Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Right, but why would employees of Congress be treated worse than employees of other places? If you have Healthcare through your employer, you don't need to go to the exchange.

That is the part I don't understand about the amendments.

 Easy E wrote:
Right, but why would employees of Congress be treated worse than employees of other places?

Because it's a trap.

Either Democrats go, "ACA? Sure, bring it on," and condemn themselves and their staff to pretty gakky and overpriced health care, or else they get seen recoiling and making the sign of the cross and fighting like demons against the prospect of anyone they've ever met having to actually pick up health care off one of the ACA exchanges. The first option everyone knew wasn't going to happen, so it's the second that the Republicans were going for.

Intellectually, we all know that employer-provided health insurance is, in most cases, going to be a lot better and cheaper than an individual plan, but you still don't want to have to badmouth, even by legitimate comparison, something you're trying to sell.

 Easy E wrote:
Right, but why would employees of Congress be treated worse than employees of other places? If you have Healthcare through your employer, you don't need to go to the exchange.

That is the part I don't understand about the amendments.

Wut?

The original 2010 Obamacare law barred members of Congress and their personal staffs from continuing to get employer subsidies... worth about $5,000 for individual policies and about $11,000 or more for family coverage., because they would be buying coverage from the health-care exchanges, where employer subsidies are banned.

It's. The. Law.

Instead, Congressional critters asked the Obama Administration to direct the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to rule that members of Congress and their staffs could continue to get government subsidies even as they bought coverage in the exchanges. Also, the OPM declared Congress to be the equivalent of a business with fewer than 50 employees, in order to evade parts of Obamacare.

Maybe if members of Congress see how poorly this law really is, they’ll be slowly forced to follow the example of the Obama administration’s friends-and-cronies exemptions and exempt all of America from it.

 whembly wrote:
Maybe if members of Congress see how poorly this law really is, they’ll be slowly forced to follow the example of the Obama administration’s friends-and-cronies exemptions and exempt all of America from it.

Considering the lengths they're going to to keep it, I doubt that. I remember reading something about once a federal program takes hold it's practically impossible to pull back.

Looks like a deal is coming together:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has privately offered Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell a deal that would reopen the government until mid-to-late December while extending the U.S. debt ceiling until next year, according to several sources familiar with the talks.
The proposal would set up a framework for larger budget negotiations with the House over the automatic sequestration spending cuts and and other major deficit issues, the sources said. Moreover, Senate Democrats are open to delaying Obamacare’s medical device tax and a requirement that those receiving Obamacare subsidies be subject to income verification — but they would have to get something from Republicans in return, sources said.

You might notice it's also...Reid's clean CR, tied to Reid's clean debt ceiling increase, tied to going to conference, tied to an offer of a fig leaf, if McConnell can come up with one.

We'll see whether McConnell offers the sequestration lift in exchange for the tax delay. Note that Obamacare ALREADY contains income verification, but it was delayed for practical reasons, so that's also an offer of nothing.

Robert Costa ‏@robertcostaNRO 57s
That famous Bloc of 30-50 con Rs in House is expctd to oppose, but they were always going to oppose, so "time to move on," says one House R

 whembly wrote:

Well... x'squeeze me professor dogma... I'm sure you'd hold the crown of cryptic messages on this board.

Possibly, but I would not describe your last few posts as being cryptic.

 whembly wrote:

Yep...

That's the point.

Right, so instead of passing an amendment which would allow employees of Congress to remain on their existing plan while participating in the healthcare exchange system (something Grassley himself seems to support), you would prefer that they were unable to collect any benefits from their employer?

If so, that is ridiculously vindictive.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Yep...

That's the point.

Right, so instead of passing an amendment which would allow employees of Congress to remain on their existing plan while participating in the healthcare exchange system (something Grassley himself seems to support), you would prefer that they were unable to collect any benefits from their employer?

If so, that is ridiculously vindictive.

Vindictive?

Um... It was PASSED that way! Thats was it's purpose.

But, hey... keep on spinning.

For what it's worth... it didn't bother me that they were on that Federal Insurance Plan that every Federal employee can participate in... But the fact remains that the ACA prohibited any employer contribution for Congress-critters. Essentially placing them in the same scenario as individuals buying insurance on their own.

So... if it looks bad for them, don't you think it'll look just-as-bad for regular Americans?

 whembly wrote:

Vindictive?

Um... It was PASSED that way! Thats was it's purpose

But, hey... keep on spinning.

Not according to Grassley. Though it does appear the relevant language was actually Coburn's.

And yes, a plebe pushing to end the OPM rule rather than codify it points towards a vindictive disposition.

 whembly wrote:

So... if it looks bad for them, don't you think it'll look just-as-bad for regular Americans?

Well, no. Regular Americans aren't being specifically deprived of an existing benefits package.

 dogma wrote:

So... if it looks bad for them, don't you think it'll look just-as-bad for regular Americans?

Well, no. Regular Americans aren't being specifically deprived of an existing benefits package.

 whembly wrote:

No sympathy here...

Hence the comment about appearing vindictive.

 whembly wrote:

Tell that to the many workers who lost hours because their company wants to avoid the 50-full time limit.

Happily.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

So... if it looks bad for them, don't you think it'll look just-as-bad for regular Americans?

Well, no. Regular Americans aren't being specifically deprived of an existing benefits package.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

So... if it looks bad for them, don't you think it'll look just-as-bad for regular Americans?

Well, no. Regular Americans aren't being specifically deprived of an existing benefits package.

No sympathy here...

Tell that to the many workers who lost hours because their company wants to avoid the 50-full time limit.

Except the mandate for employers to provide insurance doesn't go in to effect until 2015 and while the BLS has shown a small statistical blip in the increase of part time work and decrease in full time work, there is little evidence of significant change. But don't let all those scary numbers ruin a good story!

 whembly wrote:

That graph indicates that the majority of jobs being created are part-time, not that workers are seeing their hours cut.

 dogma wrote:

That graph indicates that the majority of jobs being created are part-time, not that workers are seeing their hours cut.

?

Okay... let's see if we can break it down by industries...

 whembly wrote:

Huh?

It's Fact, Not Anecdote, That ObamaCare Is Turning Us Into A Part-Time Nation

SeaWorld Cuts Hours In Possible Obamacare Maneuver

US employers slashing worker hours to avoid Obamacare insurance mandate

ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs

I took the liberty of looking at some of the business' in the state of Virginia (where I live) that "cut hours because of the ACA." The vast majority of places that had hours cut were various departments of the state government, and those hours were cut by Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican who would rather use the servants of the state as a political pawn than to provide them with health insurance. Keep in mind this same man has come under criminal investigation for receiving improper gifts, not to mention past allegations of improper spending of state funds. Aside from a few county governments, the rest of the "business'" in Virginia on that list are colleges and universities that are publicly funded and are cutting hours because the state is forcing them to do so.

As a matter of fact, most of the "business'" on that list are public. I would be willing to bet that the people calling the shots for their funding are personally opposed to the ACA and are more than willing to use public employees to further their agenda than to, you know, give them healthcare.

And I might point out hat other than General merchantiles, which have been buoyed up by Walmart's continued expansion, which has slowed in the last six months, they have all been going down since 2009. The only one to show a sharp decrease was retail bakeries, which may be an anomaly caused by the closure of a certain large chain recently.

 Seaward wrote:
Welcome to the two-party system, where you can vote for the truly repugnant, the slightly less repugnant, or a guy who has no chance of winning.

When the stakes are high enough, it's generally worth voting for the slightly less repugnant.

Just out of curiousity, and you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but have you ever voted for a presidential or congressional candidate other than a Republican? Ever voted for a Democrat?

You might at least get half of the cut taxes/cut spending goal.

But I thought you agreed with me that a tax cut without a spending cut was grossly irresponsible, just in the same way that a forever expanding welfare system would be?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
I suspect if you searched as hard for people claiming to be liberals but not Democrats as you did for people claiming to be libertarians but not Republicans, you'd find just as many.

I think you'll find it depends on how much their major party sucks at that moment in time. There were plenty of liberals but not Democrats in the early 2000s, when the Democrats were rolling over on just about everything. And right now there's lots of libertarians/conservatives but not Republicans, because their party has an agenda and methods for that agenda that are basically insane.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'm not sure why that really matters, though. Are you asking if people sacrifice the purity of their political principles in order to try and elect someone with a better chance of winning who is slightly less odious than the competition?

No, it's that lots of people like to claim seperation from the Republicans/Democrats to avoid having to answer hard questions, but who typically fall in to line every election season and support that side utterly, buying in to every single thing their side claims, and rejecting everything stated by the other side.

And then when the election season is over, suddenly they're not Republicans/Democrats anymore, and don't have to answer for whatever crooked bs they get up to.

On another forum I visit there were people in 2008 with Obama symbols for avatars, and then when Obama didn't close Gitmo they were just independant liberals and it had nothing to do with them.

 sebster wrote:
Just out of curiousity, and you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but have you ever voted for a presidential or congressional candidate other than a Republican? Ever voted for a Democrat?

Yep.

But I thought you agreed with me that a tax cut without a spending cut was grossly irresponsible, just in the same way that a forever expanding welfare system would be?

It is indeed grossly irresponsible. That doesn't mean that the other guys aren't even more irresponsible.

No, it's that lots of people like to claim seperation from the Republicans/Democrats to avoid having to answer hard questions, but who typically fall in to line every election season and support that side utterly, buying in to every single thing their side claims, and rejecting everything stated by the other side.

You guys must see this a lot more than I do, or at least assign far more importance to it. I'm a little more interested in the actual political beliefs than what label someone chooses to apply to themselves.

 Seaward wrote:
Either Democrats go, "ACA? Sure, bring it on," and condemn themselves and their staff to pretty gakky and overpriced health care, or else they get seen recoiling and making the sign of the cross and fighting like demons against the prospect of anyone they've ever met having to actually pick up health care off one of the ACA exchanges. The first option everyone knew wasn't going to happen, so it's the second that the Republicans were going for.

Nah, it's just a piece of political gobbledigook. An attempt at a gotcha that doesn't actually make any sense.

Because congressional employees, like most working Americans, had health insurance paid for by their employer. Republicans were attempting to score a point by offering up an amendment to the ACA that put them on exchanges, and Democrats called the bluff adding the amendment, but clarifying that money used to previously provide coverage would now be used to fund healthcare purchased off exchanges by individual employees.

Republicans didn't get the press release they wanted out of that, so now they're trying to claim that a law should be passed removing funding for the healthcare of congressional employees. Which is, as dogma said, basically a pay cut... people signed on for $50k salary and healthcare benefits, and now they've got just the $50k salary (or whatever their number is).

Trying to tie that paycut back to ACA being bad basically makes no fething sense at all. It's no different to employees at any other company having their employee provide healthcare before ACA, and then after ACA continuing to have their employer pay for their healthcare.

Intellectually, we all know that employer-provided health insurance is, in most cases, going to be a lot better and cheaper than an individual plan, but you still don't want to have to badmouth, even by legitimate comparison, something you're trying to sell.

Really? Because intellectually, we should all be aware of the importance of individual choice in establishing the optimum level and nature of any product... And intellectually we should all be aware of the far greater performance of healthcare in other countries that don't have anything as weird as an individual product being purchased on our behalf by a third party.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Considering the lengths they're going to to keep it, I doubt that. I remember reading something about once a federal program takes hold it's practically impossible to pull back.

It's quite easy to roll a law back if it isn't popular. The problem, then, is that many programs once put in place are actually quite popular. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, these are all programs that once caused immense freakout and calls about socialist takeover, and now are an essential part of the system and very popular.

The idea that programs should be resisted because they'll end up being popular and will therefore stay... is kind of crazy.

 sebster wrote:
Republicans didn't get the press release they wanted out of that, so now they're trying to claim that a law should be passed removing funding for the healthcare of congressional employees. Which is, as dogma said, basically a pay cut... people signed on for $50k salary and healthcare benefits, and now they've got just the $50k salary (or whatever their number is).

Strangely, I'm pretty okay with a pay cut for congressional staffers.

Trying to tie that paycut back to ACA being bad basically makes no fething sense at all. It's no different to employees at any other company having their employee provide healthcare before ACA, and then after ACA continuing to have their employer pay for their healthcare.

As long as we pretend there is no difference between public sector and private sector jobs, you're correct.

It's quite easy to roll a law back if it isn't popular. The problem, then, is that many programs once put in place are actually quite popular. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, these are all programs that once caused immense freakout and calls about socialist takeover, and now are an essential part of the system and very popular.

Indeed. Because, whoever you want to attribute the reputed de Tocqueville quote to, it's quite true.

The idea that programs should be resisted because they'll end up being popular and will therefore stay... is kind of crazy.

Not if the programs are horrible.

 whembly wrote:

That graph is new jobs. New jobs... jobs that previously weren't there. It shows nothing about the impact on people already in work, and whether they had their hours cut or not.

It says a lot about the tepid nature of the recovery, and perhaps suggests a bit about the recovery being focused on crappier parts of the economy, service sector stuff... but as an effect on ACA it says nothing. But the fact that a right wing blog cherry picked those numbers rather than the numbers on existing full time jobs says a lot about where he has to go to get numbers that support his narrative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Okay... let's see if we can break it down by industries...

"Working hours declining in a gakky economy continued to decline"...

Oh, and a pro-tip, when a list of figures includes something as obscure as 'retail bakeries'... then you should understand you're looking at some very cherry picked figures.

This whole thing is extremely bizarre from an outsider's perspective.

If this was happening in the UK it would have been voted one way or the other in parliament. Or it would have gone to referendum, or an election would be called. And that would be the absolute end of the matter (just like our parliament voted on Syria - a rare example of government policy being in line with public opinion).

Under no circumstances would "hold the country to ransom and screw over the economy" be an option all because some politicians are incapable of doing their jobs.

 sebster wrote:
Oh, and a pro-tip, when a list of figures includes something as obscure as 'retail bakeries'... then you should understand you're looking at some very cherry picked figures.

Also, the layout of the graph is also designed to make the decline far more severe than it actually is.

Here is that same information, but only for the last two and a half years:

Whelmby's line graph sub-samples months of data on the x-axis to make gains and loss appear more abrupt than they actually are. Except for retail bakeries (really?), the numbers show they have taken a hit.

Here is the same information as the ratio to new part-time to full-time jobs:

The use of the bar graph that Whelmby provided makes the jump in part-time employment look more severe than it is because it compresses all the monthly data for the year into one average instead of spreading the information out as a percentage like the other graph and messes with the orders of magnitude on the different axes. Make no mistake about it, there is a definite rise in part-time jobs, it just isn't as drastic as the other chart makes it seem.

They are both classic examples of how use graphical techniques to misrepresent statistics.

 Seaward wrote:
Yep.

Cool.

It is indeed grossly irresponsible. That doesn't mean that the other guys aren't even more irresponsible.

Some times, sure. Most definitely not right now, though.

You guys must see this a lot more than I do, or at least assign far more importance to it. I'm a little more interested in the actual political beliefs than what label someone chooses to apply to themselves.

Yeah, I'm more interested in political beliefs as well, which is why people attempting to sidestep the results of their political beliefs through denying a label, or claiming some other label can be so bothersome.

Keep an eye out for it next election cycle. You'll see it happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Strangely, I'm pretty okay with a pay cut for congressional staffers.

As long as we pretend there is no difference between public sector and private sector jobs, you're correct.

Meh, you sign up for a job, and then you have your pay or conditions scaled back, it's a pay cut. If that's what people want then do it, but call it what it is, and don't pretend it has anything to do with special exemptions from ACA.

Indeed. Because, whoever you want to attribute the reputed de Tocqueville quote to, it's quite true.

Not really. You've had a democracy running there for more than 200 years. We've clocked up over a hundred as a fully self-determining country.

And yet there's no nation destroying, rampant debt. And when very high debt was incurred, such as that taken on to fight WWII, both your country and my country then set about steadily paying that debt down over the following decades.

The idea of democracy as being this great mob of irresponsible voters just doesn't play out in the real world.

Not if the programs are horrible.

At which point we're arguing that the program must be stopped, before it gets put in place and is both horrible and popular. Which is a strange thing to worry about.

I suppose I don't understand what's so bothersome about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
The idea of democracy as being this great mob of irresponsible voters just doesn't play out in the real world.

I think that probably depends on your perspective. Objectively, no, the country hasn't been destroyed, but that could certainly be true while we're headed in the wrong direction just as easily as while we're headed in the right.

At which point we're arguing that the program must be stopped, before it gets put in place and is both horrible and popular. Which is a strange thing to worry about.

Well, you gave several examples of horrible, popular programs (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare), so I'm not so sure.

 Seaward wrote:
I suppose I don't understand what's so bothersome about it.

It's a dodge. People are basically being dishonest, in order to avoid having to answer hard questions. If you spend the election season supporting all the arguments made by your side, and attacking all the arguments made by the other side, and you vote every single time for your team... then you don't get to just walk away and say 'oh but I'm a liberal, not a Democrat' or 'I'm a conservative/libertarian, not a Republican' when the people you argued for and voted for do something bad.

I think that probably depends on your perspective. Objectively, no, the country hasn't been destroyed, but that could certainly be true while we're headed in the wrong direction just as easily as while we're headed in the right.

Yes, but right or wrong direction, it isn't the result of gross voter irresponsibility. There's plenty of poorly informed voters, but they're common among all kinds, especially the folk who like to quote de Tocqueville.

Well, you gave several examples of horrible, popular programs (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare), so I'm not so sure.

So House Republicans are now hinting their counter-proposal to the Senate's resolution is going to include...

...wait for it...

...that Obama himself has to go on Obamacare.

 Seaward wrote:
So House Republicans are now hinting their counter-proposal to the Senate's resolution is going to include...

...wait for it...

...that Obama himself has to go on Obamacare.

The emerging House legislation: CR + DL + med device + income verification + modified Vitter language.

On the modified Vitter language:

The House GOP proposal would modify the emerging Senate agreement to prohibit special treatment for House Members, Senators, the president, the Vice President and members of the president’s Cabinet under the president’s health care law, requiring all to be placed in ObamaCare without taxpayer-provided subsidies. If the president and Senate Democrats are going to force the American people to live under ObamaCare, then they and all Washington leaders should not be shielded from the law.

Vindictive? Sure... Do I care? Nope.

It won't fly in the Senate.

I think the right thing to do is to simply pass a clean 6/mo Debt Limit right now. That then shifts the focus back on the shutdown and the ACA.

Yeah, it sounds like the House R's don't want to play ball on whatever anyone else wants to come-up with.

Yet, Harry reid is negotiatiing. Does this thread need a title change?

 Easy E wrote:
Yeah, it sounds like the House R's don't want to play ball on whatever anyone else wants to come-up with.

Yet, Harry reid is negotiatiing. Does this thread need a title change?

Nah...I like that title.

House R's is playing ball... it's just that both the House and Senate isn't playing the same game.

EDIT: twittah...

House GOP introducing own bill — like Senate's but delays medical device tax 2 years +forces POTUS/Members of Congress/Cabinet on Obamacare

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) October 15, 2013

Since the problem has mainly been with the congressional-critter staffer's compensation, most members of Congress don’t need to worry about their subsidies... this seems like a significant concession from House R.