The Myth Of GOP Role In ACA

[JoeTheEconomist]

I don't remember the exact details of it but the current Obamacare (including individual mandate) minus some minor details was actually conjured by conservative research groups, including the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, and championed, for a time, by Republicans in the Senate. Then Newt picked the proposed mandate and backed it as an Antidote to HillaryCare.

So what Obama doing is what the most stark conservatives proposed to do in 1993. So one begs the question why all the noise from the very groups that proposed the said plan?

Diving Mullah

This article questions the merits of saying that this law was a GOP brainchild... It is certainly not anything associated to conservatives stark or otherwise. I have seen what Newt said, and he really didn't back anything. You should revisit his words. I come from GA, and there is a lot of nothing in what was attributed to him by the politifacts articles.

Laurie Rubiner and the Individual Mandate | National Review Online!

 

[sawdust]

Pure lies. They enacted Republican amendments in the law. Like Chuck Grassley's that forced congress to purchase their own healthcare plans through the federal health care exchange.

Republicans could have very easily had input on the bill. Instead they were too busy acting like kids and talking about non-existant death panels and trying to stop the bill at all cost. Every time they were invited to discuss changes to the bill, their response was "lets scrap it and start fresh". Much like they are arguing now "defund it or we shut down the government."

First, Obama nullified the Grassley amendment by presidential fiat when he granted subsidies for federal workers, which democrats claim is only what all businesses do. Government is called public service for a reason, it's not a business.

Second, a majority of voters dislike Obamacare and opposing it isn't acting childish. It's representing constituents and if democrats had done that Obamacare wouldn't be a law.

 

[roughdraft274]

First, Obama nullified the Grassley amendment by presidential fiat when he granted subsidies for federal workers, which democrats claim is only what all businesses do. Government is called public service for a reason, it's not a business.

Second, a majority of voters dislike Obamacare and opposing it isn't acting childish. It's representing constituents and if democrats had done that Obamacare wouldn't be a law.

1. He didn't nullify the grassley amendment. Congress is still getting their health insurance plans through the federal exchange.

2. Opposing it is different than shutting down the government over it. I couldn't care less if you dislike or oppose it, if the House wants to vote to repeal it another 40 times, fine, go for it, but shut down the government by holding it hostage? That's a bull**** move period. And a majority of americans agree with me on that. This is only hurting republicans. They've lost this battle.

 

[head of joaquin]

First, Obama nullified the Grassley amendment by presidential fiat when he granted subsidies for federal workers, which democrats claim is only what all businesses do. Government is called public service for a reason, it's not a business.

Second, a majority of voters dislike Obamacare and opposing it isn't acting childish. It's representing constituents and if democrats had done that Obamacare wouldn't be a law.

A majority of Americans opposed Bush tax cuts for Paris Hilton and vanity wars. So you're saying the Democratic majority in 2006 should have held the economy hostage until Bush raised taxes on the rich and pulled out of Iraq.

What dishonesty!

 

[sawdust]

1. He didn't nullify the grassley amendment. Congress is still getting their health insurance plans through the federal exchange.

2. Opposing it is different than shutting down the government over it. I couldn't care less if you dislike or oppose it, if the House wants to vote to repeal it another 40 times, fine, go for it, but shut down the government by holding it hostage? That's a bull**** move period. And a majority of americans agree with me on that. This is only hurting republicans. They've lost this battle.

Obama gave Federal employees a 72% subsidy to pay for Obamacare. The Grassley amendment eliminated the payments by the Feds to pay for insurance through the imaginary exchanges. The Republicans are trying to eleminate the subsidy Obama gave them. I think that the Federal employees, most of whom earn six figure salaries because they are attached to the Federal teat, should suffer like the rest of us by an intrusive government that is forcing to make us buy a product.

The House is making a mistake. They should fully implement the law, originally as written. It is so poorly crafted it will implode in three or four years by some who understand the harmful economic impact. Then we'd be rid of it.

 

[sawdust]

A majority of Americans opposed Bush tax cuts for Paris Hilton and vanity wars. So you're saying the Democratic majority in 2006 should have held the economy hostage until Bush raised taxes on the rich and pulled out of Iraq.

What dishonesty!

Perhaps a majority of your friend disliked the Bush tax cut. People I know were good with it.

 

[roughdraft274]

Obama gave Federal employees a 72% subsidy to pay for Obamacare. The Grassley amendment eliminated the payments by the Feds to pay for insurance through the imaginary exchanges. The Republicans are trying to eleminate the subsidy Obama gave them. I think that the Federal employees, most of whom earn six figure salaries because they are attached to the Federal teat, should suffer like the rest of us by an intrusive government that is forcing to make us buy a product.

I've posted numerous times that Grassley himself has said that his amendment was not meant to end the payments towards congresses health insurance premiums. You can go and check for yourself. You are wrong and not arguing in reality. That's the best I can do for you.

 

[Mycroft]

I've posted numerous times that Grassley himself has said that his amendment was not meant to end the payments towards congresses health insurance premiums. You can go and check for yourself. You are wrong and not arguing in reality. That's the best I can do for you.

Then Grassley didn't read his own amendment, did he?

Look, Congressmen...both Republican and Democrat...have known about this thing for years, but they've decided to ignore it until now...when they can't ignore it any longer. They created this problem for themselves...they should stop trying to depend on a failed leader (Obama) and fix it.

I suggest they take the whole amendment out of the law. Problem solved. (of course, then they will have to deal with the public fall out for appearing to favor themselves over the people)

 

[sawdust]

I've posted numerous times that Grassley himself has said that his amendment was not meant to end the payments towards congresses health insurance premiums. You can go and check for yourself. You are wrong and not arguing in reality. That's the best I can do for you.

The Grassley amendment forced government employees into the exchanges. The Obama modification insured that the government paid for federal employees at the same level as they enjoyed under the previous federal plan. It's more complicated than that however because democrats added language to the Grassley amendment which allowed Federal employees to be treated the same as the employees as large corporations whose punishment doesn't start until 2017. The whole mess is convoluted.

 

[roughdraft274]

Then Grassley didn't read his own amendment, did he?

TV ads misrepresenting Grassley amendment to 2010 health care law

Senator Grassley said his provision, even in the final form it took in the law that was enacted makes no changes to the employer contribution to federal employee health care coverage and no changes to federal retiree health care.

Argue with him if you want.

I suggest they take the whole amendment out of the law. Problem solved. (of course, then they will have to deal with the public fall out for appearing to favor themselves over the people)

No, it's a good idea for congress to get their healthcare through the exchanges. That means that if there are any problems that they have an interest in fixing them. Kinda like when congress fixed the air traffic controller problem during the sequester, they only did it, and did it so fast, because they had a vested interest in it. Therefor it makes sense for them to be on the exchanges.

 

[roughdraft274]

The whole mess is convoluted.

It's not convoluted except to people that are trying to twist the truth. It's a very simple matter. Congress has to get their health insurance through the exchanges, but retain their employer benefits. And btw, Obama didn't modify the law. That's how it was interpreted. The office of personnel management said it did not interpret from the text and description of the amendment that they weren't allowed to continue the benefits.

 

[Mycroft]

TV ads misrepresenting Grassley amendment to 2010 health care law


Argue with him if you want.



No, it's a good idea for congress to get their healthcare through the exchanges. That means that if there are any problems that they have an interest in fixing them. Kinda like when congress fixed the air traffic controller problem during the sequester, they only did it, and did it so fast, because they had a vested interest in it. Therefor it makes sense for them to be on the exchanges.

It's called unintended consequences...an unfortunate occurrence, but it happens all to often when legislators don't reason through the effects of what they vote for. Grassley and the Democrats who voted for Obamacare are the cause of this unintended consequence.

If Congress succeeds in getting the government to pay a portion of their health insurance premiums...even though they are getting their insurance through the exchanges...what incentive do they have to fixing anything? They got theirs.

 

[roughdraft274]

It's called unintended consequences...an unfortunate occurrence, but it happens all to often when legislators don't reason through the effects of what they vote for. Grassley and the Democrats who voted for Obamacare are the cause of this unintended consequence.

If Congress succeeds in getting the government to pay a portion of their health insurance premiums...even though they are getting their insurance through the exchanges...what incentive do they have to fixing anything? They got theirs.

1. And then you complain when they think about fixing something that's unintended in the first place? You seem to be of the opinion that when it comes to legislating that whatever is passed in the first place is set in stone and should have been perfect or not passed at all. In reality, legislators have the duty of getting it as good as possible and then voting, and then after passing it if any problems arise, they have the ability to fix them.

2. They do have an incentive. Just because my employer pays a portion of my health insurance premiums that doesn't mean I'm completely disinterested in my health insurance. That's a moronic way of looking at it.

 

[sawdust]

It's not convoluted except to people that are trying to twist the truth. It's a very simple matter. Congress has to get their health insurance through the exchanges, but retain their employer benefits. And btw, Obama didn't modify the law. That's how it was interpreted. The office of personnel management said it did not interpret from the text and description of the amendment that they weren't allowed to continue the benefits.

Btw, you're technically correct that Obama has plausible deniability with the laws modification. It was Denis McDonough who approved it. It's all spin and every modification to the law has to be approved by the administration because they have the power.

 

[Mycroft]

1. And then you complain when they think about fixing something that's unintended in the first place? You seem to be of the opinion that when it comes to legislating that whatever is passed in the first place is set in stone and should have been perfect or not passed at all. In reality, legislators have the duty of getting it as good as possible and then voting, and then after passing it if any problems arise, they have the ability to fix them.

Hey...I haven't complained. I suggested that they fix it...by taking that part out of Obamacare. Seems simpler than making changes that will probably have more unintended consequences.

2. They do have an incentive. Just because my employer pays a portion of my health insurance premiums that doesn't mean I'm completely disinterested in my health insurance. That's a moronic way of looking at it.

You analogy doesn't work...unless you expect your employer to pay a portion of your exchange-bought insurance.

 

[roughdraft274]

You analogy doesn't work...unless you expect your employer to pay a portion of your exchange-bought insurance.

It does work. You care about your insurance regardless of whether your employer pays a portion for the premiums. If my employer decides to switch to the small business exchange and still pays a portion of my premiums, I'll still have an interest in it.

 

[Mycroft]

It does work. You care about your insurance regardless of whether your employer pays a portion for the premiums. If my employer decides to switch to the small business exchange and still pays a portion of my premiums, I'll still have an interest in it.

If your employer drops your insurance and tells you to go to the Obamacare exchange, would you expect your employer to STILL pay a portion of your premium? If you say yes, then THAT would be a proper analogy to the events in Congress. If you say no, then your analogy doesn't work.

Come on, roughdraft...even I can't believe you don't understand your mistake.

 

[roughdraft274]

If your employer drops your insurance and tells you to go to the Obamacare exchange, would you expect your employer to STILL pay a portion of your premium? If you say yes, then THAT would be a proper analogy to the events in Congress. If you say no, then your analogy doesn't work.

Come on, roughdraft...even I can't believe you don't understand your mistake.

Yes, I would still expect them to pay a portion, even though that has nothing to do with my point. It went right over your head. My point is that regardless of whether my employer pays a portion of my premiums, regardless of whether the insurance comes from the exchange or not, I have an interest in it. You said that they have no interest since a portion of their premiums are paid by their employers, I say that's a stupid argument, because everyone who gets premium support from their employer is still interested in the details of their insurance.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes, I would still expect them to pay a portion, even though that has nothing to do with my point. It went right over your head. My point is that regardless of whether my employer pays a portion of my premiums, regardless of whether the insurance comes from the exchange or not, I have an interest in it. You said that they have no interest since a portion of their premiums are paid by their employers, I say that's a stupid argument, because everyone who gets premium support from their employer is still interested in the details of their insurance.

Wait a minute...you are serious?

If your employer decides it's costing them too much to offer you insurance and they drop it...you would STILL expect them to cover some of the premium you would pay to the exchange??? Why on earth do you think they would do such a thing?

Anyway, you had two separate points that I've been discussing with you...not one. There was the failed analogy which, after your insistence that it holds true, shows me you don't have a grasp on reality and your expectation that Congress would consider changing anything about Obamacare...Democrats, anyway, Republicans want to change Obamacare (get rid of it, actually) but not because they and their staffers might be getting screwed.

 

[roughdraft274]

Wait a minute...you are serious?

If your employer decides it's costing them too much to offer you insurance and they drop it...you would STILL expect them to cover some of the premium you would pay to the exchange??? Why on earth do you think they would do such a thing?

Because if they don't I'll switch employers. It's that simple. I'm a qualified civil engineer and anywhere I go to work will give me health insurance benefits. So I won't put up with them dropping them. If they dropped them and I had to go to the individual exchange I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be able to pay parts of my premiums, but if they just dropped our current insurance and switched to the small business insurance exchange because the policies are cheaper (which is something that they are currently looking at) then I would still expect them to cover the same portion they do now.

The rest of your post is a bunch of crap and I'm not going to waste any more time trying to bring you back to reality.

 

[ARealConservative]

Wait a minute...you are serious?

If your employer decides it's costing them too much to offer you insurance and they drop it...you would STILL expect them to cover some of the premium you would pay to the exchange??? Why on earth do you think they would do such a thing?

Anyway, you had two separate points that I've been discussing with you...not one. There was the failed analogy which, after your insistence that it holds true, shows me you don't have a grasp on reality and your expectation that Congress would consider changing anything about Obamacare...Democrats, anyway, Republicans want to change Obamacare (get rid of it, actually) but not because they and their staffers might be getting screwed.

If my employer drops my coverage, I expect them to increase my salary by the amount they were covering my costs of the premium. I would not allow my compensation to me reduced.

 

[Mycroft]

Because if they don't I'll switch employers. It's that simple. I'm a qualified civil engineer and anywhere I go to work will give me health insurance benefits. So I won't put up with them dropping them. If they dropped them and I had to go to the individual exchange I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be able to pay parts of my premiums, but if they just dropped our current insurance and switched to the small business insurance exchange because the policies are cheaper (which is something that they are currently looking at) then I would still expect them to cover the same portion they do now.

The rest of your post is a bunch of crap and I'm not going to waste any more time trying to bring you back to reality.

Okay...it's easy to identify something as being crap without explaining why...or even making an attempt to explain why. But hey, you don't want to debate...that's okay with me.

 

[Mycroft]

If my employer drops my coverage, I expect them to increase my salary by the amount they were covering my costs of the premium. I would not allow my compensation to me reduced.

Yes...I would expect the same.

Perhaps Congress could go ahead and make their employees go to the exchange for their insurance like they put into the Obamacare law...but give them all a pay raise.

I wonder if any of them have thought of that solution?

 

[roughdraft274]

Okay...it's easy to identify something as being crap without explaining why...or even making an attempt to explain why. But hey, you don't want to debate...that's okay with me.

I've already explained why on the analogy. And you can't grasp it. Not my issue...

 

[Mycroft]

I've already explained why on the analogy. And you can't grasp it. Not my issue...

Oh...you are still wasting time? Okay.