- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
House Republicans want to exempt themselves and staff from new Obamacare rules
Posted on 4/26/17 at 4:14 am
Posted on 4/26/17 at 4:14 am
Just freaking perfect....link to msn.com....
House Republicans appear to have included a provision that exempts Members of Congress and their staff from their latest health care plan. The new Republican amendment, introduced Tuesday night, would allow states to waive out of Obamacare’s ban on pre-existing conditions. This means that insurers could once again, under certain circumstances, charge sick people higher premiums than healthy people.
Republican legislators liked this policy well enough to offer it in a new amendment. They do not, however, seem to like it enough to have it apply to themselves and their staff. A spokesperson for Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) who authored this amendment confirmed this was the case: members of Congress and their staff would get the guarantee of keeping this Obamacare regulations.
A bit of background is helpful here. Obamacare requires all members of Congress and their staff to purchase coverage on the individual market, just like Obamacare enrollees. The politics of that plank were simple enough, meant to demonstrate that if the coverage in this law were good enough for Americans than it should be good enough for their representations in Washington.
That’s been happening for the past four years now. Fast-forward to this new amendment, which would allow states to waive out of key Obamacare protections like the ban on pre-existing conditions or the requirement to cover things like maternity care and mental health services. If Congressional aides lived in a state that decided to waive these protections, the aides who were sick could be vulnerable to higher premiums than the aides that are healthy. Their benefits package could get skimpier as Obamacare’s essential health benefits requirement may no longer apply either. This apparently does not sound appealing because the Republican amendment includes the members of Congress and their staff as a protected group who cannot be affected by this amendment.
LINK
House Republicans appear to have included a provision that exempts Members of Congress and their staff from their latest health care plan. The new Republican amendment, introduced Tuesday night, would allow states to waive out of Obamacare’s ban on pre-existing conditions. This means that insurers could once again, under certain circumstances, charge sick people higher premiums than healthy people.
Republican legislators liked this policy well enough to offer it in a new amendment. They do not, however, seem to like it enough to have it apply to themselves and their staff. A spokesperson for Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) who authored this amendment confirmed this was the case: members of Congress and their staff would get the guarantee of keeping this Obamacare regulations.
A bit of background is helpful here. Obamacare requires all members of Congress and their staff to purchase coverage on the individual market, just like Obamacare enrollees. The politics of that plank were simple enough, meant to demonstrate that if the coverage in this law were good enough for Americans than it should be good enough for their representations in Washington.
That’s been happening for the past four years now. Fast-forward to this new amendment, which would allow states to waive out of key Obamacare protections like the ban on pre-existing conditions or the requirement to cover things like maternity care and mental health services. If Congressional aides lived in a state that decided to waive these protections, the aides who were sick could be vulnerable to higher premiums than the aides that are healthy. Their benefits package could get skimpier as Obamacare’s essential health benefits requirement may no longer apply either. This apparently does not sound appealing because the Republican amendment includes the members of Congress and their staff as a protected group who cannot be affected by this amendment.
LINK
This post was edited on 4/26/17 at 4:17 am
7
Posted on 4/26/17 at 5:16 am to Eurocat
quote:
This means that insurers could once again, under certain circumstances, charge sick people higher premiums than healthy people.
You mean, like the way it always was before the socialist idea of universal healthcare came along?
Sorry; but it's been this way longer than it hasn't
What are you? Twenty years old?
Posted on 4/26/17 at 5:19 am to Errerrerrwere
I support making insurance actually BE insurance (unlike Obamacare), but "it's been this way a long night time" isn't really a good reason to make public policy.
There are much better arguments for this type of structure.
There are much better arguments for this type of structure.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 5:19 am to Errerrerrwere
That part is fine, however exempting themselves is not.
Jesus Christ the fricking dem party is in shambles but retards on our side are going to frick this up.
Jesus Christ the fricking dem party is in shambles but retards on our side are going to frick this up.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 5:21 am to Eurocat
quote:
This means that insurers could once again, under certain circumstances, charge sick people higher premiums than healthy people.
Better than charging me to pay for it through subsidies. Why should I be on the hook for people who in many cases created their health issues through poor lifestyle decisions.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 5:22 am to Eurocat
quote:
allow states to waive out of Obamacare’s ban on pre-existing conditions.
So in some states actual health insurance would be legal again?
Posted on 4/26/17 at 5:27 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
I support making insurance actually BE insurance (unlike Obamacare), but "it's been this way a long night time" isn't really a good reason to make public policy.
That's not one of my arguments; but since the OP stated that "once again" I figured; I'd help him out; and let him know that it's been that way far longer than it hasn't. This is nothing new.
My point wasnt hidden between the lines..
This post was edited on 4/26/17 at 6:17 am
Posted on 4/26/17 at 5:30 am to Errerrerrwere
I know it wasn't that way all along.
This is a major Obamacare improvement.
No-one should go bankrupt because their kid is born with Downs Syndrome.
This is a major Obamacare improvement.
No-one should go bankrupt because their kid is born with Downs Syndrome.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 5:33 am to Eurocat
And I shouldn't go bankrupt either for someone else having a DS kid. Capisce?
Posted on 4/26/17 at 5:36 am to Eurocat
I agree, that is why we have charity hospitals. I'm fine with giving real pre-existing conditions a break. However if we do that I want fat people to go bankrupt paying for insurance. I shouldn't have to subsidize some fat frick that can't stop going through McDonald's.
Then again I have a job that offers health insurance and it's extremely cheap for me, but if I was on the open market it should be cheap considering all the factors.
Then again I have a job that offers health insurance and it's extremely cheap for me, but if I was on the open market it should be cheap considering all the factors.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 5:49 am to Eurocat
You should also be aware of the shenanigans that went on after ObamaCare was signed. Congress was supposed to buy their insurance at full price from the Exchanges. Because so few of them had, you know, actually read the law, they didn't realize they had to buy their insurance with the little people.
No problem. Obama to the rescue. He appointed Karen Archuleta to head up the Office of Personnel management, who promptly put in a loophole, so Congress could define certain terms in the law, so they would not have to buy their insurance through the Exchanges.
Senator Vitter (R) said that if the law was good enough for the American people, it was good enough for Congress, so he authored Senate Bill 1490 requiring Congress to buy their insurance through the Exchanges.
By doing this, he made it very public how the Congress would vote.
LINK
No problem. Obama to the rescue. He appointed Karen Archuleta to head up the Office of Personnel management, who promptly put in a loophole, so Congress could define certain terms in the law, so they would not have to buy their insurance through the Exchanges.
Senator Vitter (R) said that if the law was good enough for the American people, it was good enough for Congress, so he authored Senate Bill 1490 requiring Congress to buy their insurance through the Exchanges.
By doing this, he made it very public how the Congress would vote.
LINK
Posted on 4/26/17 at 5:49 am to Errerrerrwere
That's the piece you took away from this? Lol.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 5:52 am to Jorts R Us
No. I get the jist of it, bud.
I'm just reminding the OP that his outrage is not anything we haven't seen before.
I'm just reminding the OP that his outrage is not anything we haven't seen before.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 5:52 am to Eurocat
quote:
A bit of background is helpful here. Obamacare requires all members of Congress and their staff to purchase coverage on the individual market, just like Obamacare enrollees. The politics of that plank were simple enough, meant to demonstrate that if the coverage in this law were good enough for Americans than it should be good enough for their representations in Washington.
This is not honest reporting, nor is it proper background. (What a surprise) See my previous post to see the real story. The original bill did require Congress to buy their insurance through the exchanges, but Obama appointed Archuleta to the Office of Personnel Management who then gave them a loophole. It was Senator Vitter (R) who then put forth a bill to eliminate that loophole that Obama created.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 6:01 am to Eurocat
quote:
This means that insurers could once again, under certain circumstances, charge sick people higher premiums than healthy people.
Oh the humanity. How dare someone who will cost the insurer more have to pay more - what an injustice.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 6:04 am to Eurocat
The level of stupidity of both sides of the aisle always seems to balance itself out. How fricking stupid can they be?
Posted on 4/26/17 at 6:06 am to PeaRidgeWatash
The left is still filled with dumber people considering a good 20-30 of them are scared Guam could flip over. The right just has some cucks and bad leaders
Posted on 4/26/17 at 6:10 am to heartbreakTiger
quote:
The left is still filled with dumber people considering a good 20-30 of them are scared Guam could flip over. The right just has some cucks and bad leaders
The vast majority of both sides are about what's best for their chances to get reelected. Trump mentioned term limits towards the end of the primary. If he were to bring that back up and really stay on message, his approval ratings would sky rocket. frick Congress.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 6:11 am to DawgsLife
quote:
This is not honest reporting, nor is it proper background. (What a surprise) See my previous post to see the real story. The original bill did require Congress to buy their insurance through the exchanges, but Obama appointed Archuleta to the Office of Personnel Management who then gave them a loophole. It was Senator Vitter (R) who then put forth a bill to eliminate that loophole that Obama created
I remember when this happened. OP won't like this.
Posted on 4/26/17 at 6:15 am to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
I remember when this happened. OP won't like this.
This is the second thread started today that totally dishonest accusations have been flung. They have no grasp of reality anymore.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News