Um... where are all those valiant defenders of ObamaCare that were here a year ago? Totally flaming anyone who dared to have any doubts about how Democrat promises square with reality.
Debacle.
Train wreck.
Disaster.
Total fail.
Incomprehensible.
Illogical.
Impossible.
Unrealistic.
Just some of the adjectives applied to the roll out by radical Tea Party news outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times, CBS and NBC.
The "49%" number includes everyone receiving medicare and social security, which is a benefit they've contributed to.
Unions are not exempt from Obamacare. Many self-insured businesses, pooled insurance groups, and unions were given a one year exemption from part of the timeline to help them transition, that exemption ends in January.
Of all the misconceptions surrounding the new health reform law known as Obamacare—and there are many—one of the newest and most infuriating is the idea that Congress made itself “exempt” from a law that puts onerous new burdens on many other Americans. That contention is totally false. In fact, members of Congress, along with their personal staffers, are required to participate in Obamacare, which is a more stringent requirement than employees of many big companies face.The confusion is understandable. Earlier this year, Congress did, in fact, consider passing legislationthat would amount to an exemption, though that never happened. Then, in August, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said in a speech that “President Obama just granted all of Congress an exception. And he did it because Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats who passed this thing came begging and said, ‘Please, please, please let us out of Obamacare.’” Nobody actually saw Harry Reid begging, but the claim gained traction nonetheless, and a chain email containing bogus information about Congress being exempt from Obamacare started to circulate.
Here’s what really happened. When the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010, it included a passage that said: “The only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff … 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).”
In plain English, that means that at the end of this year, members of Congress and their personal staffs will no longer be eligible for the federal health care plan, and they’ll have to purchase insurance through an exchange instead. That requirement was initially proposed by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), who opposed the law, as a kind of dare back in 2009, when legislators were still debating what would go in the bill. It caught on as a populist measure and made it into the final law.
Specializes in Med-surg Telemetry, Leadership, Education.
Medicare only kicks in for young people once all their money has been spent, and they are in dire financial corcumstances.
I'd like to know how you came up with that high premium for Obamacare, if you're making an average nurse salary, and what insurance you have presently. Your post looks faulty, to me!
I wonder why you'd want to mislead us.....
MediCAID has the requirement that the recipient meet income and asset standards.
". I will be paying for my meds for the rest of my life! I could take the easy way out and sit on my orifice and let everybody else pay for my meds, rent and bills, but I thought that was the reason I was paying national insurance and income tax! i want to work!"
" In the past, I've had to ration inhalers because I couldn't afford to get another one."
"user199133 i totally agree i am also asthmatic and dont teceive free prescriptions. i was born with it not my fault.yet a friend who has type2 diabetes which if he was to lose weight he would no longer have and he gets free prescription"
Only glanced at posts from the above link but it seems persons have a beef with what NHS considers diseases worthy of free meds versus the normal schedule.
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
Here is how one sees the whole mess. Obama and the Democrats set up something that the United States government rarely does well; a large nationwide program that tweaks, uses carrots and sticks, and or otherwise relies heavily on having more of the same, that is private insurance companies basically controlling healthcare.
Those whom are very ill, with previous existing conditions and so forth come out the better in this plan, whilst everyone else is going to have to give up something (some more than others), including the requirement for young and or healthy persons purchase insurance or pay a *fine*. The last bit is yet another way of wealth redistribution, social engineering or what have you but just like SSA the United States again is asking the young to subsidize others. If not enough nil to low health insurance users sign up there is going to be trouble.
It seems odd that after living through one of the worse economic disasters since the Great Depression brought about largely by financial markets, we are now supposed to trust another (healthcare) to delivery us from the current state of affairs.
The NYT has been running interesting series of articles over the past year regarding healthcare in the United States. A few weeks ago it covered asthma and the *VERY* high cost of meds and other treatments in the United States versus other Western nations. Inhalers you can purchase in France over the counter for as little as $4 to $40 United States Dollars cost three or more times that amount here in the states. Indeed many EU countries not only make certain asthma medications available OTC but will *give* them away if necessary. This is done because government health policy realizes the most cost effective way to treat asthma is to give persons access to their meds/treatments so they can manage the disease.
It was supposed to be the states setting up their exchanges.
The federal government is doing it for those whose state will not.
Some states won't even accept federal money to expand Medicaid.
I am blessed to be healthy enough to still work. I am old enough for Medicare and that is my major insurance. I also pay for a supplement. So far I've not needed more than routine yearly screening and Imitrex for migraine headaches.
Deductions are taken from my paycheck and I pay the premium for my Medicare because I'm not yet on Social Security.
I'm happy to be productive and able to contribute for the healthcare of othjers, especially nurses, who are not as fortunate..
The "49%" number includes everyone receiving medicare and social security, which is a benefit they've contributed to.
Unions are not exempt from Obamacare. Many self-insured businesses, pooled insurance groups, and unions were given a one year exemption from part of the timeline to help them transition, that exemption ends in January.
And if lawmakers do nothing by the deadline Thursday night, committee staff and leadership staff will be automatically exempted due to an interpretation by congressional administrators.
Part of the issue involves semantics and how Congress wrote the law.
The 2010 Affordable Care Act mandates that "members of Congress and congressional staff" must get health care through an Obamacare exchange.
But the Office of Personnel Management has ruled that it's up to individual members to designate which of their workers are "congressional staff."
Most assume a member's "personal" or district staff fit the definition. But there is a messy disagreement over what should happen with the more than 2,000 people who work for committees or leadership offices.
Some argue those workers aren't as directly tied to individual members. Others insist that argument is just a giant loophole for staffers who are nervous and want to avoid the exchanges.
The Affordable Care Act, signed into law in 2010, only requires members of Congress and their "official" staff members to get health insurance through one of the law's marketplaces, or exchanges.
Guidance memos from the Senate's financial clerk and the House's chief administrative officer, obtained by The Associated Press, define "official" aides as those who work in the lawmakers' personal offices. Committee and leadership aides, then, would be exempt and could stay on the federal health insurance program. Unless lawmakers decide otherwise.
"Individual members or their designees are in the best position to determine which staff work in the official office of each member," the memos quote from an Office of Personnel Management regulation. "OPM will leave those determinations to the members. ... Nothing in this regulation limits a member's authority" on the matter.
The short version; Everyone who currently has health insurance that meets the minimum requirements is "exempt" from Obamacare; they don't have to buy a plan through the exchange.
As a sort of dare, the Republicans added a rule where Congressional Rep staffers wouldn't be able to keep their employer provided plan just like everyone else, they would instead be moved to the exchanges.
The official rule is that this only applies to staff of Congressional reps, and not to various support staff of Congress (people who work in the cafeteria for instance), but Republicans are apparently now wishing they had thought to add them as well, so are claiming that these people are being exempted.
What a bunch of hogwash. Ain't no half people going to loose their insurance. And the current people who the GOP claims have lost their insurance, aren't saying the whole truth that the policies are being replaced not cancelled altogether.
What a bunch of hogwash!
"Ain't no half of people going to lose insurance"? Interesting (and interestingly worded) assertion. The polices are not being replaced. They are being told that they now have to go to the exchange and find a policy. Many of the policies that are compliant have premiums many times their current premiums, and deductibles much, much higher than their current deductibles. Yes, yes, I know that Nancy Pelosi and her ilk insist that his majesty's lies are acceptable because all these people losing their insurance will be getting "better" insurance. If better means deductibles 3x higher and premiums 4x higher, then sure, these lucky folks are in the clover! In most people's minds, this is not some grand benefit, instead it's a real problem. The estimate is that 51% of us with employer plans will be in the same boat as those losing their insurance now when the employer mandate takes effect. It makes sense to me. All these people are losing policies because the policies are not ACA compliant. It stands to reason that a great many employer plans also won't be ACA compliant. But hey, I'm sure the people who are behind NSA phone tapping and the IRS are only going to be looking out for our best interest. And in case it slipped by you, that "ain't" nothing but sarcasm.
The short version; Everyone who currently has health insurance that meets the minimum requirements is "exempt" from Obamacare; they don't have to buy a plan through the exchange.
As a sort of dare, the Republicans added a rule where Congressional Rep staffers wouldn't be able to keep their employer provided plan just like everyone else, they would instead be moved to the exchanges.
The official rule is that this only applies to staff of Congressional reps, and not to various support staff of Congress (people who work in the cafeteria for instance), but Republicans are apparently now wishing they had thought to add them as well, so are claiming that these people are being exempted.
The "claim" about exemption is that these supreme beings in Congress and their minions are being given subsidies to participate in the great good ACA. Yes, they are down in the trenches with the rest of us peons, but they are being given substantial financial aid to do it. It sickens me. If a small businessman in Paducah has to cut his satellite TV, pull his kids out of private school, and tell his wife that the anniversary trip is off so he can afford the new, improved affordable care, then so these jerkoffs. The idea that I'm subsidizing Charlie Rangle and Nancy Pelosi sickens me to no end, because in real life, if I came upon them in flames, and I was carrying a bucket of water, I'd drink the water. Even if I weren't thirsty.
The "claim" about exemption is that these supreme beings in Congress and their minions are being given subsidies to participate in the great good ACA. Yes, they are down in the trenches with the rest of us peons, but they are being given substantial financial aid to do it. It sickens me. If a small businessman in Paducah has to cut his satellite TV, pull his kids out of private school, and tell his wife that the anniversary trip is off so he can afford the new, improved affordable care, then so these jerkoffs. The idea that I'm subsidizing Charlie Rangle and Nancy Pelosi sickens me to no end, because in real life, if I came upon them in flames, and I was carrying a bucket of water, I'd drink the water. Even if I weren't thirsty.
They aren't being given subsidies, they're being given the same pay they were getting before. Republicans, apparently to make a point, made Congressional employees the only group where their employer would be banned from continuing to provide health coverage.
Because the government is no longer allowed to provided them with an employer provided health plan, the employer contribution, which was part of their pay, is now being provided with that contribution to be used to purchase a plan on the exchange. In other words, if their employer had been paying them $500/month in the form of a health plan contribution, they will now receive that $500 to put towards a health plan on the exchange.
Not only did the idea for this "subsidy" initially come from a Republican, this is actually how the "Conservative Alternative" to Obamacare from the Heritage foundation suggests we should provide insurance; employers should give their contribution directly to employees to purchase plans, so it seems odd that conservatives would be so upset about their own initiatives, although I get the impression the opposition to such ideas has far more to do with who conservatives associate the idea with than the idea itself.
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
They aren't being given subsidies, they're being given the same pay they were getting before. Republicans, apparently to make a point, made Congressional employees the only group where their employer would be banned from continuing to provide health coverage.
Because the government is no longer allowed to provided them with an employer provided health plan, the employer contribution, which was part of their pay, is now being provided with that contribution to be used to purchase a plan on the exchange. In other words, if their employer had been paying them $500/month in the form of a health plan contribution, they will now receive that $500 to put towards a health plan on the exchange.
Not only did the idea for this "subsidy" initially come from a Republican, this is actually how the "Conservative Alternative" to Obamacare from the Heritage foundation suggests we should provide insurance; employers should give their contribution directly to employees to purchase plans, so it seems odd that conservatives would be so upset about their own initiatives, although I get the impression the opposition to such ideas has far more to do with who conservatives associate the idea with than the idea itself.
...Today, no mainstream politician would dream of destroying Medicare.
Precious few of any of our hired (aka, elected) officials would dare do anything to jeopardize their voter base by denying the FSA any "benefits"... to do so would be political suicide.
MunoRN, RN
8,058 Posts
The "49%" number includes everyone receiving medicare and social security, which is a benefit they've contributed to.
Unions are not exempt from Obamacare. Many self-insured businesses, pooled insurance groups, and unions were given a one year exemption from part of the timeline to help them transition, that exemption ends in January.
Congress is not exempt either.