So is the congress and president...

[OU_Sooners75]

required to carry the same insurance package that they hastily and selfishly passed for the American Public?

This is a serious question. I have not been keep up with current events since I just moved and been busy finding employment.

[OklahomaTuba]

No, they are not.

And yes, the criminals could have fixed it, but voted against doing so.


Senate rejects attempt to close loophole

An amendment that would have applied the new health care law to the president, vice president, top White House cabinet members and staffers and certain Congressional staffers failed Wednesday night, 43-56.http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/Senate_rejects_attempt_to_close_loophole.html

[OklahomaTuba]

In related crime news today...

Pro-Life Democrats Who Switched Vote for Health Bill Request Billions in Earmarks

The 11 House Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak who dropped their opposition to health care reform mere hours before the final vote have requested $3.4 billion in earmarks

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/29/pro-life-democrats-switched-vote-health-request-billions-earmarks/

Bribery, plain and simple.

[Boarder]

required to carry the same insurance package that they hastily and selfishly passed for the American Public?


To answer this yes or no would be affirming that they hastily and selfishly passed this, right? :D

To answer your question, they will only be provided exchange plans. The American public will not be required to have exchange plans, so they actually penalized themselves over the American public (if you look at the exchanges as a punishment, of course). They are free to buy outside the exchange, but they will have to pay for it themselves, rather than have their employer provide it (like the American public).

This loophole is being addressed to appease some that may not take the guarantee written into the bill as an actual guarantee. Rather than applauding an actual attempt at holding themselves to the same (or more harsh) standard as the public, people have criticized the wording to where Congress decided to address it.

Bottom line is that Congress will only be provided coverages from exchanges.

[Boarder]

No, they are not.

And yes, the criminals could have fixed it, but voted against doing so.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/Senate_rejects_attempt_to_close_loophole.html
from that link:

In comments on the floor leading into the vote, Grassley pointed to an announcement from the White House today that Obama will participate voluntarily in the exchanges as a tacit acknowledgement of principle of the failed amendment.

"Today, after seeing my amendment, the White House announced that President Obama will voluntarily participate in the health insurance exchange that starts in 2014. This is a little presumptuous since he has another election before 2014, but it is still effectively an endorsement of my amendment to make sure that political leaders live under the laws that they pass for everyone else," Grassley told his colleagues on the floor.

So, rather than saying, "OK, he's going to use the Bill insurance plans himself", it turned into yet another rhetorical negative comment.

I guess you could argue that the Congress (and President) aren't required to have exchange plans, but they certainly are not exempt.

[Boarder]

In related crime news today...


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/29/pro-life-democrats-switched-vote-health-request-billions-earmarks/

Bribery, plain and simple.
I looked at this last night. Here are the facts about this case:
1. A watchdog company noticed the "earmarks" by the congressmen and decided to red flag it.

2. The "earmarks" were normal appropriation requests, which were filed days before the turnaround at the normal deadline of appropriation funds.

3. The requests were in line with previous years' requests and have not been deemed to be illegal, immoral, inappropriate, or unethical by anyone other than people who glance over FoxNews headlines.

4. The watchdog company admits #3, but says they will watch the appropriations and how they play out to make sure. (Bravo to them, btw).

[OklahomaTuba]

Hmm, not required but not exempt??? lol

Irony baby!!!

[Boarder]

Hmm, not required but not exempt??? lol

Irony baby!!!
Is that all you got? No, they aren't required, since they can buy their own, like any other American citizen.

The rhetoric seems to be that they are exempt from having evil Bill insurance. Which is false.

[OklahomaTuba]

No, they aren't required, since they can buy their own, like any other American citizen.

The rhetoric seems to be that they are exempt from having evil Bill insurance. Which is false.

If the loopholes they voted to keep in the Bill say they are exempt, then they are exempt.

Theres really no difference between saying your exempt and saying you don't have to have play.

[Boarder]

If the loopholes they voted to keep in the Bill say they are exempt, then they are exempt.

Theres really no difference between saying your exempt and saying you don't have to have play.
You're right! If they said that they are exempt, they are!

The thing is that these "loopholes" do NOT say that they are exempt. They just don't. Period.

[OklahomaTuba]

You're right! If they said that they are exempt, they are!

The thing is that these "loopholes" do NOT say that they are exempt. They just don't. Period.

Yeah they do, that's why congress voted on keeping the loopholes open.


The current law signed by President Barack Obama Tuesday applies to members of Congress and their staffs, but includes a loophole that does not require committee or leadership staffers to participate in the exchanges established by the government.

[Boarder]

I was a bit disturbed as why they would vote to not close the loophole. So, I looked at the proposed amendment. Lo and behold, it contains a bunch of stuff besides just the White House thing. Here's an example:


SEC. 2304. BUREAUCRAT LIMITATION.
For each new bureaucrat added to any department or agency of the Federal Government for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or any amendment made by such Act), the head of such department or agency shall ensure that the addition of such new bureaucrat is offset by a reduction of 1 existing bureaucrat at such department or agency.

So, to make these new jobs, you must remove as many? That seems a little iffy. To be fair, I didn't read the entire bill, I just posted the first thing I saw. No wonder it was rejected.

Senate 1879 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r111KsO2qc:e0:)

[Boarder]

Yeah they do, that's why congress voted on keeping the loopholes open.
No, it doesn't! And, they didn't approve the amendment which happened to include the "loophole" removal, among a ton of other things. If they had rejected an amendment with only the White House language, you'd have a leg to stand on, and I would not approve of their rejection.

[OklahomaTuba]

I was a bit disturbed as why they would vote to not close the loophole.

The whole bill is disturbing. Wonder how many jobs it ends up killing.


Prudential to take $100M health care charge in 1Q

NEW YORK — Insurer Prudential Financial Inc. said Monday that it will take a $100 million charge in the first quarter in relation to the recent health care overhaul legislation.
The life insurance and annuities provider said in a regulatory filing that it will take the charge against earnings in the first quarter.
Prudential joins a growing list of companies that have said they will take accounting charges because of the health care bills. AT&T said last week it would take a $1 billion charge in the first quarter. AK Steel Corp., 3M Co., Caterpillar Inc., Deere & Co. and Valero Energy have also said they would take smaller charges. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jq4y4VraHNPT_G-NnV80IEiW-FkwD9EOJ5E80

[Boarder]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the current argument. You're free to move that to its own thread for debate, however. By putting that here, it shows that you have given up on the current topic of exemption.

Congrats to me. I win. Where's my trophy?

[OklahomaTuba]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the current argument. You're free to move that to its own thread for debate, however. By putting that here, it shows that you have given up on the current topic of exemption.

Congrats to me. I win. Where's my trophy?

No trophy, besides, the links to other sources I provided were sufficient in blowing your flimsy argument out of the water.

[Boarder]

No trophy, besides, the links to other sources I provided were sufficient in blowing your flimsy argument out of the water.
No, they were not. You provided one link on the exemption problem (until you gave up at the end). That link was trumped gallantly by my link of the actual bill, which wins.

Your link on the earmark problem was dealt with accordingly, as well. There was no bill text for me to quote, as it was not in the bill.

FTW.

[Boarder]

Just quit. Move on.