Patterico's Pontifications

3/23/2010

Guess Who’s Exempt?

Filed under: Health Care — DRJ @ 7:48 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

From Hot Air:

“Reid Wilson at National Journal’s Hotline took Nancy Pelosi’s promise to heart. She said last week that Congress had to pass the first-ever federal mandates on American citizens to purchase a product before we could see what else was in the bill. Now that it’s passed, Wilson discovers that the bill exempts perhaps thousands of staffers on Capitol Hill from a mandate to purchase coverage from government-run insurance exchanges.”

The lawmakers will probably exempt themselves soon because government insurance, like rules, are for the little people.

— DRJ

UPDATE: Ed at Hot Air says some staffers aren’t subject to the individual mandates to purchase insurance. Others suggest the issue is not mandates but the source(s) from which staffers can obtain coverage. I think the latter view is probably correct.

Thanks to imdw.

43 Responses to “Guess Who’s Exempt?”

  1. I wouldn’t be surprised if in the fine print, there is a provision exempting them from having to pay the higher taxes as well.

    steve sturm (116925)

  2. But not members of congress or their staffs. odd.

    imdw (b75942)

  3. “The lawmakers will probably exempt themselves soon because government insurance, like rules, are for the little people.”

    You know that lawmakers are on government insurance now, right? Unless in their spouse’s plan.

    imdw (b75942)

  4. Hey, imdw: time for you to scurry off and link that statement, and the specifics of the “government” insurance, compared to the current system being worked out.

    You made the claim. You do the homework. It’ll take you some (insert Maynard G. Krebs’ voice) work. But I know you’ll do it to support your position.

    Unless you are, well, just a partisan troll.

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  5. imdw,

    Exempt themselves from mandates, not insurance coverage.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  6. Over at PowerLine they have this:

    …some have wondered how Republicans can vote against a reconciliation bill which is widely perceived as removing the worst elements of Democratic Party corruption from the law.

    We started to see the answer today, as Republicans proposed a series of amendments and made motions that were designed to expose the corruption at the heart of the Democratic Party’s legislation. …

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  7. I like the “No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders” amendment, which the Democrats say they are going to vote against to protect the Reconciliation Bill from going back to the House.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  8. imdw – What is that “government insurance” you say Congress has?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  9. Dimwit’s assertion was a complete and total asspull, daleyrocks.

    JD (dda3fa)

  10. “Hey, imdw: time for you to scurry off and link that statement, and the specifics of the “government” insurance, compared to the current system being worked out.”

    They’re on the federal employee system.

    “Exempt themselves from mandates, not insurance coverage.”

    That’s not the conclusion I read from reading the definition of “applicable individual” that was discussed in the thread about undocumented people and their coverage. It’s also not the conclusion I reach from reading the article that HotAir linked to. That wasn’t talking about mandates.

    The issue is a specific section of the law that says the federal government can only offer members of congress and their staffs plans under the act or under an exchange. However, it seems that the way staff is designed, some staffers are not covered under this. The language came from Tom Coburn. I wonder if he intended that omission or not.

    Your news sources are lying to you.

    imdw (2c1194)

  11. “it seems that the way staff is designed”

    That should be, the way staff is “defined.”

    imdw (c5488f)

  12. They have private insurance through their employer.

    JD (dda3fa)

  13. imdw,

    I don’t know precisely what the legislation provides and I don’t know what it was intended to provide, but it sounds like the Democrats (perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not) may have exempted some staff from the mandates and not just the government exchange:

    “The new health care law creates two double standards. The congressional staff who wrote the new law exempted themselves from the new health care system, while other staff will be in it,” Grassley said today in a statement. “And, President Obama himself will not live under Obama health care. The message to grassroots America is that it’s good enough for you, but not for us.
    ***
    “It is absolutely outrageous that the very people who were directly responsible for writing this legislation put in an exemption for themselves. It’s doesn’t get much more self-serving than that, and it’s downright offensive,” said one Republican staffer.”

    Maybe this will become more clear in the coming days.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  14. “Your news sources are lying to you.”

    Well, someone is lying.

    Just a lazy troll, acting the partisan cheerleader, and unwilling to do any intellectual heavy lifting. We keep forgetting: trolls tell other people to do work, not the reverse!

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  15. DRJ

    Its going to be REAL interesting to see this thing dissected over the next few weeks as the Republicans wring out amendment after amendment

    The public fury is going to get whipped to the point that there may not really be any safe seats left – even in CT for the senate

    There is no state Red or Blus that can afford to lose 70 80% of the independents

    Which can happen if more of this crap sandwhich gets detailed over the next few weeks

    EricPWJohnson (44912d)

  16. “I don’t know precisely what the legislation provides and I don’t know what it was intended to provide, but it sounds like the Democrats (perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not) may have exempted some staff from the mandates and not just the government exchange:”

    Click through to the link that hotair had. You’ll find out that:

    -There’s a requirement that congress and their staff only be offered plan under the Act.
    -Tom Coburn wrote that requirement
    -It appears some number staff are left out of the definition.

    My guess? Tom Coburn didn’t mean to leave these people out.

    This is not the mandate, as HotAir describes. HotAir is lying about this. This is about what the government can offer to some government employees.

    imdw (603c39)

  17. “Well, someone is lying.”

    People will keep lying about this bill. In part because some people are so ready to believe a lot of BS about it. Remember “Death panels” ?

    imdw (603c39)

  18. I’m reading from the Politico link, not Hot Air. You may be right about this but I think it can be read either way. Maybe the problem is no one knows what it says, especially Congress and their staff.

    And Hot Air is “lying”? Let’s don’t start that.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  19. “…People will keep lying about this bill….”

    Oh, indeed, imdw. But I don’t mean it the way you do.

    And I think you know I am right: you don’t know a darned thing about this bill, other than it was sponsored by people with “D”s after their names. And they cannot do a thing wrong, can they?

    You are such a projectionist I keep smelling popcorn.

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  20. And there will be death panels in America just like there are in Britain:

    Thousands of patients with terminal cancer were dealt a blow last night after a decision was made to deny them life prolonging drugs.

    The Government’s rationing body said two drugs for advanced breast cancer and a rare form of stomach cancer were too expensive for the NHS.

    The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is expected to confirm guidance in the next few weeks that will effectively ban their use.

    The move comes despite a pledge by Nice to be more flexible in giving life-extending drugs to terminally-ill cancer patients after a public outcry last year over ‘death sentence’ decisions.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  21. “I’m reading from the Politico link, not Hot Air.”

    You linked to HotAir so I followed to that. You didn’t read them?

    imdw (603c39)

  22. Why DRJ! Those aren’t “death panels.” Those are just “fiscal responsibility versus mortality panels.”

    Entirely different.

    Sort of like when you need a kidney transplant in Canada past 55.

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  23. Oh, and imdw? Try to not ooze your way toward being rude to DRJ. She has been very polite to you, even though you are just a nattering little troll of partisanship.

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  24. DRJ – this clown does not even understand that federal employees have private insurance.

    JD (dda3fa)

  25. “People will keep lying about this bill.”

    imdw – Absolutely. The death panels are still in there. Why do you persist in lying about them.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  26. “DRJ – this clown does not even understand that federal employees have private insurance.”

    As private as under “obamacare.”

    imdw (5f60be)

  27. imdw,

    I also linked the Politico article in comment 13.

    As I said above, you may be right. This may be about the staffers’ choices rather than the applicability of mandates, but the quotes are all over the place.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  28. Comment by DRJ — 3/23/2010 @ 8:47 pm

    In a back-handed way I actually admire the British who are honest enough to admit that their health care system is based upon rationing. This is exactly the sort of thing that Obama and his minions worked their tails off to obfuscate, but we all know that rationing — and choosing who gets terminal care and who gets the plug pulled — is at the heart of any government-run health system.

    JVW (a7ac57)

  29. imdw – How long do you think it will be before the government mandates offering euthanasia options under ObamaCare?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  30. Well, I’m not sure, but they may not be exempt even if the law says they are. If they are insured under normal government insurance, and if it hasn’t changed since I was a Bureau of Reclamation Employee 30 years ago, the insurance is not through the government, but private companies. I’m in Utah but my health package was from Rock Island a company on the east coast. If the health care bill does what I think it will do, it will drive private insurance out. If they don’t have private company policies they can buy from, they may get stuck with whats left that was dictated by their law. People who have knowledge of current government health packages can comment. I’d like to know if things have changed much and if my scenario is a possibility.

    Jeff (0204be)

  31. you say guess who but then you put the answer right in the post … and bold it.

    It’s just not very challenging like that.

    happyfeet (71f6cb)

  32. Way off-topic, but I would really like a M2 Browning .50 cal.

    JD (dda3fa)

  33. “This may be about the staffers’ choices rather than the applicability of mandates, but the quotes are all over the place.”

    There’s really not much “may” about it. This is about a specific provision that says the govenrment cannot offer congressmen and staffs anything other than what is under the act, and this may leave out some staff from this definition.

    Separate from this is the “individual mandate” that is the subject of litigation and is not very popular. None of these people, members of congress, or their staff, are exempt from that.

    the issue is about whether some staff are covered under an additional limitation, above and beyond the “individual mandate.”

    imdw (8222e7)

  34. I added that in an Update, imdw, and credited you.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  35. Of course there will be “death panels.” We can call them other things. We can call them “happy people panels,” or “sorry, there’s no hope panels,” or “imdw’s super-duper everything’s OK panels.”

    There are death panels now. Anyone who has experienced a potentially terminal disease, either personally or as a concerned bystander, knows this. Oncologists have their boards, as do thoracic surgeons, et al. They may indeed be influenced by their hospital boards as well as insurance companies. But they are a known entity.

    As the new federal bureaucracy is crafted, it may well consist of doctors who will weigh the treatment options and severity of the disease and make a reasoned decision.

    However, that would be a rather expensive bureaucracy that is extremely unlikely, especially considering our nation’s long history of special interests and graft influencing such an assembly.

    Nonetheless, bureaucracy cannot exist without people making decisions based on paper work to assess need and disbursement. There will indeed be people making life and death decisions on how to spend federal money for care.

    Unfortunately, we have a long, tried-and-true, tested history of bureaucracies that has been making such decisions for a long time. And the best that can be said for them is that they mistreat everyone equally, but at least, they are treated equally.

    I can’t be wrong, I read it in the comics just a couple of weeks ago.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  36. Well, heck, I forgot to ask:

    Are Congress and members of the other two branches exempt from the health-care plan?

    That’s the question. The minions can go pound sand as far as I’m concerned.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  37. I vote for DRJ as the fsirest blogger of them all..

    EricPWJohnson (44912d)

  38. The staffers in question are the Committee and Leadership staffers, who consider themselves the superiors to the member office staffers. The Comm. and Leadership staff tend to hand around where office staffers are linked to the fortunes of the members they work for.

    The issue is that they are not limited to purchasing plans from the exchanges – the Congressmen themselves and their office staffs are limited. This really won’t change anything because the FEHB plans they now have to select from will probably all be on the exchanges.

    But by not limiting the Comm and Leadership staffers to the exchange, they can go out into the market and get better, more comprehensive plans if they like.

    But I think the mandate to have coverage will apply to all.

    Still, it was Comm and Leaderhship staffs that drafted the language of the bill, and it was Coburn that raised the issue but he didn’t draft the language they ultimately used — they left themselves a loophole in Coburn’s attempt to close it.

    shipwreckedcrew (c0d6cd)

  39. This puts Congress staffers in the same class as illegal aliens.

    Fitting.

    Patricia (e1047e)

  40. “This puts Congress staffers in the same class as illegal aliens.”

    No.

    “Are Congress and members of the other two branches exempt from the health-care plan?”

    From what part? They’re not exempt from the mandate. As you can imagine, their employer provided health plans are health plans that follow government regulations.

    “Still, it was Comm and Leaderhship staffs that drafted the language of the bill, and it was Coburn that raised the issue but he didn’t draft the language they ultimately used — they left themselves a loophole in Coburn’s attempt to close it.”

    According to the politico article, the staff used Coburn’s language.

    imdw (7c85b9)

  41. imdw, are you paying your dumb donkey taxes to Pat yet or are you just the usual Democrat deadbeat?

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  42. “imdw, are you paying your dumb donkey taxes to Pat yet or are you just the usual Democrat deadbeat?”

    Do I get any tax credits for providing corrections? Or does that just get me another spin of the broken record?

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    imdw (710f68)

  43. I assume that was a rhetorical question. Moron, timby and imadouchebag have been suckling at the taxpayer’s teats since birth, which is why they’re so keen on this bill’s passage. I have a health problem so everyone else pay up.

    Dmac (ca1d8c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0957 secs.