Members, staff will keep health-care subsidies under Obamacare

[Agravan]

Members, staff will keep health-care subsidies under Obamacare



Members of Congress and Hill staffers will not lose their health-care subsidies from the government when Obamacare is implemented because of an exception proposed Wednesday by the Office of Personnel Management.
Under the current system, the government covers most of the cost of health-care premiums for members and their staffers. But an amendment to the Affordable Care Act — proposed by Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley — threw those subsidies into question, saying that members and staff must enter into the exchanges or be covered by insurance “created” by law.
The potential for staff losing the subsidies led to concerns of “brain drain” from the Hill if staffers left as a result of the increased costs.
Last week, when President Barack Obama came to the Hill to meet with Senate Democrats, he informed them (http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/reid-says-issue-with-health-care-for-lawmakers-staff-is-resolved/) that he would personally get involved to sort out the confusion, and the White House said (http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/reid-says-issue-with-health-care-for-lawmakers-staff-is-resolved/) that OPM would issue guidelines this week.
The guidelines, released Wednesday, allow for members and staff to retain their subsidies from the government, an exception in exchange for giving up “premium tax credits” that they would otherwise be eligible for under Obamacare.
“The amount of the employer contribution toward their Exchange premiums is no more than would otherwise be made toward coverage under the [Federal Employee Health Benefits] Program,” the OPM release notes.
“These proposed regulations implement the administrative aspects of switching Members of Congress and congressional staff to their new insurance plans — the same plans available to millions of Americans through the new Exchanges,” said Jon Foley, OPM Director of Planning and Policy, in a statement.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/07/members-staff-will-keep-healthcare-subsidies-under-obamacare/

[Peter1469]

To be fair, if you take away their subsidized health care, you need to boost their salaries.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think it's about time all Beltway Bandits start living under the same rules as the rest of America. If the staffers had to quit and leave for jobs elsewhere, maybe Congress would get off it's collective fat ass and start fixing problems.

[Peter1469]

Of course.

My point is that the health insurance subsidy was part of their pay. End the subsidy but increase their pay to make it even.

[Matty]

Of course.

My point is that the health insurance subsidy was part of their pay. End the subsidy but increase their pay to make it even.



To be fair. Don't do that for them unless you do it for all Americans. My point is Congress and their staff should have to actually live under the same rules they pass for the rest of us.

[Peter1469]

To be fair. Don't do that for them unless you do it for all Americans. My point is Congress and their staff should have to actually live under the same rules they pass for the rest of us.

Right. I agree.

[Cigar]

I think it's about time all Beltway Bandits start living under the same rules as the rest of America. If the staffers had to quit and leave for jobs elsewhere, maybe Congress would get off it's collective fat ass and start fixing problems.

That's what Obama is trying to do, provide everyone with the same Healthcare that the politicians have enjoyed for decades. Yet some of them are telling you it's bad, while enjoying great Health Care, provided by ... you guess it. :laugh:

So who is Zooming Who?

[Max Rockatansky]

That's what Obama is trying to do, provide everyone with the same Healthcare that the politicians have enjoyed for decades. Yet some of them are telling you it's bad, while enjoying great Health Care, provided by ... you guess it. :laugh:

So who is Zooming Who?

That may be what Obama is aiming for, but that doesn't appear to be what we are getting. The whole thing is going to come to fruition later this year and over the year leading up to the November 2014 election.

Secondly, and more importantly, is the cost. The Congressional healthcare system is expensive. Not be cause it's so good, but because medical care in the US is so expensive. In the case of Congress, the taxpayer pays for it. In the case of Obamacare, the taxpayer pays for that too. IMO, that's putting the cart before the jackass. Why not work to lower medical costs and let people pay for it themselves?

I'm not talking about government subsidized artificial reductions, but legislation gets at the root causes of these increased costs such as insurance/malpractice suits and other factors as noted below. None of which ACA/Obamacare fixes:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-10/the-reason-health-care-is-so-expensive-insurance-companies

But the thing that few people talk about, and that no serious policy proposal attempts to fix—the arrangement that accounts for much of the difference between health spending in the U.S. and other places—is the enormous administrative overhead costs that come from lodging health-care reimbursement in the hands of insurance companies that have no incentive to perform their role efficiently as payment intermediaries.
More than 20 years ago, two Harvard professors published an article (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199105023241805) in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine showing that health-care administration cost somewhere between 19 percent and 24 percent of total spending on health care and that this administrative burden helped explain why health care costs so much in the U.S. compared, for instance, with Canada or the United Kingdom.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/why-is-american-health-care-so-ridiculously-expensive/274425/

First, it really starts with the prices. While some developed countries have one health care insurance plan for everybody -- where the government either sets prices or oversees price negotiations -- the U.S. is unique in our reliance on for-profit insurance companies to pay for both essential and elective care. Twenty cents from every $1 goes, not to health care, but to "marketing, underwriting, administration, and profit," he says. In a system where government doesn't negotiate prices down, prices will be higher. In a system where for-profit companies need profit margins and advertising, prices will be higher.

Second, the absurd complexity of U.S. health care creates its own costs. There is a separate health care system for seniors, veterans, military personnel, Native Americans, end-stage renal failure, under 16 in a poor family, over 16 in a poor family, and working for the federal government, Reid writes. That's on top of hundreds of private plans:

[Cigar]

Everyone I know who is actually in the Government Exchange System pays less than everyone who is no in the system.

Example: The Preexisting Condition removal alone and nothing else saves "real" people "real" money, that is in return used to but back into the economy, and back to businesses.

Another Example: People who are in the current Government Exchange System don't pay anymore for a family of 4 than a family of 1.

I think once people actually are in the System and the more who are "actually" in The System, we all find out that all the scare hype was nothing more than Republicans not wanting to go down in history as a bunch if idiots.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think once people actually are in the System and the more who are "actually" in The System, we all find out that all the scare hype was nothing more than Republicans not wanting to go down in history as a bunch if idiots.

Time will tell. The American public will be able to get a deep, full breath of ACA in the year leading up to the 2014 election and another two years leading to 2016.

It hurts the RNC to be the "Just say NO" party and to waste taxpayer dollars on trying to repeal ACA 40 times instead of working to fix it. In their favor, possibly, will be the American voters themselves being able to see how ACA works for a year or three before election time.

[Peter1469]

That's what Obama is trying to do, provide everyone with the same Healthcare that the politicians have enjoyed for decades. Yet some of them are telling you it's bad, while enjoying great Health Care, provided by ... you guess it. :laugh:

So who is Zooming Who?

That is part of the problem, the nation can't afford to provide "free healthcare" to everyone at that level.

[Cigar]

That is part of the problem, the nation can't afford to provide "free healthcare" to everyone at that level.

What Factual Data are you using, outside of States trying to prohibit participation?

Image what Americans could do with the money they are NOT spending on Predatory Health Care, Bankruptcy Courts and Preventable Sickness.

I say give it a try before to call it a failure.

[lynn]

Government employees are in the >50 employee number rule so why they have to join the exchanges but no other employer with 50 or more can do this is not right.

[Max Rockatansky]

That is part of the problem, the nation can't afford to provide "free healthcare" to everyone at that level.

Agreed. Like public school and job assistance programs, it benefits our nation to have a minimum level of healthcare defined as primarily vaccinations, preventative medicine, treatment for broken bones and lacerations and access antibiotics. To do more is unaffordable.

If the President and the Democrats want to help the poor have better access to medical care, they should focus on what makes our present health system so expensive, not just handing it out and placing the cost on the backs of US taxpayers.