Is this true about the healthcare bill?

[proudmamma]

In this article it says that Obama and Congress are exempt from the "glorious" healthcare bill. If this is true, I am beyond livid!

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/23/obamacare-for-everyone-but-obama/print/

Edited March 25, 2010 by proudmamma

[AngelBee]

:lurk5:

[Mrs Mungo]

This was addressed in the other thread. Post number 312.

 

From the text of the bill:

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

(i) REQUIREMENT- 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).

[TXMary2]

This was addressed in the other thread. Post number 312.

 

From the text of the bill:

 

So all the media reporting this tidbit are lying?

[Mergath]

So all the media reporting this tidbit are lying?

 

It certainly wouldn't be the first time the media has gotten something completely wrong.

[Slartibartfast]

So all the media reporting this tidbit are lying?

 

If media are reporting the opposite of the actual text then yes, they are lying.

 

That is from the congressional website....oh that's right. Congress lies.

[TXMary2]

It certainly wouldn't be the first time the media has gotten something completely wrong.

 

Can't argue there, but why hasn't anyone officially addressed this? If they did and I missed it then I apologize, but as far as I know this is being ignored seemingly in the hopes it will go away.

[Holly IN]

If media are reporting the opposite of the actual text then yes, they are lying.

 

That is from the congressional website....oh that's right. Congress lies.

 

LOL LOL LOL!!! Of course they do LIE!! (I am talking about the Congress!!)

[Holly IN]

that is not the only thing making me mad.

 

It is the expectation of me paying for somebody else's insurance!!! I have paid for my own insurance for many years!! I have fought insurance companies over denied claims because I educated myself in insurance legalese. I am also mad that this plan will drive us into depression era that is worse than the great depression and then collapse our country. I am mad for a lot of reasons. I grieve for my children's future!! sigh!

 

Vent over! Sorry I will ignore all healthcare bill post. I am just upset tonight.

 

Holly

[Slartibartfast]

Can't argue there, but why hasn't anyone officially addressed this? If they did and I missed it then I apologize, but as far as I know this is being ignored seemingly in the hopes it will go away.

 

LOL LOL LOL!!! Of course they do LIE!! (I am talking about the Congress!!)

 

 

Apparently that is not the bill we are looking for. :lol: Congress has placed a fake bill on their website to confuse us.

 

How dare they!

 

:(

 

 

 

 

 

:lol:

[lovemyboys]

that is not the only thing making me mad.

 

It is the expectation of me paying for somebody else's insurance!!! I have paid for my own insurance for many years!! I have fought insurance companies over denied claims because I educated myself in insurance legalese. I am also mad that this plan will drive us into depression era that is worse than the great depression and then collapse our country. I am mad for a lot of reasons. I grieve for my children's future!! sigh!

 

Vent over! Sorry I will ignore all healthcare bill post. I am just upset tonight.

 

Holly

 

Dmil told me that not only is the Congress exempt but also their staff is exempted. Say what?

 

I'll have to check into that, but for heaven's sake, that's just outrageous if that's the case.

[Slartibartfast]

Dmil told me that not only is the Congress exempt but also their staff is exempted. Say what?

 

I'll have to check into that, but for heaven's sake, that's just outrageous if that's the case.

 

That is not the case. That was addressed in the other thread.

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1581642&highlight=congress#post1581642

[Slartibartfast]

Can't argue there, but why hasn't anyone officially addressed this? If they did and I missed it then I apologize, but as far as I know this is being ignored seemingly in the hopes it will go away.

 

You should probably read a variety of Media.

[Cammie]

 

The best explaination I have seen so far:

 

The health care reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama Tuesday requires members of Congress and their office staffs to buy insurance through the state-run exchanges it creates – but it may exempt staffers who work for congressional committees or for party leaders in the House and Senate.

 

 

The bill requires “congressional staff†to buy insurance from the exchanges – with a stipend from the Office of Personnel Management But page 158 of the bill defines “congressional staff†narrowly, as “employees employed by the official office of a member of Congress, whether in the district office or in Washington.â€

 

 

The Congressional Research Service believes a court could rule that the legislation "would exclude professional committee staff, joint committee staff, some shared staff, as well as potentially those staff employed by leadership offices.â€

 

 

If that’s so, staffers who work for Nancy Pelosi in her capacity as representative from California would go into the exchange program, while staffers who work for her in her capacity as speaker would stay on the government’s plan. Other Capitol employees, like those who work for the clerk of the House or the House historian, would be similarly exempted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So basically, folks, a drafting problem. I am sure there will be many more discovered as we go into implementation phase. You have legislation that is thousands of pages long, written by hundreds of different people, you are going to have problems like this. Definitions will be too broad or too narrow. Things that refer to one thing will actually refer to another thing. I am a legal researcher. This is what I do for a living. I look to see if statutes are clear, have loopholes I can exploit or have been exploited by others. It happens ALL.THE.TIME. Of course people on one side will believe that there is some type of conspiracy to exept ONLY a certain level of Congressional Aide (but not congress members themselves) in order to move forward a certain agenda.

 

 

 

 

[5kidsforME]

The best explaination I have seen so far:

 

 

 

 

 

The health care reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama Tuesday requires members of Congress and their office staffs to buy insurance through the state-run exchanges it creates – but it may exempt staffers who work for congressional committees or for party leaders in the House and Senate.

 

 

 

 

 

The bill requires “congressional staff†to buy insurance from the exchanges – with a stipend from the Office of Personnel Management But page 158 of the bill defines “congressional staff†narrowly, as “employees employed by the official office of a member of Congress, whether in the district office or in Washington.â€

 

 

 

 

 

The Congressional Research Service believes a court could rule that the legislation "would exclude professional committee staff, joint committee staff, some shared staff, as well as potentially those staff employed by leadership offices.â€

 

 

 

 

 

If that’s so, staffers who work for Nancy Pelosi in her capacity as representative from California would go into the exchange program, while staffers who work for her in her capacity as speaker would stay on the government’s plan. Other Capitol employees, like those who work for the clerk of the House or the House historian, would be similarly exempted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So basically, folks, a drafting problem. I am sure there will be many more discovered as we go into implementation phase. You have legislation that is thousands of pages long, written by hundreds of different people, you are going to have problems like this. Definitions will be too broad or too narrow. Things that refer to one thing will actually refer to another thing. I am a legal researcher. This is what I do for a living. I look to see if statutes are clear, have loopholes I can exploit or have been exploited by others. It happens ALL.THE.TIME. Of course people on one side will believe that there is some type of conspiracy to exept ONLY a certain level of Congressional Aide (but not congress members themselves) in order to move forward a certain agenda.

 

 

 

I just wonder if you would be so forgiving if it was a Republican President and Republican led congress?

[keptwoman]

I just wonder if you would be so forgiving if it was a Republican President and Republican led congress?

Do we really need to go there?

[Cammie]

I just wonder if you would be so forgiving if it was a Republican President and Republican led congress?

 

Nope, probably not. :tongue_smilie:

[5kidsforME]

Nope, probably not. :tongue_smilie:

 

Then you can understand why it's hard for the other side to see it the way you do, kwim?

[5kidsforME]

Do we really need to go there?

 

I was asking a legitimate question that Cammie answered honestly. Seriously, I think it is hard for the side that is in control to see how the other side feels. Just like when Bush was in office the democrats felt the same way.

[Cammie]

Absolutely. Doesn't mean I can't try and explain what I see to be the problem. It is a choice - conspiracy vs. mistake. We can pick and choose which side to take. It looked like there were a lot of people on here who were just looking for some information on this particular problem. I found the least partisan explaination I could and provided it. I hope it helps clarify some of the questions people have. Nothing more, nothing less.

[mommyrooch]

Do we really need to go there?

 

:iagree:

[Sandy in Indy]

It's been my understanding that Congress already has and will keep their medical plan, exempting themselves from what ordinary Americans will be subject to. I could be wrong...I have been once or twice in my life. :-)

 

Yes, I think that if it's not already there, the members of Congress will be sure to offer themselves the kind of healthcare that few Americans could afford--even under the new "plan." (whatever it is)

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

In this article it says that Obama and Congress are exempt from the "glorious" healthcare bill. If this is true, I am beyond livid!

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/23/obamacare-for-everyone-but-obama/print/

 

 

That was a part of it. There was somebody in congress that fought about that if it were good enough for the American people it was good enough for them (most did not want any part of their health care bill) I dont know if that is still part of it or not. They have changed so much about it (not for the better) but I can say for sure at one point that was in the bill.

[Cammie]

It's been my understanding that Congress already has and will keep their medical plan, exempting themselves from what ordinary Americans will be subject to. I could be wrong...I have been once or twice in my life. :-)

 

Yes, I think that if it's not already there, the members of Congress will be sure to offer themselves the kind of healthcare that few Americans could afford--even under the new "plan." (whatever it is)

 

That was a part of it. There was somebody in congress that fought about that if it were good enough for the American people it was good enough for them (most did not want any part of their health care bill) I dont know if that is still part of it or not. They have changed so much about it (not for the better) but I can say for sure at one point that was in the bill.

 

 

If you see the posts above, Congress is specifically INCLUDED in the bill. Some of their staffers have been (inadvertently) excluded by the definition section. There are Congress people on both sides of the aisle with amendments pending to rectify that error.

 

Again, Congress members are specifically INCLUDED. I believe Mrs. Mungo posted the specific language from the specific section of the bill that specificlly INCLUDES Congress members.

 

It is starting to feel like if Fox News says something enough times it is true - regardless of the reality of the situation. (Ok, that sounds snarkier than intended. However it seems like that is where most of the inaccuracies (lies) about the bill are coming from.)

[asta]

I just wonder if you would be so forgiving if it was a Republican President and Republican led congress?

 

What the hell does that have to do with anthing?

 

I can't stand GlaxoSmithKline, but I don't change my research techniques based on my personal opinion of their business practices.

 

 

a

[Mrs Mungo]

I just wonder if you would be so forgiving if it was a Republican President and Republican led congress?

 

I said in another thread-I never called GWB a fascist, I don't appreciate people calling Obama a communist. I would *always* rather have facts instead of extremist propoganda. Obviously, many people feel differently.

[Renee in NC]

Why does it matter if they *did* get to stay on the federal plan? What's the big difference? Insurance is insurance is insurance. I really don't understand.

[Alison in KY]

The best explaination I have seen so far:

 

The health care reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama Tuesday requires members of Congress and their office staffs to buy insurance through the state-run exchanges it creates – but it may exempt staffers who work for congressional committees or for party leaders in the House and Senate.

 

 

The bill requires “congressional staff†to buy insurance from the exchanges – with a stipend from the Office of Personnel Management But page 158 of the bill defines “congressional staff†narrowly, as “employees employed by the official office of a member of Congress, whether in the district office or in Washington.â€

 

 

The Congressional Research Service believes a court could rule that the legislation "would exclude professional committee staff, joint committee staff, some shared staff, as well as potentially those staff employed by leadership offices.â€

 

 

If that’s so, staffers who work for Nancy Pelosi in her capacity as representative from California would go into the exchange program, while staffers who work for her in her capacity as speaker would stay on the government’s plan. Other Capitol employees, like those who work for the clerk of the House or the House historian, would be similarly exempted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So basically, folks, a drafting problem. I am sure there will be many more discovered as we go into implementation phase. You have legislation that is thousands of pages long, written by hundreds of different people, you are going to have problems like this. Definitions will be too broad or too narrow. Things that refer to one thing will actually refer to another thing. I am a legal researcher. This is what I do for a living. I look to see if statutes are clear, have loopholes I can exploit or have been exploited by others. It happens ALL.THE.TIME. Of course people on one side will believe that there is some type of conspiracy to exept ONLY a certain level of Congressional Aide (but not congress members themselves) in order to move forward a certain agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

This is my problem with this bill and any sizeable bill. I think these things take time and I feel like this huge bill is being rushed and has been revised and that there's no way a member of the public could really keep up with it. I would love to see health care reform, but I don't understand why it has to come in such a huge manner. Why not tackle pre-existing conditions first....something that I think both parties would agree on. If we really want our politicians to quit acting like brats and work together, then I'd think this would be easier to do in a smaller bill. I think the parties try to make a name for themselves too much with things like this, instead of working on something with less fanfare that will really help. JMHO.

 

Alison

[RoughCollie]

Why does it matter if they *did* get to stay on the federal plan? What's the big difference? Insurance is insurance is insurance. I really don't understand.

 

This is why it matters to me. They have a so-called Cadillac health care plan. If the new one isn't good enough for them, it's not good enough for the rest of the us.

 

Remember, we are paying for their plan, too.

[Renee in NC]

This is why it matters to me. They have a so-called Cadillac health care plan. If the new one isn't good enough for them, it's not good enough for the rest of the us.

 

Remember, we are paying for their plan, too.

 

They aren't doing away with Cadillac plans, though. Just taxing them!:tongue_smilie:

 

What is it about their plans that makes it Cadillac? From what I have read, when they are in Washington, they have access to the doctor at Capitol Hill and Bethesda Naval Hospital (and pay an annual fee, like an HMO.) If they want to use a private doctor (or when they are away from Washington) they have to pay for themselves or use their private insurance. If they choose, they can get insurance through the same federal plans as the other federal employees, paying 1/3 the cost (and the other 2/3 is paid by the gov't.) This is not different than what most people have access to with private employers.

 

This bill doesn't do away with private insurance, forcing everyone into a gov't sponsored/paid plan. Even if it did, though, Congress is *not* exempt - the bill's language has already been posted.

 

ETA: It seems that the insurance provided by my new employer costs less to *me* than the federal plans.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/health-care-for-members-of-congress/

Edited March 25, 2010 by Renee in FL

[justamouse]

So all the media reporting this tidbit are lying?

 

The Washington Times is owned my Sun Myung Moon and is a very conservative paper. Why WOULD'T they write that?

 

Wiki

The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet newspaper published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, and has been subsidized by the Unification Church community. The Times is known for its conservative stance on social and political issues.

 

That's like expecting The Wall Street Journal to be liberal. (it's owned by Rupert Murdoch and is another conservative mouthpiece, just like Fox)

[justamouse]

I was asking a legitimate question that Cammie answered honestly. Seriously, I think it is hard for the side that is in control to see how the other side feels. Just like when Bush was in office the democrats felt the same way.

 

I said in another thread-I never called GWB a fascist, I don't appreciate people calling Obama a communist. I would *always* rather have facts instead of extremist propoganda. Obviously, many people feel differently.

 

Basically what Mrs Mungo said.

 

I didn't prefer Bush, and although he got us into a bad war that ..well I won't go there-but I never said he was Hitler, Socialist, not American, or evil intended. He's not racist, he's a nice guy, he just did a lot of bad things as president.

 

The propaganda war the right has on the current administration is turning into death threats on the men that passed this bill. There are marches outside their family homes with their families unable to leave for safety reasons. There are bricks being thrown into offices. If there is an assassination attempt on the president I am laying it at the feet of the right wing firestokers who refused to calm their rhetoric. Anger is one thing, violence and hate speech is another and doesn't deserve civil discourse.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

Basically what Mrs Mungo said.

 

I didn't prefer Bush, and although he got us into a bad war that ..well I won't go there-but I never said he was Hitler, Socialist, not American, or evil intended. He's not racist, he's a nice guy, he just did a lot of bad things as president.

 

The propaganda war the right has on the current administration is turning into death threats on the men that passed this bill. There are marches outside their family homes with their families unable to leave for safety reasons. There are bricks being thrown into offices. If there is an assassination attempt on the president I am laying it at the feet of the right wing firestokers who refused to calm their rhetoric. Anger is one thing, violence and hate speech is another and doesn't deserve civil discourse.

 

I just loved being called a "Nazi" by Nancy P. Hey wasn't there a film about the "assassination" of Bush? The Left sound silly complaining about right-wing nuts, when they have plenty of their own.

[astrid]

I just loved being called a "Nazi" by Nancy P. Hey wasn't there a film about the "assassination" of Bush? The Left sound silly complaining about right-wing nuts' date=' when they have plenty of their own.[/quote']

 

I never heard of any such movie.

 

astrid

[Renee in NC]

I just spend some time looking at the actual rates for healthcare and my new insurance costs MUCH less than what Congress pays. (Good thing, too, 'cause they make about 9 times what we do!:lol:)

 

Hey! Maybe I should run for Congress! Do you think I could still homeschool if I were a Senator?:D

[Elaine]

Yes, it is true.

 

And another question- why do you think that the bulk of it is not enacted until 2013? Hmmmm... Could it be that the Dems could foresee the people would be furious? They know they will not get re-elected and they just don't want to be around for the backlash. Cowards.

[monk17]

Yes, it is true.

 

And another question- why do you think that the bulk of it is not enacted until 2013? Hmmmm... Could it be that the Dems could foresee the people would be furious? They know they will not get re-elected and they just don't want to be around for the backlash. Cowards.

 

You really can't have it both ways, complain that the bill was rushed through congress and then complain that the bill will take too long to implement. Quite a bit of the bill will be implemented soon, actually if the bill were implemented sooner all the silly fears that are being pedled out there would be put to rest. Do you really think a year was too short to debate this topic?

[RoughCollie]

Even if it did, though, Congress is *not* exempt - the bill's language has already been posted.

 

Renee, I looked at this last night, and if you read several sections of the bills together, Congress is exempt. I don't have time to ferret out this info right now, but if I get a chance I will.

 

Cadillac plans are the highest premium plans. We used to have one because it cost less than the cheapest plan: (1) the cheapest plan had an extremely high deductible, and (2) we had a very high risk of having high medical bills because I have severe Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.

 

In other words, the cost of the Cadillac plan was cheaper than the cost of basic coverage + deductible if I had a major heart problem. Since I've already had double coronary artery bypass surgery, an angioplasty and a couple of stents put in, this is a problem.

 

If we still had health insurance, and we still lived in Mass, our family's insurance would cost $3000 a month, beginning in June.

 

BTW, under the MA healthcare law, this is what we paid for the same insurance policy:

 

Before RomneyCare: $1800/month (2006)

1st year under RomneyCare: $1500/mo (6/2007)

2nd year under RomneyCare: $2000/mo (6/2008)

3rd year under RomneyCare: $2500/mo (6/2009)

4th year under RomneyCare: $3000/mo (beg. 6/2010)

[5kidsforME]

What the hell does that have to do with anthing?

 

I can't stand GlaxoSmithKline, but I don't change my research techniques based on my personal opinion of their business practices.

 

 

a

 

All I'm saying is when Bush was in office people were angry and screaming all kinds of nasty about Bush and the republicans. Bush was called all sorts of names and was "not to be trusted" in the dems eyes. So why is it so shocking for the dems. that the republicans are now crying out against this administration? It shouldn't be.

[Renee in NC]

Renee, I looked at this last night, and if you read several sections of the bills together, Congress is exempt. I don't have time to ferret out this info right now, but if I get a chance I will.

 

Cadillac plans are the highest premium plans. We used to have one because it cost less than the cheapest plan: (1) the cheapest plan had an extremely high deductible, and (2) we had a very high risk of having high medical bills because I have severe Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.

 

In other words, the cost of the Cadillac plan was cheaper than the cost of basic coverage + deductible if I had a major heart problem. Since I've already had double coronary artery bypass surgery, an angioplasty and a couple of stents put in, this is a problem.

 

If we still had health insurance, and we still lived in Mass, our family's insurance would cost $3000 a month, beginning in June.

 

BTW, under the MA healthcare law, this is what we paid for the same insurance policy:

 

Before RomneyCare: $1800/month (2006)

1st year under RomneyCare: $1500/mo (6/2007)

2nd year under RomneyCare: $2000/mo (6/2008)

3rd year under RomneyCare: $2500/mo (6/2009)

4th year under RomneyCare: $3000/mo (beg. 6/2010)

 

I can see that this is a problem - your health care is more than my income! Are the high premiums due to your medical history or do *all* families of 6 pay that much? My father was paying $2500 a month at one time, but it was a combination of his medical history and the low deductible/low copayment policy. For him it was the same as you - he paid less out of pocket than he would have with a high deductible policy.

 

Like I said in the other post - the insurance we now have access to (or will on April 1st) is an HMO plan with United Healthcare that we pay $118 biweekly (about 14% of our income.) Without this employer-provided coverage, we are priced out of health insurance all together.

 

I stil don't understand, though. The health plans available to Congress are not any different than what other federal employees have access to except for the on-site doctor. Their families aren't eligible to see that office, so they have private physicians just like you and I. They also have deductibles, copays, etc. that are exactly the same (and the same price) as other federal employees.

[Mary in VA]

I never heard of any such movie.

 

astrid

 

It was called "Death of a President" and was by a British film maker. It came out in 2006. It was shot to look like a documentary.

[TXMary2]

If you see the posts above, Congress is specifically INCLUDED in the bill. Some of their staffers have been (inadvertently) excluded by the definition section. There are Congress people on both sides of the aisle with amendments pending to rectify that error.

 

Again, Congress members are specifically INCLUDED. I believe Mrs. Mungo posted the specific language from the specific section of the bill that specificlly INCLUDES Congress members.

 

It is starting to feel like if Fox News says something enough times it is true - regardless of the reality of the situation. (Ok, that sounds snarkier than intended. However it seems like that is where most of the inaccuracies (lies) about the bill are coming from.)

 

 

Hmmm...and MSNBC and CNN are always right? Please.

[TXMary2]

I never heard of any such movie.

 

astrid

 

That's because you don't watch FOX news. :tongue_smilie:

[Cammie]

It was called "Death of a President" and was by a British film maker. It came out in 2006. It was shot to look like a documentary.

 

Hard to blame that one on American liberals then, right?

[TXMary2]

Hard to blame that one on American liberals then, right?

 

Hollywood liberals LOVED it.

[Cammie]

Hmmm...and MSNBC and CNN are always right? Please.

 

 

Never said that.

 

What I said was that it seemed that the source of most of the inaccurate information regarding health care reform was Fox news. Whether they were creating the inaccuracies, reporting them or whatever that does seem to be the case.

 

And for the record, I don't get my news from either of the sources you listed.

[TXMary2]

Never said that.

 

What I said was that it seemed that the source of most of the inaccurate information regarding health care reform was Fox news. Whether they were creating the inaccuracies, reporting them or whatever that does seem to be the case.

 

And for the record, I don't get my news from either of the sources you listed.

 

It is your opinion that "most" of the inaccuracies come from FOX.

[Elaine]

You really can't have it both ways, complain that the bill was rushed through congress and then complain that the bill will take too long to implement. Quite a bit of the bill will be implemented soon, actually if the bill were implemented sooner all the silly fears that are being pedled out there would be put to rest. Do you really think a year was too short to debate this topic?

 

I'm not complaining that the bill will take to long to implement, I hope it is never implemented. My point is, the congress that passed it knows that it is not a good bill, because they they exempted themselves from it.

 

 

And, there was no debate. At least not what I consider good debate. It was "our way or the highway."

[monk17]

Renee, I looked at this last night, and if you read several sections of the bills together, Congress is exempt. I don't have time to ferret out this info right now, but if I get a chance I will.

 

Cadillac plans are the highest premium plans. We used to have one because it cost less than the cheapest plan: (1) the cheapest plan had an extremely high deductible, and (2) we had a very high risk of having high medical bills because I have severe Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.

 

In other words, the cost of the Cadillac plan was cheaper than the cost of basic coverage + deductible if I had a major heart problem. Since I've already had double coronary artery bypass surgery, an angioplasty and a couple of stents put in, this is a problem.

 

If we still had health insurance, and we still lived in Mass, our family's insurance would cost $3000 a month, beginning in June.

 

BTW, under the MA healthcare law, this is what we paid for the same insurance policy:

 

Before RomneyCare: $1800/month (2006)

1st year under RomneyCare: $1500/mo (6/2007)

2nd year under RomneyCare: $2000/mo (6/2008)

3rd year under RomneyCare: $2500/mo (6/2009)

4th year under RomneyCare: $3000/mo (beg. 6/2010)

 

Bad plan in MA, sorry. Hawaii has haad an inclusive plan for 35 years have you considered there? Sorry for your heart problems, I hope it works out well for you.

 

I'm a bit confused by the congress exempt idea. Most major medical plans would be exempt correct? Unless we stared paying congress poverty wages, not a bad idea, put them in public housing, share word processing pools, ride public transportation, there's an idea most folks would agree on.

[babysparkler]

Here is an explanation I saw...

 

A major story during the course of the health care debate was whether members of Congress would commit to placing themselves in the same health care exchanges as average citizens, or whether they would hang on to their government plans — that’s why leadership chose to add this portion to the bill, serving as a guarantee that members would participate in the same health plans as the people. Here’s the relevant text:

 

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

 

(i) REQUIREMENT- 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).

But as with a lot of legislative matters, the devil is in the details — or in this case, the definitions. As anyone who’s worked on Capitol Hill knows, the personal office staff for a member is governed by different rules than those who work on committees and in the leadership offices. It appears from the way this language is written that those staffers NOT in personal offices, such as those working and paid under the committee structure (such as those working for Chairman Henry Waxman) or those working on leadership staff (such as those working for Speaker Nancy Pelosi) would be exempt from these requirements (emphasis added).

 

(ii) DEFINITIONS- In this section:

 

(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS- The term `Member of Congress’ means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

 

(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF- The term `congressional staff’ means all full-time and part-time employees

employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.

According to the Congressional Research Service, this definition of staff will only apply to those staffers employed within a member’s “personal office” — meaning that it will absolutely not apply to committee staff members, and may not apply to leadership staff.

This problem was acknowledged earlier in the process — last year, Senator Grassley tried to repair it, but he was rebuffed.

As Speaker Pelosi said a few weeks ago, it’s only after this legislation is passed that we’ll truly find out what’s in it.

 

And from the link to Grassley:“Careful examination by the Congressional Research Service of the bill that Senator Reid brought to the floor revealed that one of the things that happened behind closed doors was that leadership and committee staff ended up being carved out from having to live under the new health care exchanges that this legislation would create and impose on the rest of the country,” Grassley said. “This creates a double standard that’s inexcusable.”

Edited March 25, 2010 by babysparkler