Government Exempt from "Obamacare?"

[msop04]

Since we have been discussing the new Affordable Care Act in the US, I was interested in hearing what others thought about this... should the government be exempt?

Also, what do you think about this excerpt from the US Constitution?

Amendment 28
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no laws that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

Is this not a violation of this amendment?

 

[JewelFreak]

That is not in the Constitution, MSOP. There are only 27 amendments. This one has been passed around on the internet as a proposal by mere citizens; Congress has never considered even a version of it.

It's the one essential thing the Framers didn't think of. It should be in. Not only this stinky move of exempting themselves from obamacare, but many other laws they've made do not apply to the gov't -- such as equal pay for equal work: women as a whole make quite a bit less than men in similar jobs, wonderful Obama's staff included; they are not subject to EEOC regs on racial hiring; the list goes on & on.

I guess it didn't occur to the writers of the Constitution that the gov't would be so full of self-serving crooks. Funny, because they put in many items to ward off the worst in human beings -- and they were no fools about human nature.

Why is the public not roaring disapproval of this latest Congressional scam? Are we so involved in our electronics that we don't care? Or don't know? I'm heartbroken & disgusted.

--- Laurie

 

[packrat]

I think people feel like they won't be heard, and that there's not a whole lot they can do. if you're upset about anything, you're racist, or you are anti government or you're just plain stupid, or you are calling for people to suffer and die.

I've tried to post 14 different times on the health care thread and just click out of it every time. I think that is pretty much my answer.

 

[makhro82]

I think people feel like they won't be heard, and that there's not a whole lot they can do. if you're upset about anything, you're racist, or you are anti government or you're just plain stupid, or you are calling for people to suffer and die.

I've tried to post 14 different times on the health care thread and just click out of it every time. I think that is pretty much my answer.

I don't think this. I do however think that people sometimes can't recognize their own privilege in life.

 

[msop04]

That is not in the Constitution, MSOP. There are only 27 amendments. This one has been passed around on the internet as a proposal by mere citizens; Congress has never considered even a version of it.

It's the one essential thing the Framers didn't think of. It should be in. Not only this stinky move of exempting themselves from obamacare, but many other laws they've made do not apply to the gov't -- such as equal pay for equal work: women as a whole make quite a bit less than men in similar jobs, wonderful Obama's staff included; they are not subject to EEOC regs on racial hiring; the list goes on & on.

I guess it didn't occur to the writers of the Constitution that the gov't would be so full of self-serving crooks. Funny, because they put in many items to ward off the worst in human beings -- and they were no fools about human nature.

Why is the public not roaring disapproval of this latest Congressional scam? Are we so involved in our electronics that we don't care? Or don't know? I'm heartbroken & disgusted.

--- Laurie

Laurie, this is what I thought!! LOL ...just didn't know what the heck to think about it... thanks for clearing that up for me.

Seriously, I am disgusted as well. And scared.

 

[msop04]

I think people feel like they won't be heard, and that there's not a whole lot they can do. if you're upset about anything, you're racist, or you are anti government or you're just plain stupid, or you are calling for people to suffer and die.

I've tried to post 14 different times on the health care thread and just click out of it every time. I think that is pretty much my answer.

I tend to agree with you, packrat... the more I read, the more upset I become. I googled this "amendment" but you never know what you're gonna get online. I started this thread in hopes of some clarity... and hopefulness.

 

[texaskj]

I had on Piers Morgan Live last night at work and he was explaining to some idiot member of Congress that they have a lower approval rating than root canals, brussel sprouts, colonoscopies and head lice. I think there were some other things on the list, but I was laughing so hard, I didn't catch them.
Has there ever been a bigger bunch of clowns and jackasses in Congress than this bunch?

 

[Maria D]

Can someone explain to me what is meant by being "exempt from Obamacare?" I've read a lot of talk about this in the comments section of my local newspaper: "If it's so great, how come the President isn't on it?" Well, I thought it was because he and his family already *have* health insurance.

I truly don't understand. My husband and I both have jobs that provide health insurance. Mine is paid for completely by my employer, my husband's is subsidized. I don't think anything offered on the exchanges would be better than what we have now, so we're not doing anything differently and are basically unaffected. Is this what is meant by being exempt?

I know *many* self-employed people that are completely frustrated by the ACA so far, not because they feel they should be "exempt" (whatever that is supposed to mean) but because they have been unable to sign up because of technical problems.

Please explain what you mean by congress exempting themselves, I don't get it!

 

[ksinger]

sigh.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20131001/NEWS1801/131001004/Fact-Checker-Is-Congress-exempted-from-Obamacare-

 

[Maria D]

thanks ksinger!

I didn't know that a law was passed requiring congress to use the health care exchanges. So it's the exact opposite of being exempt - congress used to have healthcare provided by the government but now they are forced to access the plans on the exchange set up by ACA. hahahahaha the EXACT OPPOSITE OF BEING EXEMPT.

wow

 

[msop04]

sigh.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20131001/NEWS1801/131001004/Fact-Checker-Is-Congress-exempted-from-Obamacare-

I've read so much crap on this, but it all depends where you read it. It's been a while since the video where Obama was asked about this point blank was aired... he skated around the issue then, but things may have changed since then??

 

[JewelFreak]

Congress voted gov't employees (themselves, Mr. O included) subsidies to cover their expenses in the new fabulous health care system they are giving the rest of us. While premiums will rise for the majority, and deductibles go much higher, our hardworking congresspeople will not feel that pain.

I doubt they will be subject to the long waits for treatment or dr. visits the rest of us are in for, nor the difficulty of finding a doctor, that are ahead for us lucky citizens. We merely pay the bills for the aristocracy. Back to the future, folks -- this is what we fought a revolution against.

--- Laurie

 

[ksinger]

sigh.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20131001/NEWS1801/131001004/Fact-Checker-Is-Congress-exempted-from-Obamacare-

I've read so much crap on this, but it all depends where you read it. It's been a while since the video where Obama was asked about this point blank was aired... he skated around the issue then, but things may have changed since then??

Yes, the quality of info does depend on the sources you choose. The internet can be every bit as good as a real library, or as out there as the tabloids in the grocery store. Tenacity and discernment are required. Luckily for me, I was born and raised and spent a goodly portion of my adult life in the card catalog stone age long before the internet made finding almost anything you need virtually effortless, so I still have a lingering amazement at it all, even now that it is old hat. So I don't mind a bit of extra work. When in doubt I always try to go to the actual source.

https://www.healthcare.gov/where-can-i-read-the-affordable-care-act/

I took the link off the main page that was associated with this text:
Certified full-text version: Affordable Care Act (PDF – 2.41 MB)

I then did a text search on "members of Congress". The results, which match the results that the various articles have excerpted, are on page 65, according to the embedded PDF reader in Chrome. (the pages are not numbered in this, so I'm relying on Chrome to tell me where the text is.)

 

[lulu]

I'm sorry, but I must chime in here. I love Brussel Sprouts. Everyone in Congress should be on a tether.

 

[TooPatient]

I'm sorry, but I must chime in here. I love Brussel Sprouts. Everyone in Congress should be on a tether.

My thought reading the list was also along those lines. I love Brussel sprouts!

 

[Niel]

Msop....

 

[luv2sparkle]

I think people feel like they won't be heard, and that there's not a whole lot they can do. if you're upset about anything, you're racist, or you are anti government or you're just plain stupid, or you are calling for people to suffer and die.

I've tried to post 14 different times on the health care thread and just click out of it every time. I think that is pretty much my answer.

I so agree with you, Packrat. I am hoping that much of what I have heard is not true. It is so hard to know these days what is true and what is not with what is posted on the internet. I hope that if it is as truly bad as some of the things I have read that our next president can change it or it can be repealed.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I am with you ladies on your concerns.

 

[distracts]

If you don't know enough about the US Government to know there are only 27 amendments, you aren't informed enough to be commenting on matters of policy. You know less than it takes to become a naturalized citizen.

No.

Just no.

As well, Congress is not exempt from the ACA. The subsidies they receive are the same amount that was being spent on them before for healthcare, just through the health exchanges rather than regular group insurance.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/09/tom-cotton/cotton-says-pryor-voted-give-congress-special-subs/

 

[Indylady]

If you don't know enough about the US Government to know there are only 27 amendments, you aren't informed enough to be commenting on matters of policy. You know less than it takes to become a naturalized citizen.

No.

Just no.

As well, Congress is not exempt from the ACA. The subsidies they receive are the same amount that was being spent on them before for healthcare, just through the health exchanges rather than regular group insurance.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/09/tom-cotton/cotton-says-pryor-voted-give-congress-special-subs/

+1

I love reading discussions of any kind on PS, but...its really hard to take a thread seriously when it feels I'm reading a shill. Was the 28th Amendment comment a joke?

 

[perry]

Edited from above:


Yes, the quality of info does depend on the sources you choose. The internet can be every bit as good as a real library, or as out there as the tabloids in the grocery store. Tenacity and discernment are required. Luckily for me, I was born and raised and spent a goodly portion of my adult life in the card catalog stone age long before the internet made finding almost anything you need virtually effortless, so I still have a lingering amazement at it all, even now that it is old hat. So I don't mind a bit of extra work. When in doubt I always try to go to the actual source.

https://www.healthcare.gov/where-can-i-read-the-affordable-care-act/

I took the link off the main page that was associated with this text:
Certified full-text version: Affordable Care Act (PDF – 2.41 MB)

I then did a text search on "members of Congress". The results, which match the results that the various articles have excerpted, are on page 65, according to the embedded PDF reader in Chrome. (the pages are not numbered in this, so I'm relying on Chrome to tell me where the text is.)

Ksinger:

Be careful here. I am not going to claim to know the exact truth in this case - but; reading the text of the 2010 law does not tell you exactly what is currently in effect. There actually have been a number of amendments to the law that have indeed passed congress and been signed into law (as riders to other bills). That is often typical of most Federal and state laws.

In a case like this I would head to a legal library that includes a focuses on federal law and find the current updated "amended" version of the law. I have never been able to access that kind of information free on the internet - but I do know of a fairly pricy subscription service that lawyers typically use (got a few extra thousand dollars).

You can also find the appropriate implementation rules as well (sorry I forget their exact name).

It has been a few years - but when I really feel I need to know something like this I head to the State Capital Legal Library (which is cheaper than buying a non-student membership into the University Library system in the same city). It can be a real eye opener to see the original law - and then all the amendments added to it that in some cases changes the entire intent of the original law.

Otherwise, I wish you the best,

Perry

 

[ksinger]

Edited from above:


Yes, the quality of info does depend on the sources you choose. The internet can be every bit as good as a real library, or as out there as the tabloids in the grocery store. Tenacity and discernment are required. Luckily for me, I was born and raised and spent a goodly portion of my adult life in the card catalog stone age long before the internet made finding almost anything you need virtually effortless, so I still have a lingering amazement at it all, even now that it is old hat. So I don't mind a bit of extra work. When in doubt I always try to go to the actual source.

https://www.healthcare.gov/where-can-i-read-the-affordable-care-act/

I took the link off the main page that was associated with this text:
Certified full-text version: Affordable Care Act (PDF – 2.41 MB)

I then did a text search on "members of Congress". The results, which match the results that the various articles have excerpted, are on page 65, according to the embedded PDF reader in Chrome. (the pages are not numbered in this, so I'm relying on Chrome to tell me where the text is.)

Ksinger:

Be careful here. I am not going to claim to know the exact truth in this case - but; reading the text of the 2010 law does not tell you exactly what is currently in effect. There actually have been a number of amendments to the law that have indeed passed congress and been signed into law (as riders to other bills). That is often typical of most Federal and state laws.

In a case like this I would head to a legal library that includes a focuses on federal law and find the current updated "amended" version of the law. I have never been able to access that kind of information free on the internet - but I do know of a fairly pricy subscription service that lawyers typically use (got a few extra thousand dollars).

You can also find the appropriate implementation rules as well (sorry I forget their exact name).

It has been a few years - but when I really feel I need to know something like this I head to the State Capital Legal Library (which is cheaper than buying a non-student membership into the University Library system in the same city). It can be a real eye opener to see the original law - and then all the amendments added to it that in some cases changes the entire intent of the original law.

Otherwise, I wish you the best,

Perry

Edited from above:


Yes, the quality of info does depend on the sources you choose. The internet can be every bit as good as a real library, or as out there as the tabloids in the grocery store. Tenacity and discernment are required. Luckily for me, I was born and raised and spent a goodly portion of my adult life in the card catalog stone age long before the internet made finding almost anything you need virtually effortless, so I still have a lingering amazement at it all, even now that it is old hat. So I don't mind a bit of extra work. When in doubt I always try to go to the actual source.

https://www.healthcare.gov/where-can-i-read-the-affordable-care-act/

I took the link off the main page that was associated with this text:
Certified full-text version: Affordable Care Act (PDF – 2.41 MB)

I then did a text search on "members of Congress". The results, which match the results that the various articles have excerpted, are on page 65, according to the embedded PDF reader in Chrome. (the pages are not numbered in this, so I'm relying on Chrome to tell me where the text is.)

Ksinger:

Be careful here. I am not going to claim to know the exact truth in this case - but; reading the text of the 2010 law does not tell you exactly what is currently in effect. There actually have been a number of amendments to the law that have indeed passed congress and been signed into law (as riders to other bills). That is often typical of most Federal and state laws.

In a case like this I would head to a legal library that includes a focuses on federal law and find the current updated "amended" version of the law. I have never been able to access that kind of information free on the internet - but I do know of a fairly pricy subscription service that lawyers typically use (got a few extra thousand dollars).

You can also find the appropriate implementation rules as well (sorry I forget their exact name).

It has been a few years - but when I really feel I need to know something like this I head to the State Capital Legal Library (which is cheaper than buying a non-student membership into the University Library system in the same city). It can be a real eye opener to see the original law - and then all the amendments added to it that in some cases changes the entire intent of the original law.

Otherwise, I wish you the best,

Perry

Actually, I understand the concept of levels of research pretty well Perry. I'm not the one in this thread who needs the lesson in winnowing the wheat from the chaff. The point of the exercise, was to show that real information - even if a bit outdated - is pretty easy to find, as would have been, say, checking to see if there really was a 28th amendment? I'm sure as heck not going to waste any of my money, time, or gasoline running out to a law library to try to put out minutely-researched data to people who are uncritically posting what are obviously partisan chain email talking points. The people who do that are not driven by a burning need for facts, or would have checked them themselves in the first place. Normally I walk away from this stuff, but every now and then I reach a breaking point of seeing people put things out there that are clearly not even checked on in the most shallow way and don't pass the merest sniff test that would say, "Hmm..that sounds a bit outrageous, maybe I should check it further before I swallow it hook, line, and sinker." And there's been a ton of it lately, here, FB, comments sections, just about everywhere I look I'm being bombarded with some outrageous easily-refuted drivel.

Bottom line, what I posted above it by far not all I found, or read. I did enough digging that I am very very confident that Congress and staff are not exempt from the ACA. Not even at the most virulently anti-Obama/anti-government/anti-ACA sites, could I find even the slightest whisper that the law had been changed in any way to nullify its original wording, or that some sneaky rider on another bill had done so. It clearly still stands as originally written regarding the requirement that congress use the ACA for insurance. At this point, I've done all the fact-checking and legislation-reading I feel qualifies as reasonable, probably more, certainly more than anyone else who has posted here. If someone else wishes to refute my research with better, deeper research supported by something other than a chain email, please feel free.

Now, what could be discussed - hopefully without attribution to Obama himself (because it's really a matter for the OPM and that's where all the action and angst seems to be at present), but I wouldn't hold my breath - is whether the requirement to use the ACA policies also precludes congress and staffers from the current employer contribution (and no, that is NOT a "special subsidy" that congress voted itself) that every federal employee including congresscritters, gets for their healthcare. That was not addressed in the ACA, and THAT is the real discussion here, and it would be a good one with two very chewy sides - and yes, I can see both of them and both have some good arguments and implications. But we never got that far.