• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption

Rich Z

Administrator
Staff member
Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption

By JOHN BRESNAHAN and JAKE SHERMAN | 4/24/13 9:49 PM EDT

Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.

The talks — which involve Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Obama administration and other top lawmakers — are extraordinarily sensitive, with both sides acutely aware of the potential for political fallout from giving carve-outs from the hugely controversial law to 535 lawmakers and thousands of their aides. Discussions have stretched out for months, sources said.

A source close to the talks says: “Everyone has to hold hands on this and jump, or nothing is going to get done.”

Yet if Capitol Hill leaders move forward with the plan, they risk being dubbed hypocrites by their political rivals and the American public. By removing themselves from a key Obamacare component, lawmakers and aides would be held to a different standard than the people who put them in office.

Democrats, in particular, would take a public hammering as the traditional boosters of Obamacare. Republicans would undoubtedly attempt to shred them over any attempt to escape coverage by it, unless Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) give Democrats cover by backing it.
There is concern in some quarters that the provision requiring lawmakers and staffers to join the exchanges, if it isn’t revised, could lead to a “brain drain” on Capitol Hill, as several sources close to the talks put it.

The problem stems from whether members and aides set to enter the exchanges would have their health insurance premiums subsidized by their employer — in this case, the federal government. If not, aides and lawmakers in both parties fear that staffers — especially low-paid junior aides — could be hit with thousands of dollars in new health care costs, prompting them to seek jobs elsewhere. Older, more senior staffers could also retire or jump to the private sector rather than face a big financial penalty.

Plus, lawmakers — especially those with long careers in public service and smaller bank accounts — are also concerned about the hit to their own wallets.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) is worried about the provision. The No. 2 House Democrat has personally raised the issue with Boehner and other party leaders, sources said.

“Mr. Hoyer is looking at this policy, like all other policies in the Affordable Care Act, to ensure they’re being implemented in a way that’s workable for everyone, including members and staff,” said Katie Grant, Hoyer’s communications director.

Several proposals have been submitted to the Office of Personnel Management, which will administer the benefits. One proposal exempts lawmakers and aides; the other exempts aides alone.

When asked about the high-level bipartisan talks, Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesman, said: “The speaker’s objective is to spare the entire country from the ravages of the president’s health care law. He is approached daily by American citizens, including members of Congress and staff, who want to be freed from its mandates. If the speaker has the opportunity to save anyone from Obamacare, he will.”

Reid’s office declined to comment about the bipartisan talks.

However, the idea of exempting lawmakers and aides from the exchanges has its detractors, including Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a key Obamacare architect. Waxman thinks there is confusion about the content of the law. The Affordable Care Act, he said, mandates that the federal government will still subsidize and provide health plans obtained in the exchange. There will be no additional cost to lawmakers and Hill aides, he contends.

“I think the law is pretty clear,” Waxman told POLITICO. “Members and their staffs should get their health insurance through the exchange; the federal government will offer them health insurance coverage that they obtained through the exchanges because we want to get the same health care coverage everybody else has available to them.”

Waxman has been working on this issue with congressional colleagues and the Obama administration.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said if OPM decides that the federal government doesn’t pick up “the 75 percent that they have been, then put yourself in the position of a lot of entry-level staff people who make $25,000 a year, and all of a sudden, they have a $7,000 a year health care tab? That would be devastating.”

Burr added: “And that makes up probably about 30 percent of the folks that work on the Senate side. Probably a larger portion on the House side. It would drastically change whether kids would have the ability to come up here out of college.”

Yet Burr, a vocal Obamacare opponent, is also flat-out opposed to exempting Congress from the exchange provision.

“I have no problems with Congress being under the same guidelines,” Burr said. “I think if this is going to be a disaster — which I think it’s going to be — we ought to enjoy it together with our constituents.”

The developing narrative is potentially brutal for congressional Democrats and the White House. The health care law, controversial since it was passed in 2010, has been a target of the right and, increasingly, the left. There are concerns about its cost, implementation and impact on small businesses. If the two sides agree on a fix, leadership is discussing attaching it to a must-pass bill, like the government-funding resolution or legislation to hike the nation’s debt limit.

Republicans, though, haven’t been able to coalesce around a legislative health care plan of their own, either. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) pushed a bill this week that would shift funds from a health care prevention fund to create a high-risk pool for sick Americans. That bill couldn’t even get a vote on the House floor as conservatives revolted, embarrassing Cantor and his leadership team. GOP leadership pulled the bill.

But the secret talks about exempting Capitol Hill hands from the exchanges has the potential to be even more politically risky. During the 2009-10 battle over what’s now dubbed Obamacare, Republicans insisted that Capitol Hill hands must have the same health care as the rest of the American people. The measure was introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who spent months negotiating the details of the health care law but later became a major Obamacare critic.

The mandate on health exchanges doesn’t cover everyone. Aides in lawmakers’ personal offices must obtain health care through the exchanges but not committee staff. Lawmakers and aides older than 65 are covered by Medicare.

OPM also has to decide where the members and staffers would be covered. According to several people who have spoken with OPM officials, lawmakers would probably be in the exchange of the state they represent. But staffers would sign up in the state where they usually live — that means district office employees would join home state exchanges, and Capitol Hill staffers would mostly be in Washington, Virginia or Maryland.

Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obamacare-exemption-lawmakers-aides-90610.html
 
Several things jump out at me:

1) I'm with tsst on the elitism. How any ethical elected representative could...wait, not sure any of them are actually ethical...

2) How long have various government offices had to figure the law out? And they still don't seem to agree on what it does, or even what's in the law? Inconceivable!

3) I almost snorted coffee through my nasal passages when the concept of a "brain drain" on Capitol Hill was raised. Can't drain what isn't there.

4) I love how they care about the financial needs of their serfs/cronies/lap dogs, but plenty of the rest of us would be in the same boat throughout the country, and they don't seem to give a hoot about those folks, the ones who actually elected them.

I'm tired of this sham of governing - we live in an oligokleptocracy, not a republic, and the only way out I can see is to stop electing these clowns. Vote anti-incumbent, since the next person could not be any worse.
 
Unfortunately it is the foxes guarding the henhouse. For me this isn't even an issue with Obamacare, but an issue with our elected representatives, from BOTH sides of the isle, playing by a different set of rules than the rest of us.

It's time for term limits and has been for a while. Maximum 5 terms for house members and 2 terms for senate members and no more than 16 years total in Congress.
 
Unfortunately it is the foxes guarding the henhouse. For me this isn't even an issue with Obamacare, but an issue with our elected representatives, from BOTH sides of the isle, playing by a different set of rules than the rest of us.

It's time for term limits and has been for a while. Maximum 5 terms for house members and 2 terms for senate members and no more than 16 years total in Congress.

Oh I agree 100% but it's a shame they would have to pass it.
 
What REALLY needs to be done, but obviously will not, is to completely outlaw ALL political contributions of all types. It's obvious that the strings of our government are being pulled by big money, so until that ceases, it's pretty much a given that the ones with the most money to "contribute" will have their way with us. Until those strings are cut, you and I will have absolutely no voice in the direction of this country.
 
What REALLY needs to be done, but obviously will not, is to completely outlaw ALL political contributions of all types. It's obvious that the strings of our government are being pulled by big money, so until that ceases, it's pretty much a given that the ones with the most money to "contribute" will have their way with us. Until those strings are cut, you and I will have absolutely no voice in the direction of this country.

If money equals speech, then speech isn't free. Unfortunately our political process is so rigged to those who have money, that it silences those who do not. I've often thought that publicly financed campaigns would be a better way to go. Level the playing field so that people don't win based on the amount of money they can raise and spend, but on what they stand for. I realize that would have a slew of issues on its own, but I think it would be an improvement on what we have now.

IIRC, I think its something like 95% of candidates who spend more money end up winning. Maybe not that high, but a ridiculous amount win based on who has more money.
 
One of my all-time favorite movies is Bulworth - if you've never seen it, at least watch the scene towards the end where Warren Beatty is doing a televised interview. He's dead on with a bunch of what he has to say about the political process - and he's rapping and dressed like street hood, which is comically surreal.
 
Back
Top