So 1/3 of 1/3 of the US Government is holding us hostage?
Their only demand at this point is that the House, Senate, and Executive Branch live under the same rules of Obama Care, i.e. no subsidy.
It's quite telling when the very people who enacted this piss poor law are willing to go to the mat to make sure it doesn't apply to them.
[/quote]
Dip, you couldn't be further from the truth. Just another Tea Bagger trumped up bag of bull.
The falsehood was resurrected for the umpteenth time last month when the U.S. Office of Personnel Management issued a rule to clarify part of the law that wasn’t specified in the written bill.
As mentioned, the federal government already offers health insurance to its workers. Like most employers, it covers part of workers’ health insurance costs. Because Congress and its staff are being treated differently than all other employers in order to force it to use the Obamacare marketplace, there was no language stating that the government could cover part of the premiums for Congress as it currently does.
Last month, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management issued a rule saying that, yes, this was OK to do, as long as the premium coverage wasn’t more than it is for other federal workers.
In response, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) issued a carefully phrased statement that Obama somehow had exempted Congress and its staff from “the full effect of the law.”
Does the new rule mean Congress won’t have to get health insurance through the Obamacare marketplaces? No, they still have to.
Does this mean Congress is getting special treatment? No, members and their staffs still get no benefit they don’t currently get.
The verdict
While there are legitimate concerns about President Obama’s health care law — much of which kicks into gear Oct. 1 — this isn’t one.
Critics of Obamacare want it both ways. When Congress and its staff were treated like workers for any other large employer, the president’s health care plan was deemed faulty because Congress didn’t have to use the plan. So then after a Republican amendment forced Congress to participate, critics still want to call it faulty because … well, because of a flat-out falsehood that Congress really is still exempt.
This is the type of claim that merits the lowest truthmeter rating, signifying willful or malicious disregard for the truth.
Truthmeter: 0 (out of 10)[/quote]
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...obamacare/
Last 3 paragraphs.
Per CNN, still a debateable topic the COURTS will have to sort it out.
Why?
Because we passed the bill first, so we could find out what was in the Health Care bill!
Stupid does as stupid is.
So X number of years since the passage of this bill simple scenarios such as whether Congress is in or out of this fiasco are JUST being discovered.
And the courts will look to make the final call. Hmm.
So what other shoes are going to drop? How are you going to be disappointed suddenly and unexpectedly as a judge will be making final decisions on whether you and yours receive or dont receive care?
What do you expect when you follow Nancy Pelosi's logic?
But I hear/read from some that for such an enormous undertaking that "glitches" and the like have always occured. And I agree. The glitches don't mean the program won't work. Based on the fact that glitches exist the program could very well work as all the other large entitlements have had glitches.
But then if you accept that you have to also accept the fact that Social Security and Medicare are grossly inefficient and more costly then ever projected and are not sustainable without massive shifts in the economy.
There are more people drawing down then kicking in. The debt has grown by 2.1 trillion in less than 2 years. Adding this additional government entitlement means additional inefficencies, cost over runs, etc. and not savings and improved services (that is the biz model for these government run programs).
So in time we all will receive fewer services costing each of us more $, exacerbating the sky rocketing debt that will weigh down on the governments ability to reduce debt. And we know the "progressive solution" is to raise revenues. Your fees and taxes.
When are we ever going to learn there isnt a free lunch?
If pre-existing conditions is the issue isnt there better ways then this boat anchor? Seriously.
But then Barbara Milkulski said and believes we need to be a deadbeat nation so we can avoid being a deadbeat nation.
Hey Senator, would you please explain how that works again?