DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
29 comments:
Trump for VP.
Very well written (said).
I'd vote for him!
I dislike ObamaCare, but let's clear up one popular misunderstanding -- Congress didn't exempt itself from it. It applies to Congress and the President as much as it does anyone else.
"Anonymous said...
I dislike ObamaCare, but let's clear up one popular misunderstanding -- Congress didn't exempt itself from it. It applies to Congress and the President as much as it does anyone else.
July 2, 2012 7:40 PM"
Don't be so sure about that,
7:40. The way the bill was carved out with it's many loopholes, leadership and the committee staffers of Congress (aren't they all on some committee?) are exempt as is I'm fairly certain the president. Staffers are also exempt because the term "staffer" is loosely defined in Obamacare as only members' personal staff.
Anonymous said...
I dislike ObamaCare, but let's clear up one popular misunderstanding -- Congress didn't exempt itself from it. It applies to Congress and the President as much as it does anyone else.
July 2, 2012 7:40 PM
Prove it!!
The President and congress get health benefits for life, on the backs of the taxpayers.
Why do Jim Ireton and Chuck Cook hate this guy?
Yes, please, Trump for VP. It would be even funnier than your last VP pick.
100s of corporations and all of the unions are exempt from it!
So, Why doesn't he buy massive amounts of airtime to look directly in a camera and convey this statement?
Why doesn't the RNC plaster this message all over TV, radio and all available internet outlets?
Where is the response?
From congress?
The devil is in the details with Obamacare. Of course it clearly states that Congress is not exempt but then goes on to say except under certain amendments or something like that.
Same as with the mantra that those who are happy with their current coverage will be allowed to keep it----the fine print goes on to say-yes you can keep it, if it's an approved plan.
Hey loons,
#1 no one is forcing anyone to buy government-sponsored healthcare. The regular private individual insurance market is doing just fine.
#2 yes many employers might drop coverage for their workers. Isn't this what you GOP "friend of the small business man" wanted? To get the costs of worker insurance off the back of the employer.
#3 Now that the Supremes shut down the "evil socialist Obama tearing up the constitution" narrative, the GOP conveniently switched to a tax argument. Too bad they fail to point out that the maximum tax penalty is equal to the lowest cost plan one can purchase from uncle sam plus you get tax credits from purchasing health care.
Sooo, with insurance taken off the backs of business, tax credits for coverage, the elimination of free riders (a mandate that the GOP supported in the past) it looks alot like the priciples that the right subscribed to previously. Oh yeah, thats before Obama was for it.
July 3, 2012 7:34 AM sounds like Chuck Liarton!
"#1 no one is forcing anyone to buy government-sponsored healthcare. The regular private individual insurance market is doing just fine."
WRONG-The heathcare plans that people will be forced to buy are to be approved ones by the government.
Like stated about the devil is in the details-Know them before you go spouting off about something you know nothing about! You are the democrates dream. Running your mouth and not knowing the details. They count on dopes like you to spread their false claims.
Results of a recent survey of doctors-
"Sixty-one percent say it's an affront to their ethics. Eighty-five percent say it destroys the doctor-patient relationship. Sixty-five percent say governmental involvement is the cause of the problems in medical care now. Seventy-two percent say the insurance mandate won't result in improved access to medical care. Seventy-four percent say they'll stop accepting Medicare patients, or leave Medicare altogether. Seventy percent say reducing governmental involvement would be the single best fix for healthcare in this country. The negatives of Obamacare went on and on in the results of the survey."
A recent Congressional Budget Office report puts the expected costs of Obamacare itself at TWICE WHAT WE HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY TOLD TO EXPECT.
See how they lie to us? Either lie or are incompetant. I can't imagine how anyone with any sense could screw up to the tune of 88 million dollars over budget.
July 3, 2012 8:32 AM
"LIKE"
The GOP switched to a tax argument 7:34? I believe the Supreme Court interpreted that way, something which Obama denied like there was no tomorrow previously.
Goes to show you what kind of lawyer he is and his advisors. Don't know a tax from a hole in the ground.
Trump couldn't be Vice President. He would actually have to do something rather than just talk.
Obama screws up everything he touches. He couldn't say enough that this wasn't a tax. Now Court says yes, it is a tax-a tax on anyone making over the mere pittance of $9500/per year. The minimum tax will be almost $700 per year.
So all you low income Obama supporters get out your wallets. The Tax Man is coming for you!
8:37 "The way the bill was carved out with it's many loopholes, leadership and the committee staffers of Congress (aren't they all on some committee?) are exempt as is I'm fairly certain the president. Staffers are also exempt because the term 'staffer' is loosely defined in Obamacare as only members' personal staff."
OK, so tell me what they are "exempt" from. Saying they are "exempt" from the bill really makes no sense. They aren't exempt from the individual mandate, that's for sure. And, in fact, Section 1312 of the bill mandates that they lose their current health insurance and are forced to buy their insurance in the health insurance exchange (something the bill mandates for no one else).
That's a fact, easily found if you read the bill. Again, I dislike the legislation, but all these "experts" who think they know what's in the bill because their second cousin's roommate's dog forwarded them an e-mail that said so should probably keep their mouths shut.
9:39, A snippet from a report issued by the Congressional Research Staff. I'm sure you know what they do, but for those that don't they work exclusively for Congress. They research proposed legislation provide policy and legal analysis to members of the House and Senate. In the opinion of CRS because of the way the bill is written, it appears that Congress and members of their staff are excluded.
So go ahead and spin it however you want but the facts/ the fine print/the amendments/the way terms are defined and the loopholes do not lie.
"A report issued by the Congressional Research Service, at Grassley's request provides this insight: "It appears possible to argue that the definition of 'congressional staff' used . . . excludes any staff not directly affiliated with a Member’s individual or personal office," the independent research office concluded. "Should this interpretation be adopted by an implementing body or a court, it would appear that it would exclude professional committee staff, joint committee staff, some shared staff, as well as potentially those staff employed by leadership offices including, but not limited to, the Speaker of the House, Majority Leader of the Senate, Minority Leader of the House, Minority Leader of the Senate, as well as the Whip offices in both the House and Senate. Moreover, this interpretation would arguably exclude other congressional employees, for example, those employed by the Office of the House Clerk, House Parliamentarian, House Historian, Secretary of the Senate, Senate Legal Counsel, House and Senate Legislative Counsel offices."
9:39 Maybe your 2nd cousin's roomate's dog told you in order to understand a bill you only need to read one section such as 1312, but that's not the case. An "expert" will tell you that any and all sections are filled with phrases such as "except those defined under section blah blah..." and so on. You can not read one section and expect to come anywhere near understanding the complete picture.
To 11:20 and 11:26, I'm well aware of that provision of the bill. It seems you are not. If that provision is interpreted a certain way, then it's possible that certain Congressional staff (specifically staff that are employed in leadership offices) would be exempt from the requirement that they purchase their health insurance through the health insurance exchange. It does not exempt members of Congress, the Senate, or other Congressional staff. So it's possible that a few Congressional staffers would not be forced to purchase insurance through the exchange.
Even if this interpretation is upheld by the courts (and that's a big "if," since the statutory language is ambiguous), that leaves these few staff members in the same position as the rest of us. Except for members of Congress and their staff, no one is forced to buy insurance in the health insurance exchange. We have the option to do so, but we don't have to. If this provision is interpreted as the CRS report says is "possible" (note that word), then those Congressional staff would be in the same boat as you or I.
So, 11:20 and 11:26, don't lecture me on the specifics of this legislation. This isn't a matter of opinion; it's a fact about the law and the plain language of the law.
And, 11:20, if you are going to be condescending and talk about CRS, you might want to get the name right. It's "Congressional Research Service," not "Congressional Research Staff."
Mean while, family Dr.'s are dropping like flies.
My vote is on Donald Trump...
I think the government now realizes a large percent of the population is getting poorer relying on state healthcare and they have to do something. But words mean nothing. Just like when Bush forced NCLB without a plan this too will be a big mess. NCLB was just a great slogan and concept without a plan. Each state was left with the question, How do we run this? Each state was left with the job of figuring it out for years with no plan or program. Each state is on a different page, some states lag behind others and the poorest districts are still the ones that suffer the most. As with NO Child Left Behind, likewise there will be many left behind with bare bones health care because there is no plan, no guide or regulations. Again it will be the poor, chronicly sick, elderly and disabled who suffer the most.
12:31, The Grassley amendment to Obamacare, adopted by the Finance Committee did require all congressional staff along with members of Congress to participate in the healthcare bill. However an amendment (commonly known as the Reid Amendment) was brought to the floor and modified the Grassley language in a way that does exempt the staff of congressional leaders and committees.
Post a Comment