It Should Be Law That ALL Who Voted for Obamacare CANNOT get EXEMPTED from it.

[JimBowie1958]

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.

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.

The ACA does not attempt to change the salary and benefits package provided to members of Congress. That's part of an entirely different law.

The only change, in relation to health insurance for members of Congress, is that under the ACA, they must purchase their insurance on the exchanges. Nothing at all is said about who pays for it - and since Congressional pay and benefits are already the law, it would a violation of that law not to pay the same percentage of insurance that they had been previously, until a law is passed that changes the levels of pay and benefits.

The ACA did not exist prior to the laws passage, obviously and it most certainly did specify that Congresscritters PAY for their insurance like everyone else.

So, since ACA did not authorize the feds to pay for it, it is contrary to the law for the feds to subsidize the insurance costs like others will not have theirs subsidized by the Federal government.

You know you are being obtuse, and it is obvious that this is an extra-legal exemption from the financial obligations.

But if you want to keep looking like a fucking fool, by my guest.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

How does stating that a law exists imply supporting it?

Saying it in such an authoritative way, just like all the other liberals on this board do when the validity of the law is questioned. They cry "well it is the law, so there!" I don't know why you are hiding it, frankly I don't care to. But it's obvious to me you support the law.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

The ACA does not attempt to change the salary and benefits package provided to members of Congress. That's part of an entirely different law.

The only change, in relation to health insurance for members of Congress, is that under the ACA, they must purchase their insurance on the exchanges. Nothing at all is said about who pays for it - and since Congressional pay and benefits are already the law, it would a violation of that law not to pay the same percentage of insurance that they had been previously, until a law is passed that changes the levels of pay and benefits.

The ACA did not exist prior to the laws passage, obviously and it most certainly did specify that Congresscritters PAY for their insurance like everyone else.

Before the ACA, the federal government, through FEHBP, paid 72% of health insurance premiums for Congressmen and their staffers.

After these recent decisions, the federal government, through a subsidy, will pay 72% of health insurance premiums for Congressmen and their staffers.

So, since ACA did not authorize the feds to pay for it, it is contrary to the law for the feds to subsidize the insurance costs like others will not have theirs subsidized by the Federal government.

The Federal Government has been "subsidizing" the insurance costs of Congressmen, their staffers, and thousands of other Federal employees since 1960.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

How does stating that a law exists imply supporting it?

Saying it in such an authoritative way,

That would be because I know what I'm talking about.

just like all the other liberals on this board do when the validity of the law is questioned.

I don't speak for "all the other liberals", nor do they speak for me.

They cry "well it is the law, so there!"

Nothing I've said, in context, comes close to that.

I don't know why you are hiding it, frankly I don't care to. But it's obvious to me you support the law.

Like so many other things that are "obvious" to you, it's entirely false.

But if it helps you sleep at night to assign opinions to me in your head, be my guest.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The ACA does not attempt to change the salary and benefits package provided to members of Congress. That's part of an entirely different law.

The only change, in relation to health insurance for members of Congress, is that under the ACA, they must purchase their insurance on the exchanges. Nothing at all is said about who pays for it - and since Congressional pay and benefits are already the law, it would a violation of that law not to pay the same percentage of insurance that they had been previously, until a law is passed that changes the levels of pay and benefits.

The ACA did not exist prior to the laws passage, obviously and it most certainly did specify that Congresscritters PAY for their insurance like everyone else.

Before the ACA, the federal government, through FEHBP, paid 72% of health insurance premiums for Congressmen and their staffers.

After these recent decisions, the federal government, through a subsidy, will pay 72% of health insurance premiums for Congressmen and their staffers.

So, since ACA did not authorize the feds to pay for it, it is contrary to the law for the feds to subsidize the insurance costs like others will not have theirs subsidized by the Federal government.

The Federal Government has been "subsidizing" the insurance costs of Congressmen, their staffers, and thousands of other Federal employees since 1960.

And when Obamacare goes into effect, that should technically cease. The ACA provides no federal support for the FEHBC. However, that little rule I just showed you will render that fact moot. Only the employees will suffer the full weight of the law. Congress will get a big $5,000 to $10,000 taxpayer funded subsidy if they do indeed decide to go into the exchanges.

That is wrong.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How does stating that a law exists imply supporting it?

Saying it in such an authoritative way,

That would be because I know what I'm talking about.

I don't speak for "all the other liberals", nor do they speak for me.

They cry "well it is the law, so there!"

Nothing I've said, in context, comes close to that.

I don't know why you are hiding it, frankly I don't care to. But it's obvious to me you support the law.

Like so many other things that are "obvious" to you, it's entirely false.

But if it helps you sleep at night to assign opinions to me in your head, be my guest.

Your terse reaction tells me that you hate having the tail pinned to you as the proverbial donkey. Those who think they know what they are talking about more usually than not don't. Read the post above this one. I pin that attitude to sheer arrogance, not pure knowledge or experience.

And why is it every liberal I run into insists he is not liberal, but yet they take positions that clearly belie his denial? Why is that so?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Saying it in such an authoritative way,

That would be because I know what I'm talking about.

I don't speak for "all the other liberals", nor do they speak for me.

Nothing I've said, in context, comes close to that.

I don't know why you are hiding it, frankly I don't care to. But it's obvious to me you support the law.

Like so many other things that are "obvious" to you, it's entirely false.

But if it helps you sleep at night to assign opinions to me in your head, be my guest.

Your terse reaction tells me that you hate having the tail pinned to you as the proverbial donkey. Those who think they know what they are talking about more usually than not don't.

And people who base their arguments around claiming to know what the other really thinks generally do so because the've got nothing else to say.

Read the post above this one. I pin that attitude to sheer arrogance, not pure knowledge or experience.

And why is it every liberal I run into insists he is not liberal, but yet they take positions that clearly belie his denial? Why is that so?

You've got that one completely backwards. I am most certainly a liberal, and I've never denied it.

Your mistake is in assuming that the ACA is a "liberal" law.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The ACA did not exist prior to the laws passage, obviously and it most certainly did specify that Congresscritters PAY for their insurance like everyone else.

Before the ACA, the federal government, through FEHBP, paid 72% of health insurance premiums for Congressmen and their staffers.

After these recent decisions, the federal government, through a subsidy, will pay 72% of health insurance premiums for Congressmen and their staffers.

So, since ACA did not authorize the feds to pay for it, it is contrary to the law for the feds to subsidize the insurance costs like others will not have theirs subsidized by the Federal government.

The Federal Government has been "subsidizing" the insurance costs of Congressmen, their staffers, and thousands of other Federal employees since 1960.

And when Obamacare goes into effect, that should technically cease.

Why?

The ACA provides no federal support for the FEHBC.

The ACA doesn't need to - there already laws on the books that provide federal support to the FEHBP.

However, that little rule I just showed you will render that fact moot. Only the employees will suffer the full weight of the law.

What "employees" are you talking about?

Congress will get a big $5,000 to $10,000 taxpayer funded subsidy if they do indeed decide to go into the exchanges.

Congress doesn't have a choice is the matter.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Before the ACA, the federal government, through FEHBP, paid 72% of health insurance premiums for Congressmen and their staffers.

After these recent decisions, the federal government, through a subsidy, will pay 72% of health insurance premiums for Congressmen and their staffers.



The Federal Government has been "subsidizing" the insurance costs of Congressmen, their staffers, and thousands of other Federal employees since 1960.

And when Obamacare goes into effect, that should technically cease.

Why?



The ACA doesn't need to - there already laws on the books that provide federal support to the FEHBP.

However, that little rule I just showed you will render that fact moot. Only the employees will suffer the full weight of the law.

What "employees" are you talking about?

Congress will get a big $5,000 to $10,000 taxpayer funded subsidy if they do indeed decide to go into the exchanges.

Congress doesn't have a choice is the matter.

Obviously they do have a choice in the matter. Or did you suddenly lose your ability to read and comprehend? The employees I refer to are the common worker, who if employed will be subject to losing their employer contributions once the ACA takes hold. Congress on the other hand will be provided a choice as to whether they wish to enter the exchanges or not, being bribed with a taxpayer subsidy if they do. They can exempt their staffers too. But they will not lose any employer contributions. I spelled it out to you in plain speech earlier.

To be precise as I can without dumbing it down any further for you:

This exemption would allow members of Congress to keep most or all of their staff members off the exchange entirely. Members of Congress who do decide to go on the exchange would get a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy (about $5,000 for single workers or about $10,000 for families) unavailable to all other Americans at the same income levels going on the exchange. This creates a special Obamacare exemption for members of Congress and congressional staff.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That would be because I know what I'm talking about.

I don't speak for "all the other liberals", nor do they speak for me.

Nothing I've said, in context, comes close to that.

Like so many other things that are "obvious" to you, it's entirely false.

But if it helps you sleep at night to assign opinions to me in your head, be my guest.

Your terse reaction tells me that you hate having the tail pinned to you as the proverbial donkey. Those who think they know what they are talking about more usually than not don't.

And people who base their arguments around claiming to know what the other really thinks generally do so because the've got nothing else to say.

Read the post above this one. I pin that attitude to sheer arrogance, not pure knowledge or experience.

And why is it every liberal I run into insists he is not liberal, but yet they take positions that clearly belie his denial? Why is that so?

You've got that one completely backwards. I am most certainly a liberal, and I've never denied it.

Your mistake is in assuming that the ACA is a "liberal" law.

And this is checkmate:

This is a liberal law, since only liberals passed it. If you are trying to blame Romney for this, you are moving the goalposts. Romneycare was never meant to be implemented on a nationwide scale. So this is one you will have to own up to bud. And why are you lying to me? 'I do not speak "for all the other liberals", nor do they speak for me.' If my reading comprehension is what it was 10 seconds ago, this means you denied being a liberal.

You shouldn't insult my intelligence, Doc. My mistake (if there was one) was in thinking you were an honest debater, Doc.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And when Obamacare goes into effect, that should technically cease.

Why?



The ACA doesn't need to - there already laws on the books that provide federal support to the FEHBP.



What "employees" are you talking about?

Congress will get a big $5,000 to $10,000 taxpayer funded subsidy if they do indeed decide to go into the exchanges.

Congress doesn't have a choice is the matter.

Obviously they do have a choice in the matter. Or did you suddenly lose your ability to read and comprehend? The employees I refer to are the common worker, who if employed will be subject to losing their employer contributions once the ACA takes hold. Congress on the other hand will be provided a choice as to whether they wish to enter the exchanges or not, being bribed with a taxpayer subsidy if they do. They can exempt their staffers too. But they will not lose any employer contributions. I spelled it out to you in plain speech earlier.

To be precise as I can without dumbing it down any further for you:

This exemption would allow members of Congress to keep most or all of their staff members off the exchange entirely. Members of Congress who do decide to go on the exchange would get a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy (about $5,000 for single workers or about $10,000 for families) unavailable to all other Americans at the same income levels going on the exchange. This creates a special Obamacare exemption for members of Congress and congressional staff.

You've got that completely ass-backwards.

The average employee won't be "forced" onto the exchanges. For example, my girlfriend has insurance from her work, and she'll be keeping that insurance.

On the other hand, due to an amendment to the ACA passed by Chuck Grassley, members of Congress and their staffers are forced to now get their insurance from the exchanges. That amendment does NOT say that they must pay for it themselves, it in fact implies that the insurance will be "provided" by the government.

I thought you had a better grasp on this.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Your terse reaction tells me that you hate having the tail pinned to you as the proverbial donkey. Those who think they know what they are talking about more usually than not don't.

And people who base their arguments around claiming to know what the other really thinks generally do so because the've got nothing else to say.

Read the post above this one. I pin that attitude to sheer arrogance, not pure knowledge or experience.

And why is it every liberal I run into insists he is not liberal, but yet they take positions that clearly belie his denial? Why is that so?

You've got that one completely backwards. I am most certainly a liberal, and I've never denied it.

Your mistake is in assuming that the ACA is a "liberal" law.

And this is checkmate:

This is a liberal law, since only liberals passed it. If you are trying to blame Romney for this, you are moving the goalposts. Romneycare was never meant to be implemented on a nationwide scale. So this is one you will have to own up to bud. And why are you lying to me? 'I do not speak "for all the other liberals", nor do they speak for me.' If my reading comprehension is what it was 10 seconds ago, this means you denied being a liberal.

You shouldn't insult my intelligence, Doc. My mistake (if there was one) was in thinking you were an honest debater, Doc.

I think it's pretty clear that you and I are working from different definitions of the word "liberal". I wouldn't call any of the people who voted for the ACA to be "liberals".

Single payer would be a "liberal" solution to healthcare. The ACA is a multi-billion dollar gift to Big Insurance.

In terms of me being a liberal, do you really not understand how I can both consider myself a liberal AND not feel that I speak for all liberals, or they for me?

Do you speak for all Conservatives?

Do all other Conservatives speak for you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And people who base their arguments around claiming to know what the other really thinks generally do so because the've got nothing else to say.



You've got that one completely backwards. I am most certainly a liberal, and I've never denied it.

Your mistake is in assuming that the ACA is a "liberal" law.

And this is checkmate:

This is a liberal law, since only liberals passed it. If you are trying to blame Romney for this, you are moving the goalposts. Romneycare was never meant to be implemented on a nationwide scale. So this is one you will have to own up to bud. And why are you lying to me? 'I do not speak "for all the other liberals", nor do they speak for me.' If my reading comprehension is what it was 10 seconds ago, this means you denied being a liberal.

You shouldn't insult my intelligence, Doc. My mistake (if there was one) was in thinking you were an honest debater, Doc.

I think it's pretty clear that you and I are working from different definitions of the word "liberal". I wouldn't call any of the people who voted for the ACA to be "liberals".

Single payer would be a "liberal" solution to healthcare. The ACA is a multi-billion dollar gift to Big Insurance.

In terms of me being a liberal, do you really not understand how I can both consider myself a liberal AND not feel that I speak for all liberals, or they for me?

Do you speak for all Conservatives?

Do all other Conservatives speak for you?

Who said I was a conservative, Doc? I am a libertarian. I take on what views make the most sense to me. See, you can't plainly admit you are a liberal, defending liberal policy. It does not require all of this bloviating of yours to do.

 

[koshergrl]

It is the nature of progressives to hide the nature of what they are. When people catch on to them, they just change names. That's the way dishonest fascists work. It's all about hiding intent, and changing the language in order to obfuscate and break ties with the disgusting fascist regimes of the past that strove to establish the exact same anti-human, pro-death policies.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And this is checkmate:

This is a liberal law, since only liberals passed it. If you are trying to blame Romney for this, you are moving the goalposts. Romneycare was never meant to be implemented on a nationwide scale. So this is one you will have to own up to bud. And why are you lying to me? 'I do not speak "for all the other liberals", nor do they speak for me.' If my reading comprehension is what it was 10 seconds ago, this means you denied being a liberal.

You shouldn't insult my intelligence, Doc. My mistake (if there was one) was in thinking you were an honest debater, Doc.

I think it's pretty clear that you and I are working from different definitions of the word "liberal". I wouldn't call any of the people who voted for the ACA to be "liberals".

Single payer would be a "liberal" solution to healthcare. The ACA is a multi-billion dollar gift to Big Insurance.

In terms of me being a liberal, do you really not understand how I can both consider myself a liberal AND not feel that I speak for all liberals, or they for me?

Do you speak for all Conservatives?

Do all other Conservatives speak for you?

Who said I was a conservative, Doc? I am a libertarian. I take on what views make the most sense to me. See, you can't plainly admit you are a liberal, defending liberal policy. It does not require all of this bloviating of yours to do.

Ok. Do you claim to speak for all Libertarians? Do all other Libertarians speak for you?

I'm pretty sure I know a bunch of self-described "Libertarians" who wouldn't agree with you on much. Do they speak for you?

I have "admitted" that I am a liberal. I have never denied it, nor shied away from the descriptor in any way. Your ridiculous idea that all liberals must be the same, and must support the same issues is as stupid as a lefty who calls all Conservatives racists.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why?



The ACA doesn't need to - there already laws on the books that provide federal support to the FEHBP.



What "employees" are you talking about?



Congress doesn't have a choice is the matter.

Obviously they do have a choice in the matter. Or did you suddenly lose your ability to read and comprehend? The employees I refer to are the common worker, who if employed will be subject to losing their employer contributions once the ACA takes hold. Congress on the other hand will be provided a choice as to whether they wish to enter the exchanges or not, being bribed with a taxpayer subsidy if they do. They can exempt their staffers too. But they will not lose any employer contributions. I spelled it out to you in plain speech earlier.

To be precise as I can without dumbing it down any further for you:

This exemption would allow members of Congress to keep most or all of their staff members off the exchange entirely. Members of Congress who do decide to go on the exchange would get a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy (about $5,000 for single workers or about $10,000 for families) unavailable to all other Americans at the same income levels going on the exchange. This creates a special Obamacare exemption for members of Congress and congressional staff.

You've got that completely ass-backwards.

The average employee won't be "forced" onto the exchanges. For example, my girlfriend has insurance from her work, and she'll be keeping that insurance.

I thought you had a better grasp on this.

How do you explain the "employer mandate" then? I thought you would have better reading comprehension skills than that, Doc. You are spewing the same rhetoric that Obama did. But in the end, you are lying just the same.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think it's pretty clear that you and I are working from different definitions of the word "liberal". I wouldn't call any of the people who voted for the ACA to be "liberals".

Single payer would be a "liberal" solution to healthcare. The ACA is a multi-billion dollar gift to Big Insurance.

In terms of me being a liberal, do you really not understand how I can both consider myself a liberal AND not feel that I speak for all liberals, or they for me?

Do you speak for all Conservatives?

Do all other Conservatives speak for you?

Who said I was a conservative, Doc? I am a libertarian. I take on what views make the most sense to me. See, you can't plainly admit you are a liberal, defending liberal policy. It does not require all of this bloviating of yours to do.

Ok. Do you claim to speak for all Libertarians? Do all other Libertarians speak for you?

I'm pretty sure I know a bunch of self-described "Libertarians" who wouldn't agree with you on much. Do they speak for you?

I have "admitted" that I am a liberal. I have never denied it, nor shied away from the descriptor in any way. Your ridiculous idea that all liberals must be the same, and must support the same issues is as stupid as a lefty who calls all Conservatives racists.

We have our core principles. You flat out denied your being a liberal. We could go on like this forever Doc, but I'd rather not. If I didn't speak for libertarians, or let them speak for me, then I am not a libertarian, I am a slave to opinion.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Obviously they do have a choice in the matter. Or did you suddenly lose your ability to read and comprehend? The employees I refer to are the common worker, who if employed will be subject to losing their employer contributions once the ACA takes hold. Congress on the other hand will be provided a choice as to whether they wish to enter the exchanges or not, being bribed with a taxpayer subsidy if they do. They can exempt their staffers too. But they will not lose any employer contributions. I spelled it out to you in plain speech earlier.

To be precise as I can without dumbing it down any further for you:

This exemption would allow members of Congress to keep most or all of their staff members off the exchange entirely. Members of Congress who do decide to go on the exchange would get a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy (about $5,000 for single workers or about $10,000 for families) unavailable to all other Americans at the same income levels going on the exchange. This creates a special Obamacare exemption for members of Congress and congressional staff.

You've got that completely ass-backwards.

The average employee won't be "forced" onto the exchanges. For example, my girlfriend has insurance from her work, and she'll be keeping that insurance.

I thought you had a better grasp on this.

1. How do you explain the "employer mandate" then? I thought you would have better reading comprehension skills than that, Doc. You are spewing the same rhetoric that Obama did. But in the end, you are lying just the same.

The "Employer Mandate" states that companies that employ more than 50 workers must provide insurance to their employees, or face fines.

How does that contradict anything I've said? The "employer mandate" has nothing to do with the exchanges.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Who said I was a conservative, Doc? I am a libertarian. I take on what views make the most sense to me. See, you can't plainly admit you are a liberal, defending liberal policy. It does not require all of this bloviating of yours to do.

Ok. Do you claim to speak for all Libertarians? Do all other Libertarians speak for you?

I'm pretty sure I know a bunch of self-described "Libertarians" who wouldn't agree with you on much. Do they speak for you?

I have "admitted" that I am a liberal. I have never denied it, nor shied away from the descriptor in any way. Your ridiculous idea that all liberals must be the same, and must support the same issues is as stupid as a lefty who calls all Conservatives racists.

We have our core principles. You flat out denied your being a liberal. We could go on like this forever Doc, but I'd rather not. If I didn't speak for libertarians, or let them speak for me, then I am not a libertarian, I am a slave to opinion.

Every self-described libertarian that I've ever met had slightly different political views than the others. None of them would EVER suggest that anyone else spoke for them.

Perhaps you see politics as a football game, where you're driven to support the home team, even if you think they chose a shitty play. I see it differently.

I have never met anyone who had the same political views as me. I speak for myself, and no one else - and no one speaks for me. I call myself a liberal because I feel that I meet the dictionary definition of the word, not because I agree with every other liberal on every single thing.

And please, don't be silly. The posts are all here, and in not a single one did I "deny" being a liberal.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You've got that completely ass-backwards.

The average employee won't be "forced" onto the exchanges. For example, my girlfriend has insurance from her work, and she'll be keeping that insurance.

I thought you had a better grasp on this.

1. How do you explain the "employer mandate" then? I thought you would have better reading comprehension skills than that, Doc. You are spewing the same rhetoric that Obama did. But in the end, you are lying just the same.

The "Employer Mandate" states that companies that employ more than 50 workers must provide insurance to their employees, or face fines.

How does that contradict anything I've said? The "employer mandate" has nothing to do with the exchanges.

More rather, I should have mentioned the "individual mandate" instead. Excuse me. So lets start from the top, tell me where your argument is now, Doc? How do you explain that? If your GF gets to "keep her insurance" then why the individual mandate? Slick, but not slick enough.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/keep-your-insurance-not-everyone/