What? No government shutdown threads?

Page 72 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,459
987
126
"Have Congress and the President enroll in Obamacare just like other Americans, or give everyone the same one-year opt-out option given to special interests."

Is having Congress enroll in Obamacare or individuals having the same one-year opt-out option Obama gave special interests really that big of a compromise? Don't one or both of those things sound fair even to Democrats and fans of obamacare?

The GOP went beyond just Congress and the President. They wanted all staffers to lose their employer provided healthcare/employer subsidized healthcare. IE: They wanted some federal employees to take a several thousand dollar pay cut, employees that don't make six figures. The GOP's idea would have cost a lot of people their federal employee subsidized coverage and alot of those make as low as ~$35k in DC. Hell the GOP knew that idea wasn't going to go through. I am pretty damn sure its VERY awkward between GOP Members and their staff at this point. I can see a spike in turnover happening in the short term.

Oh and most working Americans have employer provided insurance where their employer pays a sizable part of their premium. The Federal governments employer subsidized healthcare is middle of the road when compared to the private sector. Its better than some but no where near the best. So your argument in regards to this issue is non existent.
 
Last edited:

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,459
987
126
I expected some sort of compromise. Especially since that's the big buzzword so often. "compromise." Did Democrats or Obama compromise with Republicans when they jammed through Obamacare with zero Republican votes? No. Unless "compromise" includes compromising with other Democrats who didn't want Obamacare but voted for it after being bribed.

Is having Congress enroll in Obamacare or individuals having the same one-year opt-out option Obama gave special interests really that big of a compromise? Don't one or both of those things sound fair even to Democrats and fans of obamacare?


No kidding overall it's both parties' fault, dumbass. Except one party at least tried to compromise while the other held their breath. And now the debt will continue climbing just like it was. I wouldn't be surprised if you voted for more Republicans last election than I did.

How many Republican amendments got attached to Obamacare? Oh thats right, ~149. Yep there was no compromise with Obamacare.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
That damn big spending democrat from Kentucky got a 3 billion project for the state as part of the deal. I thought the goal was to reduce spending?

http://news.yahoo.com/congressional...llion-for-kentucky-dam-project-001012679.html

Oh wait, that was big game Mitch - GOP - that got that thrown in. Just remember boys and girls, spending is always bad - until it's my spending - then it's all good.
As always, the easiest way to agree on where to cut spending is to simply buy enough politicians with more spending.
 

OGOC

Senior member
Jun 14, 2013
312
0
76
Oh and most working Americans have employer provided insurance where their employer pays a sizable part of their premium. The Federal governments employer subsidized healthcare is middle of the road when compared to the private sector. Its better than some but no where near the best. So your argument in regards to this issue is non existent.
The argument is hardly non existent. If Obamacare is good enough for the American people, then it's good enough for Obama and Congress.

But Congress is used to passing one set of laws for the American people and living by another set of laws. The strange part is why so many people defend them when they do.

That damn big spending democrat from Kentucky got a 3 billion project for the state as part of the deal. I thought the goal was to reduce spending?

http://news.yahoo.com/congressional...llion-for-kentucky-dam-project-001012679.html

Oh wait, that was big game Mitch - GOP - that got that thrown in. Just remember boys and girls, spending is always bad - until it's my spending - then it's all good.
Apparently a lot of people wanted that more than he did.

There's something else to make note of here though. Mitch Mcconnell didn't want to shut the government down, and Mitch Mcconnell voted yes on that to end the shutdown. This is not something people can blame on the Tea Party that is actually (usually) serious about cutting spending. Mitch Mcconnell is one of the Republicans the Tea Party people want to get rid of.

The GOP in-fighting makes it easy for Democrats to generalize and attack.
If a GOP person is serious about cutting spending, they're called "extreme" even though the rest of the GOP wants to get rid of them.
If a GOP person isn't serious about cutting spending, they're called a liar even though the rest of the GOP wants to get rid of them.
 

openwheel

Platinum Member
Apr 30, 2012
2,044
17
81
The argument is hardly non existent. If Obamacare is good enough for the American people, then it's good enough for Obama and Congress.

But Congress is used to passing one set of laws for the American people and living by another set of laws. The strange part is why so many people defend them when they do.

I don't get your argument. Obamacare does not require a regular employee who has benefit to give up employer's healthcare option.

If Obamacare requires me to give up my employer's subsidized healthcare, then I would require Obama/Congress to give up theirs too. Otherwise, no.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I don't get your argument. Obamacare does not require a regular employee who has benefit to give up employer's healthcare option.

If Obamacare requires me to give up my employer's subsidized healthcare, then I would require Obama/Congress to give up theirs too. Otherwise, no.
That's the crux of the issue. The Pubbies as a political stunt made the point that if Obamacare is so great, let's all go on it. The Dems as a political stunt agreed - they could hardly argue that Obamacare was great for everyone else but not for them. Problem is, Obamacare strictly limits the employer subsidization for those on the exchanges. That put the Congresscritters and their staffers in line for a real pay cut. So to eat their cake and have it to, they simply gave themselves special privileges so that they and only they can be on the exchanges, but still have taxpayers pick up their health insurance costs. Giving themselves special privileges is much worse than simply allowing them to continue with their regular taxpayer funded health insurance, in my opinion, but they want the fiction of being "just like everyone else" without actually losing any benefits.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,425
8,388
126
but they want the fiction of being "just like everyone else" without actually losing any benefits.
of course they would have been just like everyone else had they just stayed on the federal health employee benefit program


i don't know why they should lose benefits on a stupid political stunt.
 
Last edited:
Dec 10, 2005
24,448
7,386
136
That's the crux of the issue. The Pubbies as a political stunt made the point that if Obamacare is so great, let's all go on it. The Dems as a political stunt agreed - they could hardly argue that Obamacare was great for everyone else but not for them. Problem is, Obamacare strictly limits the employer subsidization for those on the exchanges. That put the Congresscritters and their staffers in line for a real pay cut. So to eat their cake and have it to, they simply gave themselves special privileges so that they and only they can be on the exchanges, but still have taxpayers pick up their health insurance costs. Giving themselves special privileges is much worse than simply allowing them to continue with their regular taxpayer funded health insurance, in my opinion, but they want the fiction of being "just like everyone else" without actually losing any benefits.

That seems like a mischaracterization of what actually happened. Everyone else in the US falls roughly into these two categories:

1) Employer subsidized insurance = no subsidy on exchange
2) No employer subsidized insurance = potential subsidy on exchange

For the way the law was originally passed, it would have created a third category specifically for Congress and their staffs:

3) Employer subsidized insurance, but now forced to buy on the exchange, thus, no subsidy and no employer chipping in to help with the costs.
-You aren't eligible for a subsidy if your employer provides subsidized insurance. So they would get a real paycut and effectively be treated differently than everyone else in the country.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
of course they would have been just like everyone else had they just stayed on the federal health employee benefit program

i don't know why they should lose benefits on a stupid political stunt.
Thought I explained that. The Democrats could not claim that Obamacare is the greatest thing since sliced bread without being willing to be on it. They also were not willing to live under the same burden as everyone else on the exchanges. The rules of the game dictate that they reach into our pockets, not their own.

That seems like a mischaracterization of what actually happened. Everyone else in the US falls roughly into these two categories:

1) Employer subsidized insurance = no subsidy on exchange
2) No employer subsidized insurance = potential subsidy on exchange

For the way the law was originally passed, it would have created a third category specifically for Congress and their staffs:

3) Employer subsidized insurance, but now forced to buy on the exchange, thus, no subsidy and no employer chipping in to help with the costs.
-You aren't eligible for a subsidy if your employer provides subsidized insurance. So they would get a real paycut and effectively be treated differently than everyone else in the country.
Um, no. Congress is a third category treated differently than everyone else in the country now. You're artificially creating a special category of those with employer subsidized insurance forced to buy insurance on the exchanges even while admitting there could be no subsidy, but in reality originally, under the law, Congress and staffers were no different from any employee not furnished with health insurance, for whatever reason. Is an employee mandated to be on the exchanges by the ACA somehow different from an employee forced onto the exchanges by the ACA? Is a Congressional staffer somehow more deserving than a Home Depot employee? With the law as passed, Congress and its staffers faced exactly the same situation as anyone forced onto the exchanges through whatever circumstances. With their special dispensation, Congress and its staffers have a special benefit not available to anyone else. Whatever the reason for not receiving health insurance, whether or not your employer wants to provide a substantial subsidy to defray the cost of health insurance you are unable to take it and still purchase health insurance on the exchanges.

Unless you're a member of Congress or a staffer; then you get a special dispensation. You're just like everyone else, except more privileged. As always, some animals on the farm are just more equal than others.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |