34390
Post by: whembly
Rand Paul pushes constitutional amendment on Congress
Forget the Vitter amendment. Rand Paul wants to make sure that Congress can’t ever again write laws with provisions specific to lawmakers.
The Kentucky freshman Republican has introduced a constitutional amendment that would preclude senators and representatives from passing laws that don’t apply equally to U.S. citizens and Congress, the executive branch and the Supreme Court. The amendment is aimed squarely at Obamacare provisions specific to members of Congress and their staffs that became a central point of contention during the government shutdown.
Under Obamacare, Capitol Hill aides and lawmakers are required to enter the law’s health exchanges and a summertime ruling from the Office of Personnel Management ensured they will continue to receive federal employer contributions to help pay for insurance on the exchanges. A number of lawmakers, specifically Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), have been pushing for the end to those contributions, arguing they amount to a Washington exemption from Obamacare. Vitter has drafted legislative language that would eliminate these subsidies and tried to attach the measure to an energy efficiency bill and pushed for it to be included in the government funding bill last week.
Paul seeks to go a step further and amend the Constitution so that “Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress,” the executive branch including the president and vice president as well as the Supreme Court.
Paul told the Daily Caller in September that the amendment would take specific aim at Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, whose swing vote upheld the constitutionality of much of the Affordable Care Act.
“If he likes Obamacare so much, I’m going to give him an amendment that gives Obamacare to Justice Roberts,” Paul told the publication.
Amending the Constitution is no easy task, requiring super majorities in both chambers of Congress before going to the states for ratification. And Paul in particular will face the immense burden of trying to convince lawmakers that they should no longer have the authority to make laws governing Congress.
Here's the amendment:
S.J.RES.25
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government. (Introduced in Senate - IS)
SJ 25 IS
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. J. RES. 25
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 11, 2013
Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
'Article--
'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.
'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.
'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.'
###
Here's what I think...
Everyone from all political spectrum, should support this amendment. I know it's cliche, but if it's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
It won't pass... but it's definitely red meat for those who opposes the very idea that congress can exempt themselves from the very laws that they pass for their constituents.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
God dammit this is what needs to happen.
16387
Post by: Manchu
LOL points for creativity. But then again, all these hacks do is sit around thinking about ways to oppose the ACA ... sort of like super villains now that I think about it ... and this marketing spin is still the best they could come up with.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Manchu wrote:LOL points for creativity. But then again, all these hacks do is sit around thinking about ways to oppose the ACA ... sort of like super villains now that I think about it ... and this marketing spin is still the best they could come up with.
It's not a bad idea...
If the Congress Critters, Executive Officials and Judiciary were truly under the ACA / Medicare / Social Security / etc... then, if it's truly bad/broken, they'll be properly motivated to fix it.
Instead, they have their own cushy alternative and are not as compelled to address the difficult tasks at hand.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Sure, Manchu, there's some grandstanding invoked. But I dare anyone on capital hill to be the first one to vocally oppose this idea. They should be brutalized by the media.
34390
Post by: whembly
 cincydooley wrote:Sure, Manchu, there's some grandstanding invoked. But I dare anyone on capital hill to be the first one to vocally oppose this idea. They should be brutalized by the media.
Nope... they'll accuse Paul for putting Congress into that predicament in the first place.
If this has any hope of passing, it's the voters that need to bark at their elected officials.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Yeah, Cincy -- that's the entire point of this. It's designed to embarrass and make a scene but not really to do anything substantive. That's why I called it marketing spin. Rand Paul wants to reduce the issue to a slogan about "fairness." Toddler politics, just like with the shutdown.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/25/fact-check-congress-staff-are-exempt-from-obamacare/
But anyway -- let's talk about something actually important somewhere else ... post those reviews of the Privateer Press novels/novellas!
37231
Post by: d-usa
So under his plan the republican plan to force congressional members into the exchange would have been illegal to begin with?
34390
Post by: whembly
But, subsidies of an average of 72 percent? THAT'S the special treatment we're talking about. Joe Schmoe buying insurance on the individual exchange market can only qualify for subsidy based on his earnings/family size. Automatically Appended Next Post:  d-usa wrote:So under his plan the republican plan to force congressional members into the exchange would have been illegal to begin with?
Huh? 
37231
Post by: d-usa
You know, the law pushed for by republicans that resulted in congressional members being forced to drop their federally provided health insurance and enter the health exchange for no reason whatsoever.
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote:You know, the law pushed for by republicans that resulted in congressional members being forced to drop their federally provided health insurance and enter the health exchange for no reason whatsoever.
Ah...
But there is a reason.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
I wholeheartedly support this amendment.
Then again, I'm not American and have never been there, so I really don't have any skin in the game. 
37231
Post by: d-usa
 whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:You know, the law pushed for by republicans that resulted in congressional members being forced to drop their federally provided health insurance and enter the health exchange for no reason whatsoever.
Ah...
But there is a reason.
It had zero good reason.
And it would have been illegal under the Rand Paul constitutional ammendment.
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote: whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:You know, the law pushed for by republicans that resulted in congressional members being forced to drop their federally provided health insurance and enter the health exchange for no reason whatsoever.
Ah...
But there is a reason.
It had zero good reason.
And it would have been illegal under the Rand Paul constitutional ammendment.
The Vitter Amendment?
Well... it would've been redundant.
752
Post by: Polonius
Am I missing something, or is there nothing inherently wrong with the Federal Government offering it's employees more generous benefits than a simple subsidy? A lot of employers do that.
As for the proposed amendment, all I can hear is the law of unintended consequences in the background.
37231
Post by: d-usa
whembly wrote: d-usa wrote: whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:You know, the law pushed for by republicans that resulted in congressional members being forced to drop their federally provided health insurance and enter the health exchange for no reason whatsoever.
Ah...
But there is a reason.
It had zero good reason.
And it would have been illegal under the Rand Paul constitutional ammendment.
The Vitter Amendment?
Well... it would've been redundant.
There was zero good reason for republicans to decide that cogressional empoyees should lose the exact same benefits that ever other federal employee has.
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote: whembly wrote: d-usa wrote: whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:You know, the law pushed for by republicans that resulted in congressional members being forced to drop their federally provided health insurance and enter the health exchange for no reason whatsoever.
Ah...
But there is a reason.
It had zero good reason.
And it would have been illegal under the Rand Paul constitutional ammendment.
The Vitter Amendment?
Well... it would've been redundant.
There was zero good reason for republicans to decide that cogressional empoyees should lose the exact same benefits that ever other federal employee has.
I totally disagree with you.
The Prez, Congressional Critters (not staff) and Judiciary shouldn't have their own benefit package paid for by taxpayers. They should be forced to purchase health insurance in the individual exchange w/o special subsidy.
The only Retirement they should have, is social security. They can privately invest in IRA or other retirement strategy that joe-blow can do... but, they shouldn't have their own pension/retirement plan paid for by taxpayers.
And etc...
That's just my opinion.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Yes, we know. "Government bad" and all that.
34390
Post by: whembly
And yet, I'm in favor of going to a single-payor...
o.O
Riddle me that you batman!
16387
Post by: Manchu
 Polonius wrote:As for the proposed amendment, all I can hear is the law of unintended consequences in the background.
Don't assume Rand Paul has any intention of actually making a law. Yeah, you keep saying that.
752
Post by: Polonius
Manchu wrote: Polonius wrote:As for the proposed amendment, all I can hear is the law of unintended consequences in the background.
Don't assume Rand Paul has any intention of actually making a law.
Oh, I completely agree that this is politcal theater. I just like seeing simple solutions to complex problems, because they almost invariably fail spectacularly.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
whembly wrote: Manchu wrote:LOL points for creativity. But then again, all these hacks do is sit around thinking about ways to oppose the ACA ... sort of like super villains now that I think about it ... and this marketing spin is still the best they could come up with.
It's not a bad idea...
If the Congress Critters, Executive Officials and Judiciary were truly under the ACA / Medicare / Social Security / etc... then, if it's truly bad/broken, they'll be properly motivated to fix it.
Instead, they have their own cushy alternative and are not as compelled to address the difficult tasks at hand.
Surely votes are what motivates politicians?
34390
Post by: whembly
 Kilkrazy wrote: whembly wrote: Manchu wrote:LOL points for creativity. But then again, all these hacks do is sit around thinking about ways to oppose the ACA ... sort of like super villains now that I think about it ... and this marketing spin is still the best they could come up with.
It's not a bad idea...
If the Congress Critters, Executive Officials and Judiciary were truly under the ACA / Medicare / Social Security / etc... then, if it's truly bad/broken, they'll be properly motivated to fix it.
Instead, they have their own cushy alternative and are not as compelled to address the difficult tasks at hand.
Surely votes are what motivates politicians?
Don't call me Shirley.
Riiiiiight.
752
Post by: Polonius
Kilkrazy wrote: whembly wrote: Manchu wrote:LOL points for creativity. But then again, all these hacks do is sit around thinking about ways to oppose the ACA ... sort of like super villains now that I think about it ... and this marketing spin is still the best they could come up with.
It's not a bad idea...
If the Congress Critters, Executive Officials and Judiciary were truly under the ACA / Medicare / Social Security / etc... then, if it's truly bad/broken, they'll be properly motivated to fix it.
Instead, they have their own cushy alternative and are not as compelled to address the difficult tasks at hand.
Surely votes are what motivates politicians?
Most Federal elected officials have the means to buy whatever health care they need. Putting them on the exchange would be mostly symbolic. The federal judiciary, of course, has a much lower net worth, but have Article III protecting their salaries from decreasing in their terms.
37231
Post by: d-usa
At least by taking away any and all benefits like insurance and retirement we will make sure to solidify the trend of only having people who can afford to become politicians run for office.
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote:At least by taking away any and all benefits like insurance and retirement we will make sure to solidify the trend of only having people who can afford to become politicians run for office.
Ah... I see why you're defensive about it.
Nah, don't buy it.
I'd even support raising their salary to cover the loss of benefit (apples to apples) as a compromise (see... that word again). Then, from that point forward, they're to receive the benefits that regular taxpayers only have access to.
752
Post by: Polonius
whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:At least by taking away any and all benefits like insurance and retirement we will make sure to solidify the trend of only having people who can afford to become politicians run for office.
Ah... I see why you're defensive about it.
Nah, don't buy it.
I'd even support raising their salary to cover the loss of benefit (apples to apples) as a compromise (see... that word again). Then, from that point forward, they're to receive the benefits that regular taxpayers only have access to.
I guess I just fail to see what on earth that would accomplish. Regular taxpayers don't have access to $140k in salary, or a vote in congress, or the franking privilege.
At some point it's ok to decide that the people running the country get better health benefits than a guy working at a screen door factory.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Regular tax payers also have access to employer provided benefits...
34390
Post by: whembly
Polonius wrote:
I guess I just fail to see what on earth that would accomplish. Regular taxpayers don't have access to $140k in salary, or a vote in congress, or the franking privilege.
At some point it's ok to decide that the people running the country get better health benefits than a guy working at a screen door factory.
Wait...
Isn't thats the system we have now?
Regardless... we all keep hearing how bad/inefficient some programs are today, but the Powers-That-Be just are not motivated enough to address those challenging issues.
*shrug* Automatically Appended Next Post:
752
Post by: Polonius
whembly wrote: Polonius wrote:
I guess I just fail to see what on earth that would accomplish. Regular taxpayers don't have access to $140k in salary, or a vote in congress, or the franking privilege.
At some point it's ok to decide that the people running the country get better health benefits than a guy working at a screen door factory.
Wait...
Isn't thats the system we have now?
Regardless... we all keep hearing how bad/inefficient some programs are today, but the Powers-That-Be just are not motivated enough to address those challenging issues.
*shrug*
And while I applaud the goal of trying to motivate congress to tackle real issues, I just doubt highly that your plan would work. It's the worst sort of policy: it would only hurt those least culpable.
34390
Post by: whembly
Polonius wrote:
And while I applaud the goal of trying to motivate congress to tackle real issues, I just doubt highly that your plan would work. It's the worst sort of policy: it would only hurt those least culpable.
Now you caught my attention...
Why would it only hurt those least culpable?
752
Post by: Polonius
whembly wrote: Polonius wrote:
And while I applaud the goal of trying to motivate congress to tackle real issues, I just doubt highly that your plan would work. It's the worst sort of policy: it would only hurt those least culpable.
Now you caught my attention...
Why would it only hurt those least culpable?
Federal judges, for starters. Outside of SCOTUS, none of them have any say at this point about the ACA. They also had the least to say, and are the most likely to have worked for a living before joinging the government.
More generally, I think that the more resources a decision maker has, the less connected he is to the way those decisions affect people below. A congressman with just under a million in net worth (a lot, but not for congress) would feel the effects of the ACA, but also probably had more empathy with his constituents than before.
67621
Post by: Forar
whembly wrote: Polonius wrote: And while I applaud the goal of trying to motivate congress to tackle real issues, I just doubt highly that your plan would work. It's the worst sort of policy: it would only hurt those least culpable.
Now you caught my attention... Why would it only hurt those least culpable?
Whelp, the average member of the house or senate is capable of paying for whatever plan they want. "Jimmy and Karen in the mailroom", making do on vastly less per year, would be significantly less capable. Jimmy and Karen likely had nothing to do with setting up the ACA, the Exchanges, or any part of it at all. Thus, the people we'd like to think are getting "stuck" can just yawn and get whatever insurance they so choose. I'm surprised someone hasn't pooped on his desk for this. They've been trying to throw the staffers under the bus for a while now.
34390
Post by: whembly
Polonius wrote: whembly wrote: Polonius wrote:
And while I applaud the goal of trying to motivate congress to tackle real issues, I just doubt highly that your plan would work. It's the worst sort of policy: it would only hurt those least culpable.
Now you caught my attention...
Why would it only hurt those least culpable?
Federal judges, for starters. Outside of SCOTUS, none of them have any say at this point about the ACA. They also had the least to say, and are the most likely to have worked for a living before joinging the government.
You do know that Federal judges makes a pretty penny dontcha? Neverthanless... I could live with only the Elected Congress & Prez/ VP under this proposed amendment.
More generally, I think that the more resources a decision maker has, the less connected he is to the way those decisions affect people below. A congressman with just under a million in net worth (a lot, but not for congress) would feel the effects of the ACA, but also probably had more empathy with his constituents than before.
We yeah... this amendment will bring 'em a bit closer... dontcha think? Automatically Appended Next Post:  Forar wrote: whembly wrote: Polonius wrote:
And while I applaud the goal of trying to motivate congress to tackle real issues, I just doubt highly that your plan would work. It's the worst sort of policy: it would only hurt those least culpable.
Now you caught my attention...
Why would it only hurt those least culpable?
Whelp, the average member of the house or senate is capable of paying for whatever plan they want.
Pretty much.
"Jimmy and Karen in the mailroom", making do on vastly less per year, would be significantly less capable.
Jimmy and Karen likely had nothing to do with setting up the ACA, the Exchanges, or any part of it at all.
Jimmy and Karen wouldn't be impacted by this amendment. They're not "Congress".
Thus, the people we'd like to think are getting "stuck" can just yawn and get whatever insurance they so choose.
I'm surprised someone hasn't pooped on his desk for this.
They've been trying to throw the staffers under the bus for a while now.
Again, staffers are not included.
752
Post by: Polonius
whembly wrote:
More generally, I think that the more resources a decision maker has, the less connected he is to the way those decisions affect people below. A congressman with just under a million in net worth (a lot, but not for congress) would feel the effects of the ACA, but also probably had more empathy with his constituents than before.
We yeah... this amendment will bring 'em a bit closer... dontcha think?
Again, not really. What's $5k to a guy with $10 million? (the average (!) net worth of a congressman http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/averages.php)
34390
Post by: whembly
Polonius wrote: whembly wrote:
More generally, I think that the more resources a decision maker has, the less connected he is to the way those decisions affect people below. A congressman with just under a million in net worth (a lot, but not for congress) would feel the effects of the ACA, but also probably had more empathy with his constituents than before.
We yeah... this amendment will bring 'em a bit closer... dontcha think?
Again, not really. What's $5k to a guy with $10 million? (the average (!) net worth of a congressman http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/averages.php)
Yeesh... 10mil? o.O
Point being... I don't care about the pay level or any of their perks... big deal. It's just whenever they pass MASSIVE programs having MASSIVE impact. Then, they themselves get something different... it's just wrong.
752
Post by: Polonius
whembly wrote:[Yeesh... 10mil? o.O
Point being... I don't care about the pay level or any of their perks... big deal. It's just whenever they pass MASSIVE programs having MASSIVE impact. Then, they themselves get something different... it's just wrong.
Rank has its privilegs.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Prior to the stupid republican plan to force them out of their previous benefit package they got the same fething thing as every other fething person in than fething building working for the fething government.
34390
Post by: whembly
Polonius wrote: whembly wrote:[Yeesh... 10mil? o.O
Point being... I don't care about the pay level or any of their perks... big deal. It's just whenever they pass MASSIVE programs having MASSIVE impact. Then, they themselves get something different... it's just wrong.
Rank has its privilegs.
Well... up to a point.
What do you think about this? Just for argument's sake...
If they can get different benefits/privileges than regular tax payers, aren't they getting close to violating Title of Nobility Clause?
Also, if you don't think this amendment will do anything (other than maintaining a populist meme)... what's the harm? Automatically Appended Next Post: d-usa wrote:Prior to the stupid republican plan to force them out of their previous benefit package they got the same fething thing as every other fething person in than fething building working for the fething government.
We're not talking the staffers and non-elected federal employees... they should have those benefits.
We're talking about elected/appointed officials.
67621
Post by: Forar
whembly wrote:Jimmy and Karen wouldn't be impacted by this amendment. They're not "Congress".
So it effectively does nothing.
That's cute.
Good to see Rand's back to wasting people's time.
Gotta give people some stability after so much turmoil.
34390
Post by: whembly
Forar wrote: whembly wrote:Jimmy and Karen wouldn't be impacted by this amendment. They're not "Congress".
So it effectively does nothing. That's cute. Good to see Rand's back to wasting people's time. Gotta give people some stability after so much turmoil.
My argument is that it could have some impact. Not everyone is in the top 1%: 
37231
Post by: d-usa
They have not been getting anything special.
They got the exact same thing as everybody else there.
The only "special laws for congress" that this ammendment (that you support) would stop are the laws taking away their federal benefits (which you support).
I get it that you have a hate-boner for politicians, but this is getting stupid. Having the same benefits as every other government employee equals Titles of Nobility?
You need to get back out of the crazy blog deep end that you have been swimming in.
752
Post by: Polonius
whembly wrote:
Well... up to a point.
What do you think about this? Just for argument's sake...
If they can get different benefits/privileges than regular tax payers, aren't they getting close to violating Title of Nobility Clause?
Absolutely not. A title of nobillity is completely different from salary or benefits.
You do know that the ACA only applies to people that don't have insurance, right? It's not that taxpayers have to buy on the exchanges, and can't take an employee plan.
Also, if you don't think this amendment will do anything (other than maintaining a populist meme)... what's the harm?
Well, Paul's amendment would have all kinds of unforeseen nastiness. Your idea of just putting them all on the ACA wihtout a subsidy is just mean spirited for no benefit, which is something I'm pretty consistently against.
67621
Post by: Forar
whembly wrote:My argument is that it could have some impact. Not everyone is in the top 1%:
A glance at Google indicates that congresspeople make $174,000 per year. Leaders make closer to $200k. Which means this whole "throw them on the exchanges, watch them suffer" won't impact them unless they actively go hunting for super deluxe ultra mega cadillac "we'll make your stay in the hospital a VERY pleasant one, do you like blondes, brunettes or redheads" diamond unobtainium package. And it would still be by choice.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I do wonder just how much more time Republicans can waste before even the most hardcore Republican gets fed up with the bull. Then I come to Dakka and am reminded that it apparently isn't happening any time soon.
Oh well. I'll vote for the Communist party next election. That'll be worth a laugh or two in dinner conversation.
34390
Post by: whembly
Polonius wrote: whembly wrote:
Well... up to a point.
What do you think about this? Just for argument's sake...
If they can get different benefits/privileges than regular tax payers, aren't they getting close to violating Title of Nobility Clause?
Absolutely not. A title of nobillity is completely different from salary or benefits.
Fair enough... just arguing for arguement's sake. 
You do know that the ACA only applies to people that don't have insurance, right? It's not that taxpayers have to buy on the exchanges, and can't take an employee plan.
bs. It has mondo impact in the entire insurance industry. It does NOT only apply to folks who don't have insurance.
Also, if you don't think this amendment will do anything (other than maintaining a populist meme)... what's the harm?
Well, Paul's amendment would have all kinds of unforeseen nastiness. Your idea of just putting them all on the ACA wihtout a subsidy is just mean spirited for no benefit, which is something I'm pretty consistently against.
Like what "unforeseen nastiness". You just told me earlier that you don't think it'll do a damn thing.
Putting them all in the ACA to purchase the exchange in the SAME market as those who are purchasing it for themselves is NOT mean. It'll put them on the same subsidy framework as Joe Schmoe.
See where I'm coming from?
37423
Post by: IMPERIALGUARD40K
I like the amendment theirs no reason that congress should have get out of law card.
Congress still would have their health care they have now due to contracts and such. And if they ever make a law for example 'all people must wear green shirts on Friday" they still will be affected by the law and don't get out of the law just because they are congress.
37231
Post by: d-usa
It would invalidate all those insider trading laws that target members of congress...
67621
Post by: Forar
d-usa wrote:It would invalidate all those insider trading laws that target members of congress...
There's no way that could possibly go wrong!
34390
Post by: whembly
Forar wrote: whembly wrote:My argument is that it could have some impact. Not everyone is in the top 1%:
A glance at Google indicates that congresspeople make $174,000 per year. Leaders make closer to $200k.
Which means this whole "throw them on the exchanges, watch them suffer" won't impact them unless they actively go hunting for super deluxe ultra mega cadillac "we'll make your stay in the hospital a VERY pleasant one, do you like blondes, brunettes or redheads" diamond unobtainium package.
And it would still be by choice.
I guess you haven't seen how much our healthcare can get.
Also, most plans you have to pay the deductable before the insurance plans kicks in... anywhere between $6000 to $18,000 depending on which state you're from.
So, personal wealth notwithstanding, even at $200,000/yr salary... $6000 to $18,000 per plan is still significant.
37231
Post by: d-usa
His ammendmend would also remove all of congress from the health exchanges and put them back into the regular federal employee benefit package, so there is that.
752
Post by: Polonius
whembly wrote:bs. It has mondo impact in the entire insurance industry. It does NOT only apply to folks who don't have insurance.
Sigh. I think you knew my point was that it doesn't ban employer health care plans.
Sure, the ACA will put flouride in the water, bend our spines, and impose sharia law. Whatever.
Like what "unforeseen nastiness". You just told me earlier that you don't think it'll do a damn thing.
I dont' know. It's unforseen! But constitutional amendments always have consequences. And I only ever said that your idea would do nothing.
Putting them all in the ACA to purchase the exchange in the SAME market as those who are purchasing it for themselves is NOT mean. It'll put them on the same subsidy framework as Joe Schmoe.
See where I'm coming from?
It's mean spirited, which is slightly different. You're trying to hurt them in some way, which is mean spirited.
34390
Post by: whembly
Polonius wrote:
Putting them all in the ACA to purchase the exchange in the SAME market as those who are purchasing it for themselves is NOT mean. It'll put them on the same subsidy framework as Joe Schmoe.
See where I'm coming from?
It's mean spirited, which is slightly different. You're trying to hurt them in some way, which is mean spirited.
I'm know that such amendment didn't say that but, is it still "mean spirited" if the Prez/Congress get a raise equal to what their current benefit provides?
Say... it provides services that is worth $50,000/yr... when this amendment is passed, increase their yearly salary by that much.
752
Post by: Polonius
whembly wrote:I'm know that such amendment didn't say that but, is it still "mean spirited" if the Prez/Congress get a raise equal to what their current benefit provides?
Say... it provides services that is worth $50,000/yr... when this amendment is passed, increase their yearly salary by that much.
I guess not, but then who cares? They'd just buy whatever plan they wanted, regardless of any federal subsidy.
37231
Post by: d-usa
whembly wrote: Polonius wrote: Putting them all in the ACA to purchase the exchange in the SAME market as those who are purchasing it for themselves is NOT mean. It'll put them on the same subsidy framework as Joe Schmoe.
See where I'm coming from?
It's mean spirited, which is slightly different. You're trying to hurt them in some way, which is mean spirited.
I'm know that such amendment didn't say that but, is it still "mean spirited" if the Prez/Congress get a raise equal to what their current benefit provides? Say... it provides services that is worth $50,000/yr... when this amendment is passed, increase their yearly salary by that much.
Is there any reason for a law saying "A specific subset of federal employees should be removed from the existing framework of the FEHB, should be forced to drop their current health insurance plan, loose their employer contribution, receive a raise equal to that contribution and other non-tangible costs and then purchase health insurance through the exchange set up for people that don't health insurance through their employer" other than "I think the exchange sucks donkey balls!" Although I am still trying to figure out how you support both a law targeting legislators and an amendment making it illegal to have laws targeting legislators...
411
Post by: whitedragon
Polonius wrote:Am I missing something, or is there nothing inherently wrong with the Federal Government offering it's employees more generous benefits than a simple subsidy? A lot of employers do that.
As for the proposed amendment, all I can hear is the law of unintended consequences in the background.
You mean like the unintended consequence of members of Congress still getting a paycheck during a government shutdown?
752
Post by: Polonius
 whitedragon wrote: Polonius wrote:Am I missing something, or is there nothing inherently wrong with the Federal Government offering it's employees more generous benefits than a simple subsidy? A lot of employers do that.
As for the proposed amendment, all I can hear is the law of unintended consequences in the background.
You mean like the unintended consequence of members of Congress still getting a paycheck during a government shutdown?
Believe it or not, that's actually an intended consequence. See the 27th Amendment.
411
Post by: whitedragon
Polonius wrote: whitedragon wrote: Polonius wrote:Am I missing something, or is there nothing inherently wrong with the Federal Government offering it's employees more generous benefits than a simple subsidy? A lot of employers do that.
As for the proposed amendment, all I can hear is the law of unintended consequences in the background.
You mean like the unintended consequence of members of Congress still getting a paycheck during a government shutdown?
Believe it or not, that's actually an intended consequence. See the 27th Amendment.
You don't have to tell me. I meant "unintended" as it made for a nice piece of ammunition for the media to distract our attention for a while, and "unintended" as I'm sure the congress members themselves never intended or expected to be paid in the event the government was shutdown.
But, you've touched on another "nuance" of the whole thing. What's "intended" vs 'unintended" is all in the eye of the beholder as well.
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote: whembly wrote: Polonius wrote:
Putting them all in the ACA to purchase the exchange in the SAME market as those who are purchasing it for themselves is NOT mean. It'll put them on the same subsidy framework as Joe Schmoe.
See where I'm coming from?
It's mean spirited, which is slightly different. You're trying to hurt them in some way, which is mean spirited.
I'm know that such amendment didn't say that but, is it still "mean spirited" if the Prez/Congress get a raise equal to what their current benefit provides?
Say... it provides services that is worth $50,000/yr... when this amendment is passed, increase their yearly salary by that much.
Is there any reason for a law saying "A specific subset of federal employees should be removed from the existing framework of the FEHB, should be forced to drop their current health insurance plan, loose their employer contribution, receive a raise equal to that contribution and other non-tangible costs and then purchase health insurance through the exchange set up for people that don't health insurance through their employer" other than "I think the exchange sucks donkey balls!"
The reason is thusly, don't make gakky laws.
Although I am still trying to figure out how you support both a law targeting legislators and an amendment making it illegal to have laws targeting legislators...
I'm trying to figure out what the feth you are talking about...
16387
Post by: Manchu
Polonius wrote:Sure, the ACA will put flouride in the water, bend our spines, and impose sharia law.
Thanks Obama!
Sometimes I wonder if all that birther stuff wasn't a plot by the GOP of right now to go back in time and prevent the ACA in the first place.
34390
Post by: whembly
Manchu wrote: Polonius wrote:Sure, the ACA will put flouride in the water, bend our spines, and impose sharia law.
Thanks Obama!
Sometimes I wonder if all that birther stuff wasn't a plot by the GOP of right now to go back in time and prevent the ACA in the first place.
You do know that the "birther movement" was started by sympathetic Hillary supporters during the Democrat's Primary, eh?
16387
Post by: Manchu
And then Democrats kept the torch going for years, even to this day?
In other words, I see your "Democratic primaries started it" and raise you a "so what?"
33125
Post by: Seaward
Manchu wrote:And then Democrats kept the torch going for years, even to this day?
In other words, I see your "Democratic primaries started it" and raise you a "so what?"
So it's a Democratic movement, by the law of "the ACA was thought up by the Heritage Foundation, so it's a Republican plan" logic.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Seaward wrote: Manchu wrote:And then Democrats kept the torch going for years, even to this day?
In other words, I see your "Democratic primaries started it" and raise you a "so what?"
So it's a Democratic movement, by the law of "the ACA was thought up by the Heritage Foundation, so it's a Republican plan" logic.
I know... right?
I just waiting for someone to make that connection.
5470
Post by: sebster
Tell me where I'm wrong in the following;
Pre-ACA
Some private sector employees would provide healthcare for employees, and no-one batted an eyelid or commented on this at all.
Congress would provide healthcare for employees, and no-one batted an eyelid or commented on this at all.
Post-ACA
Some private sector employees provide healthcare for employees, and no-one bats an eyelid or comments on this at all.
Congress no longer provide healthcare for employees, but instead give a contribution to plans bought by employees on exchanges that is more or less what employees used to receive... and the Republicans are freaking out about this.
34390
Post by: whembly
Almost...
 sebster wrote:Tell me where I'm wrong in the following;
Pre-ACA
Some private sector employe rs would provide healthcare for employees, and no-one batted an eyelid or commented on this at all.
Congress would provide healthcare for employees, and no-one batted an eyelid or commented on this at all.
Post-ACA
Some private sector employe rs provide healthcare for employees, and no-one bats an eyelid or comments on this at all.
...Many folks are being dropped from their employer provided plans into the Exchange...
Congress no longer provide healthcare for elected officials, but instead give a special subsidy that no one else gets to plans bought by employees on exchanges that is more or less what employees used to receive... and the Republicans are freaking out about this.
There... better.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Don't correct Sebster. He is the be all end all final source of information for all of American politics. I just listen and learn from him now.
47598
Post by: motyak
Imagine if one of the crazy right-wingers that even you guys mock ended up as the candidate, and then somehow won instead of getting slapped down. That's basically what happened.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Next thing we all know is the next attempt would be is to et the US Military active and retired into this program.......
12313
Post by: Ouze
cincydooley wrote:Don't correct Sebster. He is the be all end all final source of information for all of American politics.
"He's not from the US, therefore he's wrong" - a fascinating way to argue the merits.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Jihadin wrote:Next thing we all know is the next attempt would be is to et the US Military active and retired into this program.......
Ew... nah...
I'd beef up Tri-care.
67621
Post by: Forar
Why would they... they're already on... they're supposed to already get...
*scanners.jpg*
5470
Post by: sebster
What have you changed that explains how this is in any way contraversial?
You include a point that many people have lost employer coverage. I don't buy that (any loss of coverage is easily explained by statistical noise and the gakky economy, and not by ACA because there's no coherent way to explain how ACA gives an incentive to remove coverage that wasn't already in existance). But even if we accept it for the sake of argument, are you claiming that denying congressional staff employee coverage makes things better for other workers who've lost insurance? Because if not, and what you really want to do is talk about other workers who've lost coverage... then talk about that. Get your numbers and evidence, and put it out there. If you can prove it, you'll actually land a hit against ACA.
Your second edit states it is a special case that gives these staffers an employer subsidy. But it was only by a special law that affected no-one else that caused them to lose employer coverage in the first place. I mean, basically we're talking about 'people have insurance covered by their employer, then a special law made them get insurance through exchanges, and another special law meant the coverage they got was still covered by their employer'... scandalous! Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote:Don't correct Sebster. He is the be all end all final source of information for all of American politics. I just listen and learn from him now.
You don't have to accept my arguments and information. You should start getting some facts from somewhere though, because right now, well....
73999
Post by: Haight
I'd support this for sure, and i'm just about left as you come. I think it's a good idea, and fair, and would force congress to live with the same decisions they make on behalf of their constituency.
It has the same chance of passing as I have of successfully backstroking to Neptune, but that doesn't make it any less a good idea.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Haight wrote:I'd support this for sure, and i'm just about left as you come. I think it's a good idea, and fair, and would force congress to live with the same decisions they make on behalf of their constituency.
It has the same chance of passing as I have of successfully backstroking to Neptune, but that doesn't make it any less a good idea.
But... it would be... wait for it... mean to do so.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Good luck with that.
1206
Post by: Easy E
I think right now, if the Republicans really want to stop the ACA they should build a ginat laser and carve "Obamacare is bad!" into the moon.
Their current plans and methods are about as crazy as Gru's.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Easy E wrote:I think right now, if the Republicans really want to stop the ACA they should build a ginat laser and carve "Obamacare is bad!" into the moon.
Their current plans and methods are about as crazy as Gru's.
Yep... just get out of the way and let it happen. If it's as bad as they say it will be... then they'd have fodder for the election campaign to neuter it.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Easy E wrote:I think right now, if the Republicans really want to stop the ACA they should build a ginat laser and carve "Obamacare is bad!" into the moon. Their current plans and methods are about as crazy as Gru's.
But they hate NASA. It'd have to be done via private industry. I'm sure there's a super villain somewhere they could contract with. Haliburton, Black Water, Cobra, S.P.E.C.T.R.E., etc.
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
How is passing an amendment that says Congress should be held to the same laws as we are a bad thing?
I didn't even vote for Rand Paul (I was an idiot back then and voted without knowing what each politician stood for) but I think this would be a good amendment to have.
Please, explain why this is a bad amendment to me. Because this sort of law seems like something that should have been in place from the beginning. I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm seriously confused.
47598
Post by: motyak
 MrMoustaffa wrote:How is passing an amendment that says Congress should be held to the same laws as we are a bad thing? I didn't even vote for Rand Paul (I was an idiot back then and voted without knowing what each politician stood for) but I think this would be a good amendment to have. Please, explain why this is a bad amendment to me. Because this sort of law seems like something that should have been in place from the beginning. I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm seriously confused.
If the wording doesn't change won't it invalidate laws which stop..wait dammit let me go back up someone said it edit: It was d-usa, and he was talking about insider trading laws.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Easy E wrote:I think right now, if the Republicans really want to stop the ACA they should build a ginat laser and carve "Obamacare is bad!" into the moon.
Their current plans and methods are about as crazy as Gru's.
I'm not seeing how that relates to the post. I totally agree that COngress should not be exempt from anything.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Jihadin wrote:Next thing we all know is the next attempt would be is to et the US Military active and retired into this program.......
You mean like retired military losing Tricare Prime if they're not within certain distance of a Military Hospital like already happened earlier this year?
68355
Post by: easysauce
I was shocked that this wasnt already part of the written law...
some animals are more equal then otehrs i guess
73999
Post by: Haight
whembly wrote: Haight wrote:I'd support this for sure, and i'm just about left as you come. I think it's a good idea, and fair, and would force congress to live with the same decisions they make on behalf of their constituency.
It has the same chance of passing as I have of successfully backstroking to Neptune, but that doesn't make it any less a good idea.
But... it would be... wait for it... mean to do so.
Left wing does not always mean bleeding heart.  I know you know your political history enough to know that, i've seen your threads and comments in OT 
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
MrMoustaffa wrote:How is passing an amendment that says Congress should be held to the same laws as we are a bad thing?
There isn't in my mind...It does seem a bit ridiculous that we are to the point where we "need" to write this sort of thing into a law.
But, I'd rate this up there right along with the "balanced budget amendment" that has been talked about/floating around for years now.
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
What about the future implications of these instead of just for the ACA exemptions?
What could this amendment do for the people in the future? What kind of laws could get passed that this would be useful to have?
34390
Post by: whembly
 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:What about the future implications of these instead of just for the ACA exemptions?
What could this amendment do for the people in the future? What kind of laws could get passed that this would be useful to have?
What do you mean?
Like... different retirement plans? Oh wait... they their own.
Um... like what? Automatically Appended Next Post: Haight wrote: whembly wrote: Haight wrote:I'd support this for sure, and i'm just about left as you come. I think it's a good idea, and fair, and would force congress to live with the same decisions they make on behalf of their constituency.
It has the same chance of passing as I have of successfully backstroking to Neptune, but that doesn't make it any less a good idea.
But... it would be... wait for it... mean to do so.
Left wing does not always mean bleeding heart. I know you know your political history enough to know that, i've seen your threads and comments in OT
I was being cheeky.
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
whembly wrote: Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:What about the future implications of these instead of just for the ACA exemptions?
What could this amendment do for the people in the future? What kind of laws could get passed that this would be useful to have?
What do you mean?
Like... different retirement plans? Oh wait... they their own.
Um... like what?
Not sure, was hoping someone would be able to come up with something that I couldn't
Perhaps something like a new tax that affects everyone, or a new draft, not really sure
5470
Post by: sebster
MrMoustaffa wrote:How is passing an amendment that says Congress should be held to the same laws as we are a bad thing?
There's two reasons. The first is that people in congress aren't really like the rest of us, because they've been given a tremendous level of responsibility. This means it is often necessary to pass laws that apply just to congress. For instance, you might feel the need to write a law saying that all meetings between members of foreign governments and congresspeople or their staffers must be recorded and stated to the public. That'd be a special law that applied only to congress, and apparently made unconstitutional by this amendment.
The second reason is that this achieves absolutely nothing. If you're in congress and want to extort extra money out of the system and they only way you can think of is to write laws giving you more stuff... well then you're pretty bad at your job. There's never been anyone arguing for this before, honestly believing that it would stop any of the problems in congress. Rather, this proposed amendment only exists because of stupid nonsense in which a special clause applying only to people working for congress removed their health insurance coverage, and then another special clause let congress continue covering them. Republicans can't sustain the pretend outrage over just that second bit for very long because its so obviously contrived and stupid, so instead they're trying to expand the whole out in to a vague 'boo congress' thing. Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote:What do you mean?
Like... different retirement plans? Oh wait... they their own.
Um... like what?
There's more to the law than just what benefits congress gets paid. Many countries, for instance, have a requirement for politicians and major bureaucrats to state all their major financial assets, and a requirement that they excuse themselves from voting or giving advice on any issue that directly benefits their own financial interests.
73999
Post by: Haight
whembly wrote: Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:What about the future implications of these instead of just for the ACA exemptions?
What could this amendment do for the people in the future? What kind of laws could get passed that this would be useful to have?
What do you mean?
Like... different retirement plans? Oh wait... they their own.
Um... like what?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haight wrote: whembly wrote: Haight wrote:I'd support this for sure, and i'm just about left as you come. I think it's a good idea, and fair, and would force congress to live with the same decisions they make on behalf of their constituency.
It has the same chance of passing as I have of successfully backstroking to Neptune, but that doesn't make it any less a good idea.
But... it would be... wait for it... mean to do so.
Left wing does not always mean bleeding heart. I know you know your political history enough to know that, i've seen your threads and comments in OT
I was being cheeky.
I know dude, so was I.
34390
Post by: whembly
Interesting paper on the history/application of the Nobility Clause.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2335822
Restoring Nobility to the Constitution: A Modern Approach to a Founding Principle
Abstract:
It is common lore in the United States that our federal government was structured with a number of checks and balances that ensure, at a minimum, the equal application of law among all citizens. While there are indeed such structural mechanisms embedded in the Constitution, they don’t always work as intended and, in fact, at times they fail utterly to prevent blatant abuses of the rule of law by the political class in America.
Our political office holders can, and do, pick and choose which laws apply to them and, more importantly, which laws they are exempt from. This has led to increasing outrage focused on the nation’s inequitable political and legal framework, with many calling for, among other things, new amendments to the Constitution to remediate the infirmities of the system.
The solution, however, is already in the Constitution.
The “Nobility Clauses” are among the least understood, and least invoked, provisions of the Constitution relating to the use, limits and distribution of political and legal power in the United States. Many believe that the purpose of the Nobility Clauses is specifically limited to forbidding grants of noble titles by the federal and state governments of the United States and are thus of narrow constitutional importance.
This paper will show that the Nobility Clauses were never intended to be limited solely to prohibiting titles and were, in fact, intended to prevent the political class from granting themselves and their favored affiliates privileges and immunities not available to the general public.
|
|
