Rubio enrolls in Obamacare, takes federal subsidy

[driveby]

This is what you get when you rush to pass a law in secret, without reading it, on Christmas Eve in the middle of a snow storm......

 

[Star]

Federal Poverty Level 2013 - 2014

$94,200............400% of poverty level 2013

AC DC Back in Black (lyrics) - YouTube

Meaning Rubio gets NO subsidy.

Size of family-6

400% poverty level-126,360

And he make how much?

Please correct me if I'm wrong!

Pretty sure Congress members still get subsidies. Maybe under a different category. I don't know the details. Just another one of the ways Obama changed the unchangeable law and people are whomping mad about it.

If Grassley's (Charles Grassley R-IA) Amendment had included all government employees then-----then
all gov't employees would be eligible for coverage under Obamacare but-----but Grassley didn't include
all gov't employees in his amendment, Grassley only included members of congress and their staffs therefore-----therefore, gov't employees fall under the "large employer" provision(s) of Obamacare. If you find that confusing - blame Chuck Grassley R-IA for your cognitive difficulties.
.

 

[Star]

Pretty sure Congress members still get subsidies. Maybe under a different category. I don't know the details. Just another one of the ways Obama changed the unchangeable law and people are whomping mad about it.

Congress Exempt from Obamacare: The Latest Lie That Won't Die | New Republic

Members of congress are getting subsidies. I don't know the nature of them. But they're getting some sort of subsidy, which Obama specifically okayed. A subsidy which ordinary Americans with congress-level wages would not get on the exchanges.

Some legislators are turning down the subsidy; some are taking the subsidy. According to the OP, Rubio is taking the subsidy.

hahahaha - "I don't know the nature of them. But"-----but whatever the heck it is, it's Obama's fault.
ODS much?


No ‘Special Subsidy’ for Congress
Just like other employers, the federal government pays a portion of premiums of the health plans it offers to its workers. There was concern on Capitol Hill this year, however, that the employer contributions wouldn’t be made to the health exchange plans when members of Congress and their staffs made the switch in January 2014 to their new insurance. The relevant provision in the law didn’t address the federal government’s employer contribution, which is currently 72 percent of premiums on average. So no employer contribution would be quite a blow to many congressional workers — just as it would be to other workers who get health insurance through their jobs. (While employer contributions vary from firm to firm, the overall average employer contribution was 82 percent for single insurance plans and 71 percent for family plans in 2013, according to the latest employer survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.) ~ FactCheck.Org - August 30, 2013
.

 

[Dot Com]

Congress Exempt from Obamacare: The Latest Lie That Won't Die | New Republic

Members of congress are getting subsidies. I don't know the nature of them. But they're getting some sort of subsidy, which Obama specifically okayed. A subsidy which ordinary Americans with congress-level wages would not get on the exchanges.

Some legislators are turning down the subsidy; some are taking the subsidy. According to the OP, Rubio is taking the subsidy.

hahahaha - "I don't know the nature of them. But"-----but whatever the heck it is, it's Obama's fault.
ODS much?


No ‘Special Subsidy’ for Congress
Just like other employers, the federal government pays a portion of premiums of the health plans it offers to its workers. There was concern on Capitol Hill this year, however, that the employer contributions wouldn’t be made to the health exchange plans when members of Congress and their staffs made the switch in January 2014 to their new insurance. The relevant provision in the law didn’t address the federal government’s employer contribution, which is currently 72 percent of premiums on average. So no employer contribution would be quite a blow to many congressional workers — just as it would be to other workers who get health insurance through their jobs. (While employer contributions vary from firm to firm, the overall average employer contribution was 82 percent for single insurance plans and 71 percent for family plans in 2013, according to the latest employer survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.) ~ FactCheck.Org - August 30, 2013
.

exactly, rw logic

pos-repped & friend's request sent

 

[Amelia]

Congress Exempt from Obamacare: The Latest Lie That Won't Die | New Republic

Members of congress are getting subsidies. I don't know the nature of them. But they're getting some sort of subsidy, which Obama specifically okayed. A subsidy which ordinary Americans with congress-level wages would not get on the exchanges.

Some legislators are turning down the subsidy; some are taking the subsidy. According to the OP, Rubio is taking the subsidy.

hahahaha - "I don't know the nature of them. But"-----but whatever the heck it is, it's Obama's fault.
ODS much?


No ‘Special Subsidy’ for Congress
Just like other employers, the federal government pays a portion of premiums of the health plans it offers to its workers. There was concern on Capitol Hill this year, however, that the employer contributions wouldn’t be made to the health exchange plans when members of Congress and their staffs made the switch in January 2014 to their new insurance. The relevant provision in the law didn’t address the federal government’s employer contribution, which is currently 72 percent of premiums on average. So no employer contribution would be quite a blow to many congressional workers — just as it would be to other workers who get health insurance through their jobs. (While employer contributions vary from firm to firm, the overall average employer contribution was 82 percent for single insurance plans and 71 percent for family plans in 2013, according to the latest employer survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.) ~ FactCheck.Org - August 30, 2013
.

I'll tell you what I told Rightwinger -- jump on the OP Sallow for calling them subsidies.

That is what they're being called. MeBelle said that congress members make too much money to qualify for subsidies. I pointed out to her that these subsidies are in a different category from the typical ones people think of as associated with the ACA and are available to members of congress in spite of their higher wages. And, yes, they were made available by Obama in what appears to be a way different from the intention of the Grassley amendment.

Hack much?

 

[Vox]

Members of congress are getting subsidies. I don't know the nature of them. But they're getting some sort of subsidy, which Obama specifically okayed. A subsidy which ordinary Americans with congress-level wages would not get on the exchanges.

Some legislators are turning down the subsidy; some are taking the subsidy. According to the OP, Rubio is taking the subsidy.

hahahaha - I don't know the nature of them. But[-----but whatever the heck it is, it's Obama's fault.
ODS much?


[]No ‘Special Subsidy’ for Congress
Just like other employers, the federal government pays a portion of premiums of the health plans it offers to its workers. There was concern on Capitol Hill this year, however, that the employer contributions wouldn’t be made to the health exchange plans when members of Congress and their staffs made the switch in January 2014 to their new insurance. The relevant provision in the law didn’t address the federal government’s employer contribution, which is currently 72 percent of premiums on average. So no employer contribution would be quite a blow to many congressional workers — just as it would be to other workers who get health insurance through their jobs. (While employer contributions vary from firm to firm, the overall average employer contribution was 82 percent for single insurance plans and 71 percent for family plans in 2013, according to the [URL="http://kff.org/report-section/2013-summary-of-findings/"][]latest employer survey[/COLOR] from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.) ~ FactCheck.Org - August 30, 2013

I'll tell you what I told Rightwinger -- jump on the OP Sallow for calling them subsidies.

That is what they're being called. MeBelle said that congress members make too much money to qualify for subsidies. I pointed out to her that these subsidies are in a different category from the typical ones people think of as associated with the ACA and are available to members of congress in spite of their higher wages. And, yes, they were made available by Obama in what appears to be a way different from the intention of the Grassley amendment.

Hack much?

Lie is their main argument.

 

[Star]

Listen to Reagan's prediction for Medicare in his 1964 speech "A Time For Choosing". He predicts total socialism in the near term. Instead we saw the opposite - the increasing privatization of the American Economy and the explosion of profits in the health care market.

The Republican Party did everything possible to sabotage Medicare. They told every lie imaginable. They said it would kill old people. They also tried to sabotage the GI Bill which helped returning veterans get educated. The Republicans try to block anything that doesn't help the wealthiest Americans. Why? Because they are owned by special interest monopolies which don't want to have to lower their prices to compete for more consumers. Health Insurance companies invested trillions into Washington so they wouldn't have to compete with each other. They divided the country into a tapestry of fixed no-compete zones and they increased premiums/decreased services without fear of losing customers. Now, the government is forcing them to compete for a huge block of consumers on the exchanges. This means they will have to offer competitive rates and decent services.

The health insurance funded Republican elections for a reason. They paid for a government protected monopoly which is now being taken away. So yes, the GOP is telling every lie in the book to protect the special interests which own them.

Thanks to the ACA, rates have gone up and competition has gone down. Now you can't even buy insurance across county lines.

Why do you constantly post about stuff you know nothing bout? - ...a T-publican thing?

Fact Check – premiums will go up – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

The RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research institution, released a lengthy study that tried to compare apples to apples: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR189.html
The study used modeling to look at ten “representative states” as well as the country as a whole. In five of those ten states, RAND finds no increases when the costs of individual plans offered prior to Obamacare are compared to cost estimates for comparable plans offered in the exchanges. Consumers in three states – Minnesota, North Dakota and Ohio – could see their premiums increase by as much as 43%, while in the final two states – Louisiana and New Mexico – consumers could see their premiums decline. Nationwide, the study estimates that premiums will remain stable.

This means that the government’s new coverage mandates may force some consumers to pay more, but the law’s supporters are quick to point out that they’ll be purchasing much more comprehensive insurance. On the other hand, price restrictions and requirements that companies cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions means that some people with health problems could wind up paying substantially less.

Finally, none of the study’s cost estimates take into account federal subsidies that will be available to help offset the cost of insurance for lower-income Americans. The study predicts that at least 60 percent of those entering the individual market in the ten states it analyzed will be eligible for federal assistance.

.

 

[Amelia]

Listen to Reagan's prediction for Medicare in his 1964 speech "A Time For Choosing". He predicts total socialism in the near term. Instead we saw the opposite - the increasing privatization of the American Economy and the explosion of profits in the health care market.

The Republican Party did everything possible to sabotage Medicare. They told every lie imaginable. They said it would kill old people. They also tried to sabotage the GI Bill which helped returning veterans get educated. The Republicans try to block anything that doesn't help the wealthiest Americans. Why? Because they are owned by special interest monopolies which don't want to have to lower their prices to compete for more consumers. Health Insurance companies invested trillions into Washington so they wouldn't have to compete with each other. They divided the country into a tapestry of fixed no-compete zones and they increased premiums/decreased services without fear of losing customers. Now, the government is forcing them to compete for a huge block of consumers on the exchanges. This means they will have to offer competitive rates and decent services.

The health insurance funded Republican elections for a reason. They paid for a government protected monopoly which is now being taken away. So yes, the GOP is telling every lie in the book to protect the special interests which own them.

Thanks to the ACA, rates have gone up and competition has gone down. Now you can't even buy insurance across county lines.

Why do you constantly post about stuff you know nothing bout? - ...a T-publican thing?

Fact Check – premiums will go up – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

The RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research institution, released a lengthy study that tried to compare apples to apples: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR189.html
The study used modeling to look at ten “representative states” as well as the country as a whole. In five of those ten states, RAND finds no increases when the costs of individual plans offered prior to Obamacare are compared to cost estimates for comparable plans offered in the exchanges. Consumers in three states – Minnesota, North Dakota and Ohio – could see their premiums increase by as much as 43%, while in the final two states – Louisiana and New Mexico – consumers could see their premiums decline. Nationwide, the study estimates that premiums will remain stable.

This means that the government’s new coverage mandates may force some consumers to pay more, but the law’s supporters are quick to point out that they’ll be purchasing much more comprehensive insurance. On the other hand, price restrictions and requirements that companies cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions means that some people with health problems could wind up paying substantially less.

Finally, none of the study’s cost estimates take into account federal subsidies that will be available to help offset the cost of insurance for lower-income Americans. The study predicts that at least 60 percent of those entering the individual market in the ten states it analyzed will be eligible for federal assistance.

.

I was about to pooh pooh your factchecking as premature. Then I noticed it actually confirms part of what I said and still you say I was making it up.

Keep trying, I'm sure it's still possible for you to be a tiny bit more hackish.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Amelia and Vox, you are wrong, and you know it.

 

[boedicca]

One of Obamacare's biggest critics is now officially covered under the federal health care exchange: Sen. Marco Rubio.

"Senator Rubio spent time looking at all the options and decided to enroll through the D.C. exchange for coverage for him and his family," spokeswoman Brooke Sammon told the Tampa Bay Times.

Rubio, a father of four, also took the federal subsidy afforded to lawmakers and staff — a perk worth up to 75 percent of monthly premium costs — that some Republicans wanted to kill off. Even some lawmakers who have enrolled in the exchange have rejected the taxpayer-funded employer contribution.

Rubio enrolls in Obamacare, takes federal subsidy | Tampa Bay Times

Words...just...fail...me...now...

Of course words fail you. You are shocked that a politician is actually complying with the law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One of Obamacare's biggest critics is now officially covered under the federal health care exchange: Sen. Marco Rubio.

"Senator Rubio spent time looking at all the options and decided to enroll through the D.C. exchange for coverage for him and his family," spokeswoman Brooke Sammon told the Tampa Bay Times.

Rubio, a father of four, also took the federal subsidy afforded to lawmakers and staff — a perk worth up to 75 percent of monthly premium costs — that some Republicans wanted to kill off. Even some lawmakers who have enrolled in the exchange have rejected the taxpayer-funded employer contribution.

Rubio enrolls in Obamacare, takes federal subsidy | Tampa Bay Times

Words...just...fail...me...now...

Of course words fail you. You are shocked that a politician is actually complying with the law.

Thank you.

 

[Gadawg73]

Listen to Reagan's prediction for Medicare in his 1964 speech "A Time For Choosing". He predicts total socialism in the near term. Instead we saw the opposite - the increasing privatization of the American Economy and the explosion of profits in the health care market.

The Republican Party did everything possible to sabotage Medicare. They told every lie imaginable. They said it would kill old people. They also tried to sabotage the GI Bill which helped returning veterans get educated. The Republicans try to block anything that doesn't help the wealthiest Americans. Why? Because they are owned by special interest monopolies which don't want to have to lower their prices to compete for more consumers. Health Insurance companies invested trillions into Washington so they wouldn't have to compete with each other. They divided the country into a tapestry of fixed no-compete zones and they increased premiums/decreased services without fear of losing customers. Now, the government is forcing them to compete for a huge block of consumers on the exchanges. This means they will have to offer competitive rates and decent services.

The health insurance funded Republican elections for a reason. They paid for a government protected monopoly which is now being taken away. So yes, the GOP is telling every lie in the book to protect the special interests which own them.

Thanks to the ACA, rates have gone up and competition has gone down. Now you can't even buy insurance across county lines.

Why do you constantly post about stuff you know nothing bout? - ...a T-publican thing?

Fact Check – premiums will go up – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

The RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research institution, released a lengthy study that tried to compare apples to apples: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR189.html
The study used modeling to look at ten “representative states” as well as the country as a whole. In five of those ten states, RAND finds no increases when the costs of individual plans offered prior to Obamacare are compared to cost estimates for comparable plans offered in the exchanges. Consumers in three states – Minnesota, North Dakota and Ohio – could see their premiums increase by as much as 43%, while in the final two states – Louisiana and New Mexico – consumers could see their premiums decline. Nationwide, the study estimates that premiums will remain stable.

This means that the government’s new coverage mandates may force some consumers to pay more, but the law’s supporters are quick to point out that they’ll be purchasing much more comprehensive insurance. On the other hand, price restrictions and requirements that companies cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions means that some people with health problems could wind up paying substantially less.

Finally, none of the study’s cost estimates take into account federal subsidies that will be available to help offset the cost of insurance for lower-income Americans. The study predicts that at least 60 percent of those entering the individual market in the ten states it analyzed will be eligible for federal assistance.

.

Of course they will "remain stable" on average only.
Hundreds of billions of Federal subsidies even to families with 80K a year income will lower premiums for them and to "remain stable" drastically raise them for the rest of us.
Basic math.
But tell me this: if someone can not afford to buy health insurance now even if their new health insurance is 100% FREE, how will they be able to pay the $5500 deductible BEFORE they can get one cent of health care bills paid for and then pay the 40% of ALL bills after that?

 

[Little-Acorn]

While I don't expect these folks to go "dead ender" on this, someone could at least have the grace to come out and say, "Look, I was against this, but now? I am going to give it a try. I may have been wrong and I am going to approach it with an open mind."

On the other hand, if he wanted to tell the truth, he could say, "I'm enrolling in it because the law says I have to, or else pay stiff penalties."

Looks like that explanation (obeying the law) isn't one that occurs to liberals, especially the more fanatical ones.

It's especially entertaining to see them complaining about his signing up for subsidies as he does it.

These liberal fanatics seem to feel that, where the government has been taking money from him for years for things he doesn't want them to take it for... and then generously gives him a chance to get some of it back... his acceptance of the rebate somehow means he approved of the original thefts in the first place.

Such a weird, strange world these liberal fanatics live in. And they claim to be astonished when they find someone who DOESN'T live in their bizarro world.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I told you my fellow GOP would get over all of this.

It's a done deal.

Now we work on reform and adjustment. No repeal, squeal.

I wish you were right but, just like Rubio, they'll keep pretending to "repeal/defund" while offering nothing AND, we'll pay for their coverage.

And, all the time we're paying his damn subsidy he'll whine about it.

 

[Antares]

Words...just...fail...me...now...

Of course words fail you. You are shocked that a politician is actually complying with the law.

Thank you.

Shut up fuckwad, YOU claim subsidies are to help Dr. reimbursements.

 

[Star]

ACA was not designed to fix your rate issue.. The issues that it DID FIX didn't require this much money or taking Millions of Americans this close to a healthcare disaster by upsetting their insurance plans.. The main INTENT of ACA was economic justice and redistribution to pay for the "uninsured".. About 1/2 of whom didn't have an economic reason for lacking coverage.

Would have been cheaper and more effective to address the 10% of the needy and fix a couple insurance company abuses..

I will presume that COBRA (ReaganCare) was not unduly straining any municipal, state or federal budgets.

Not sure what point you're going for here. With the aspect of COBRA I know about, people pay full value for their own insurance and they're only on it temporarily.

Try to inform yourself before posting, Reagancare is more than just "people pay full value for their own insurance and they're only on it temporarily." Are you having a bad night?

Reagancare is COBRA, but I would boil COBRA down even further to EMTALA. EMTALA is where you find the free riders (usually through no fault of their own) and the cost shifting that Obamacare addresses.
It makes no sense-----it--makes--no--sense for T-publicans to be in favor of cost shifting about $1,100 in annual cost of a family health insurance policy in 2009, i.e before Obamacare.



The Statute Whose Name We Dare Not Speak: Emtala and the Affordable Care Act

W. David Koeninger

<snip>

Arguably, EMTALA works against the trap because it is not targeted at any particular, sympathetic, well-organized group. It was intended primarily to benefit the indigent, but its benefits are available to anyone.
Moreover, it challenges the powerful health care industry, forcing hospitals to treat patients that have no means to pay for their care. This does not mean that hospitals have not pushed back or become more ingenious in their methods of assuring a profitable mix of payment streams for the care provided in their emergency departments. Rather, their chief method of paying for uncompensated care provided pursuant to EMTALA requirements has been to shift costs to insured patients. This method thereby threatens the third leg of the trap as defined by Paul Starr: the system of employer-provided insurance that conceals its true costs from those who benefit from it.

Throughout much of the last fifty years, the tax break given to employers that provide health insurance to their employees has led to employers paying a greater share of health insurance premiums than they might otherwise. Thus, consumers were insulated from increases in the costs of services that drive up the cost of premiums for employers. However, over the twenty-five years of EMTALA's existence, the cost-shifting resulting from the mandate for universal emergency room care has worn away that insulation. When health care costs rise significantly faster than the rate of inflation in a recessionary economy, employers are forced to shift those costs to employees who therefore cease to be so wholly insulated from the real costs of their care. As a consequence, while "COBRA coverage" was believed to be the much more noteworthy legislative achievement at the time of its enactment, today it is almost useless because so few unemployed Americans can afford to pay the premiums for continuing coverage.

Arguably, EMTALA works against the trap because it is not targeted at any particular, sympathetic, well-organized group. It was intended primarily to benefit the indigent, but its benefits are available to anyone. Moreover, it challenges the powerful health care industry, forcing hospitals to treat patients that have no means to pay for their care. This does not mean that hospitals have not pushed back or become more ingenious in their methods of assuring a profitable mix of payment streams for the care provided in their emergency departments. Rather, their chief method of paying for uncompensated care provided pursuant to EMTALA requirements has been to shift costs to insured patients. This method thereby threatens the third leg of the trap as defined by Paul Starr: the system of employer-provided insurance that conceals its true costs from those who benefit from it.

Throughout much of the last fifty years, the tax break given to employers that provide health insurance to their employees has led to employers paying a greater share of health insurance premiums than they might otherwise. Thus, consumers were insulated from increases in the costs of services that drive up the cost of premiums for employers. However, over the twenty-five years of EMTALA's existence, the cost-shifting resulting from the mandate for universal emergency room care has worn away that insulation. When health care costs rise significantly faster than the rate of inflation in a recessionary economy, employers are forced to shift those costs to employees who therefore cease to be so wholly insulated from the real costs of their care. As a consequence, while “COBRA coverage” was believed to be the much more noteworthy legislative achievement at the time of its enactment, today it is almost useless because so few unemployed Americans can afford to pay the premiums for continuing coverage.

Lots more about Reagancare here.


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course words fail you. You are shocked that a politician is actually complying with the law.

Thank you.

Shut up fuckwad, YOU claim subsidies are to help Dr. reimbursements.

Did I or did you? In either case, little one, you are showing that you don't comprehend your own (so-called) profession. :Lol:

 

[JakeStarkey]

I told you my fellow GOP would get over all of this.

It's a done deal.

Now we work on reform and adjustment. No repeal, squeal.

I wish you were right but, just like Rubio, they'll keep pretending to "repeal/defund" while offering nothing AND, we'll pay for their coverage.

And, all the time we're paying his damn subsidy he'll whine about it.

Well, watch, Antares, and you will see the rear guard at the bridge of extinction.

They will be gone in real life politically by June.

 

[Antares]

Thank you.

Shut up fuckwad, YOU claim subsidies are to help Dr. reimbursements.

Did I or did you? In either case, little one, you are showing that you don't comprehend your own (so-called) profession. :Lol:

LOL, you did.

I know precisely of what I speak, you?

You swallow Bammy jizz.

 

[g5000]

One of Obamacare's biggest critics is now officially covered under the federal health care exchange: Sen. Marco Rubio.

"Senator Rubio spent time looking at all the options and decided to enroll through the D.C. exchange for coverage for him and his family," spokeswoman Brooke Sammon told the Tampa Bay Times.

Rubio, a father of four, also took the federal subsidy afforded to lawmakers and staff &#8212; a perk worth up to 75 percent of monthly premium costs &#8212; that some Republicans wanted to kill off. Even some lawmakers who have enrolled in the exchange have rejected the taxpayer-funded employer contribution.

Rubio enrolls in Obamacare, takes federal subsidy | Tampa Bay Times

Words...just...fail...me...now...

Congress has always received a federal subsidy for their health insurance. FEHB. It's called employer-sponsored health insurance, with their employer being the American people.

The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program is a system of "managed competition" through which employee health benefits are provided to civilian government employees and annuitants of the United States government. The government contributes 72% of the weighted average premium of all plans, not to exceed 75% of the premium for any one plan (calculated separately for individual and family coverage).