But that’s bullshit.
ACA’s application to Congress is unlike any way that it applies to the rest of us. It’s pure politics. And you’re falling for it.
Ah but in Congress’s example, people who are forced onto Obamacare (and are squealing about it) are the ones that planned it, wrote it, worked on it, supported it, and voted for it. Yes, Republican staffers are swept up too.
Ah good. Now we find out that being forced onto Obamacare is being “thrown off health coverage”.
Again, that’s crap.
Obamacare, specifically, the insurance plans available from the exchanges, is not and never was meant to be an employer-provided plan. It was intended to give plans to those who have none, not replace employer-provided coverage.
What happened was that, by law, congressional staff (and ONLY congressional staff) were denied their employer-provided health plan and forced to get one as if they had none.
And this was done for no reason than to allow people like you do make dishonest claims like you’re doing now.
Yes, but ONLY for congressional staff, not anyone else in America.
This congressional staff thing is a bit like Congress deducting $10,000 from congressional staff pay and replacing it with food stamps, and then right-wingers claiming it proves something about food stamps when they complain. It’s a transparent political move that the GOP knew would confuse alot of people, and it’s obviously working.
Employer-provided. It is only fitting that Congress gets Obamacare as employer-provided plan.
Buddy, you don’t get something. As I pointed out upthread, polls show that two to one Americans think that Obamacare had a more negative than positive impact on their own, individual health care. So they want to see the people responsible for it to also have a “more negative than positive impact on their own, individual health care”. It’s only fair.
No, it’s not. Not at all. That’s the point. No other employer in America is required to do this under ACA. It’s a political trick, and you’re playing along.
No, it’s not fair at all, because it’s not the same law as applied to them. No other Americans are required by ACA to give up an employer-provided group plan and get one from the exchange instead, as if buying a private plan. You’re still playing this game. You may be able to get away with in in some places, but not here. We are not that stupid.
Thanks for pointing out that the same game you’re playing (and losing) here is the one the GOP is playing to influence public opinion though.
No other employer can make laws for itself.
Yes, it is completely fair.
No other Americans have the power to force all other Americans into something that they feel impacts them negatively.
Not relevant. No other employer is affected by this law the way Congress is.
No, it’s not. And I have explained why it’s not.
Congress didn’t force any other Americans to drop their employer-provided group insurance. Not one.
You are simply being dishonest. The jig is up. You can play this game elsewhere, but not here. We are smarter than that.
Yes, it is. And I have explained why it is.
You flatter yourself.
No you haven’t. You just keep repeating your claims and ignoring my refutation. That’s not explaining.
Nope, just pointing out the truth. You are trying to play a cynical, dishonest game that’s not working, and now you don’t know what else to do but just repeat it.
That works like a charm out in GOP-land. It fails miserably here.
Same as you.
Two to one, Americans think that Obamacare negatively affected their individual health care. If you think that’s only in GOP-land, you’re deluding yourself. And guess what, those two out of three most probably applaud the fact that Congress staffers have to be negatively affected as well. They only wish they could be more negatively affected.
No, I have refuted your claims, not just repeated mine.
You, on the other hand, haven’t refuted me. All you could do is offer an irrelevant poll, like you do here yet again:
Yes, this poll shows that your dishonesty is working.
Shouting “not fair” is not a refutation. Especially when it is fair.
I have done more than shout that, I have explained it in detail. You have not responded in kind.
If you can’t defend your argument, just stop posting please.
For those who care, the DC district court just ruled that federally-operated marketplaces can indeed receive IRS tax subsidies. I know that this was one of the last hail-marries that ACA opponents were hoping to get validated by the courts.
So if this goes to SCOTUS, woopie…
You think you did. But your argument in the end is reduced to “not fair”. But it is.
Well, no, I explained in detail exactly why it’s not fair. You did not refute it. I can go back and show you if you missed it.
Your explanation “in detail” is that Congress is treated differently than others. But guess what - that’s because Congress is different than others. Others cannot foist Obamacare on all Americans. Congress can. So it has to eat what it cooks. So your “not fair” is just whining.
No, the fact that Congress makes the laws has absolutely nothing to do with any logic for treating Congress differently under the law.
But at least you’ve finally admitted that Congress is treated differently under the law, which completely proves my point.
But it’s not. It’s eating something entirely different. Therefore, the comparison is nonsense.
No, it’s logically consistent, unlike your claim.
I think you’re smart enough to grasp this, which makes me believe you’re deliberately trying to mislead, and are not just being misled (though perhaps you were before). That failed long ago.
Again, your view is analogous to Congress taking a large chunk of its salary away and giving them food stamps instead, and then when the staff complain, you claim it’s a reflection on the food stamp program as a whole. It’s absurd.