EXEMPTION from ANYTHING, nor even a change from the way things are now.
The whole ACA is itself a whole sale change in the law, so whether currently Congresscritters and staff are covered under an employer match or not is irrelevant, since such was NOT IN THE LAW AS WRITTEN.
Why do you think they had to have all the meeting with Office of Personnel Management to add the subsidy even though it was not in the law, and not passed by Congress.
You are being obtuse and thick headed, but the more you talk shit the more of an idiot you show yourself to be. The leaders of Congress are not going to all this trouble to get this change from OPM and hammering Vister all because it doesn't make any difference and is already in the law, you stupid fucktard.
Frankly, if you want to discuss the law here, you can have Obama tried for breaching his oath of office. He has twisted and mangled that law and delayed it repeatedly, nowhere in the Constitution does it allow a sitting president to amend or redo a law already passed by Congress. That sir is breaking the law. He swore to faithfully execute and uphold the Constitution. So far he blatantly defied it here. Obamacare should be nullified on it's face for this very reason.
""There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."
Justice John Paul Stephens in Clinton v. City of New York
Nor is there any provision in the law allowing Obama to change it. The employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act contains no provision allowing the president to suspend, delay or repeal it. Section 1513(d) states in no uncertain terms that "The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013."
Now my question to you is:
Is this the law you supported? Or is it you who doesn't have an inkling as to what he speaks?
I have never supported the "Obamacare" law. I didn't when it was proposed, I don't now. That has nothing to do with anything I've said, though.
You were just saying "it is the law" so I responded to that. So it has plenty to do with what you said. Your obfuscation and deflection are noted.
By "exempted" you mean a one-year delay requested by businesses?
I think he means Congressmen.
I think Congressmen, and staff, should be on commission, like salemen, with compensation pegged to the performance of the economy. Perhaps a 50:50 mix of national and their district. And they don't get to resign office.
It already is law - it's in the ACA.
Not only are members of Congress not "exempt", they're the only people in the country who are forced by the law itself to buy their insurance on the exchanges.
