Sounds like loony bins but POLITICO is reporting talks and claiming sources from both sides.
If true, what does this do to the public’s confidence in Obamacare? I don’t think it could possibly drop Congressional favorability ratings much more since that is already in the toilet.
Honestly, my initial response to reading the article was laughter.
Listen, as a huge proponent of the Affordable Care Act - I still fucking hate the term “Obamacare” - I just don’t see this policy going anywhere, though I wouldn’t be terribly surprised to see some sort of semi-exemption carved out for the lowest paid Congressional staff members.
From the article, it seems like the issue is about the federal government’s contribution to health care plans for Congressional employees, and I guess some are worried that the rate might fall too low and leave some of the lowest paid staffers with excessively high health care costs on the exchanges or elsewhere.
But again, I just don’t see this going anywhere; in fact, I’d put it into the same camp as all of the GOP-led states trying to change their allocation of electoral votes, in that the idea might sound good to some of these lawmakers, but public pushback would be so absolutely massive that the policy would never actually be carried out.
There’s just far too much political fallout from pursuing this kind of policy, particularly for Republicans. I mean, it would be kind of difficult for these guys to rail against the law and try to dismantle it for years only for them to exempt themselves from its provisions as it finally kicks in.
There’d be backlash for the Dems, too, but not as much IMO, if for nothing else than the fact that the Democratic base is far less reactionary and contemptuous than the GOP base.
It will be good for a couple of house seats for the Democrats. Remember how the Republicans were going to have the same laws for members of congress as for everyone else?
Yeah, that’s the funny thing. A lot of people falsely believe that Congress already exempted itself from the law, but the truth is that the entire reason that Congress didn’t exempt itself from the ACA is that GOP lawmakers insisted that they play by the same rules as everyone else.
It would be really funny if they’ve suddenly done an about-face and have now become the ones pushing for all of these Congressional exemptions.
However, in this particular case, Congress subjected itself to a law that nobody else lives under. Any member of the public is eligible to receive employer-sponsored health care if it is offered, otherwise they can soon resort to exchanges. In this case, Congress passed a law stating that people who work for Congress are not eligible for employer sponsored health care.
The thing is, if this proposal does pass, it won’t reflect poorly on one party or another, it will reflect poorly on both. For voters, it will be another rather small example of why incumbents – not one party or another – suck.
They’ll say that about the first part, but as 2Many said, they’re going against their past rhetoric on the issue. On the second part, they’ll blame Republicans. Everyone knows the Democrats have no say in how the house is run right now.
Did you even read the article? The talks are between Boehner and Reid. Both the House and Senate would have to pass the bill for this proposal to become a law. Cite.
I was lax, I only skimmed the article. You’re right, this does smell of bipartisanship, which is always a disaster for the people.
That article makes very little sense, and doesn’t offer enough back story or on-the-record sources to provide clarity.
From what I can tell the discussions aren’t about exempting staffers from the exchanges at all, but about allowing them to receive employer-sponsered plans. The only person quoted that seems to know what he’s talking about is Waxman, and he seems confident that the federal government will provide subsides for staffers to buy exchange-based plans. Burr is only quoted to shit on the ACA in general.
Just based on the tone (repeated comments about the laws controversy) and the lack of actual facts re: the proposed changes makes me think this is just more POLITICO shit-stirring. But we shall see.
Yeah, Reid is culpable in this too, so the whole thing would be a bipartisan mess if it actually happens. But again, the mere fact that the GOP is even pushing for this is basically a huge affront against their past rhetoric on the issue, and I can’t imagine that that’ll go over well with Republican primary voters.
Like I said, though, I just don’t see much movement actually happening here. If anything, there might be some pseudo-exemptions for the lowest paid staffers, but other than that I can’t imagine that this’ll get very far, especially now that the whole thing is out in the open.
To back up 2ManyTacos, the right wing of the GOP just shut down a House bill that would have taken money away from the “Obamacare slush fund” (their term) to fund the high-risk insurance program (which they support as a key alternative to the exchanges and mandate).
If they can’t get their members to vote for a bill that would defund something they hate to fund something they like just because it has ties to the ACA, they will never get their members to vote for something like this.
I’m actually kind of surprised how quickly this is circulating:
Congress is NOT trying to exempt itself from the ACA
As I alluded to earlier, the issue in question is really just about the federal government’s contribution to employee health plans, and whether the government has the authority to contribute subsidies to Congressional employees who have to get their coverage on the exchanges.
Some lawmakers think this is a non-issue, and others are just trying to find a way around it if it turns out to be a problem. From the article:
*But no one is discussing “exempting” congressional staffers from Obamacare. They’re discussing creating some method through which the federal government can keep making its current contribution to the health insurance of congressional staffers.
“Even if OPM rules against us,” one staffer said, “it’s inaccurate to imply that any talks are aimed at exempting federal employees from routine mandates of ACA since any talks are about resolving the unique bind that the Grassley amendment puts federal employees in.”*
So, as usual, Politico jumped the gun on this one. Still, they probably got epic traffic for their article, so good for them I guess.
Yup, once again the political media, which you’d like to think was interested in helping the public understand what’s going on in Congress, is instead confusing and deceiving in order to drive traffic.
Or, the original reports are correct, and this is the “No! I can explain!” thing Congress does when it gets caught.
What matters is that it won’t happen. An overly aggressive press is better than a meek press.
So your opinion, adaher, is that if OPM rules that the Grassley amendment means that the government can no longer subsidize health insurance for Congressional staff, that Congress shouldn’t pass legislation re-authorizing said subsidies?
I don’t think the Washington Post article is convincing that this is more of a technical matter than a substantive one. Summarizing the issue as “exempting Congress from Obamacare” is not accurate, but neither is denying that there may be an effort to exempt Congress from Obamacare.
As the WaPo notes, the clear intent of the ACA is that congressmen and their staffs buy insurance on the exchanges. I find it totally implausible that Senator Grassley, who proposed the amendment, really intended the amendment to read: “Members of Congress and their staffs shall purchase health insurance on the ACA exchanges, but those individuals shall enjoy the same levels of employer subsidies as they would be eligible for under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, regardless of whether private individuals purchasing insurance on the exchanges are similarly eligible for those subsidies.”
No, I don’t think that’s what Grassley intended. The discussions do not seem to literally be about “exempting Congress from Obamacare,” they seem to be about “applying Obamacare to Congress in a manner that no other American is apparently eligible for.”
Now, mind you, I think the whole idea that certain people in certain professions should be subject to more onerous rules than other people in order to make a political point about something, is, in general, a dumb idea. If the proposal were to make all government employees subject to the exchange, that might not be a good idea, but at least it would be fair. But I don’t like the idea that a mail clerk in the Capitol is subject to one type of compensation, but a mail clerk down the street at the FAA is subject to a substantially different compensation package for non-substantive reasons – that strikes me as capricious and unfair.
Congressional staff should receive the same subsidies everyone else does on Obamacare, which will depend on their income. Many will no longer receive subsidies because they make too much.
Ravenman makes a good point too, but I don’t understand something. Are Congressional aides federal employees? I had thought they were not, but rather employees of their Congressperson and paid whatever their Congressperson desires to pay them, rather than according to federal formulas.
Can someone please explain to me why it would be OK for the government to subsidize the lower salaried staffers but the average citizen is left on their own? I’m not being a tool or trolling, I am seriously asking. I would like a better understanding of the logic of perceived favoritism simply because these people work for the government. Shouldn’t everyone, both regular and government employee, be subject to the same laws?
What you are missing is that the federal government is these people’s employer. If you get a full-time job at a large company, that company has to either provide you insurance or pay a penalty and you get insurance on the exchanges.
Grassley proposed a poison-pill amendment that would require all Congressmen and their staff to only get insurance from the exchanges. Democrats said “OK” and passed it. But the exchanges will only have plans for large employers (which the federal government obviously is) starting in 2017 - and then only in states that explicitly allow that.
So you have a situation where, prior to 2014, an employer (the federal government) paid a large portion of health insurance costs as a benefit - just like most large employers of full-time workers does. But after 2014, due to the Grassley amendment, the employer (again, the federal government) may not be able to provide that benefit anymore as a term of employment. Then again, they may be able to - OPM hasn’t ruled (Waxman, for example, thinks they will).
Really what this story is, is folks in Congress trying to figure out how to get a solution through if OPM decides that the ill-conceived (and basically never intended to pass) Grassley amendment ends up cutting off health care as an employer-provided benefit for Congressional staffers. At least that’s how I read it - its a bit tricky with so few on-the-record sources.
All right, I can see that, but what’s the deal with exempting Congressmembers? All of them make more than enough money to afford health insurance on the individual exchanges. Sounds like they are taking a justifiable inch and as usual trying to take another inch as well and hope we won’t notice.