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.

 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.

 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?

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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)

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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%:

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.

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

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?

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.

 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 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.

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

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?

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?

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.

It would invalidate all those insider trading laws that target members of congress...

 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!

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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...

 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?

 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.

 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.

 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...