Patterico's Pontifications

9/22/2013

Ted Cruz on Fox News Sunday; And a Democrat’s Wish that Cruz’s Aide’s Children Die

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:51 pm



For once you have someone who is actually taking a stand, actually trying to do something, and actually taking a risk doing it.

It will be interesting to see if it works.

As for me, I am fed up with doing things to win elections. If we aren’t going to use the power we have to do anything, why have the power at all? The House is the one place we have a majority. If we can’t use that majority to fight to prevent a fundamental transformation of the relationship between the government and the individual, what’s the point?

Before you watch the clip, a little background to understand why Cruz is talking about filibustering the bill to defund ObamaCare that he encouraged House Republicans to pass, and that they did pass on Friday. The long and short of it is this: GOP Senators can’t filibuster a Harry Reid amendment to that bill to add funding for ObamaCare. The only way to prevent funding for ObamaCare to be rammed down our throats, procedurally, is to filibuster this bill. It sounds weird, but procedurally it’s the only option they have.

With that understood, watch the clip:

Cruz is very well spoken here. He’s trying to create a grassroots uprising. After all, people — Democrats and Republicans both — are starting to see how ObamaCare is adversely affecting them. I have heard lower income people who appear to be Democrats talk about how their hours were cut back to 24 hours a week because of ObamaCare. I have seen people I know are Democrats talk about how they are losing their insurance from ObamaCare. This is a disaster, and people are starting to see the reality. Cruz hopes to capitalize on this realization.

As you can see from the clip, some House Republicans are getting annoyed at Cruz for taking a stand, because taking a stand is uncomfortable to them. They’d rather do a one-year delay of ObamaCare, because they are weak and too worried about standing up. They’re mad at Cruz for acknowledging electoral reality in the Senate, and publicly saying that, eventually, it’s going to come back to the House. Well, guess what, Peter King? He’s right. Fundamentally, you guys are going to have to stop getting upset at Cruz for telling the truth. Maybe it means the political heat is on you — but the House is where we have the majority, and that’s where the heat is going to be.

By offering to filibuster a bill using the only mechanism available, Cruz is sticking his neck out as far as possible — without lying and pretending as though a Senate win is likely.

SOMEWHAT RELATED POINT: A fella named Allan Brauer had some fun the other day telling Cruz aide Amanda Carpenter that he hoped her children would die because of Cruz’s opposition to ObamaCare:

But Allan Brauer, communications chair of the Democratic Party of Sacramento County, took his criticism to another level, writing a shocking threat aimed at [Cruz aid Amanda Carpenter’s] two children.

“May your children all die from debilitating, painful and incurable diseases,” he tweeted from his account, which he says does not represent the view of the organization he works for.

His comment sparked outrage, but he continued to defend his stance in the hours after posting the message, complaining that he was “being attacked on Twitter for wishing one of Ted Cruz’s pubic lice to experience the pain her boss is inflicting on Americans.”

Nice.

This is the type of “argument” we are used to seeing from Brett Kimberlin supporters — like Neal Rauhauser, who wished for Dick Cheney to be shot and Republicans hung in the streets; or Bill Schmalfeldt, who fantasized about the murder of myself and Ken White; or Matt Osborne, who wrote a lengthy and detailed fantasy about the torture of Rush Limbaugh; or Occupy Rebellion, who routinely told enemies that their wives should be raped and their children harmed. (I discovered Osborne’s torture fantasy post today; read it yourself to see just how demented this man is.) Each of these people uses their opponents’ political positions as an excuse to go around suggesting that it would be appropriate for various atrocities to happen to these opponents and their families. I have been on the other side of many of these inappropriate suggestions, with my livelihood and my family the subject of creepy suggestions. I feel Amanda Carpenter’s pain.

But increasingly I see people approve of this type of rhetoric, even when uttered by people with more influence than trolls with fewer than 20 followers.

(This sort of rhetoric probably occurs on both sides, but — perhaps because I am a conservative and read conservative-leaning sites — I see it more from the left. The right is not immune, though, from Internet obsessives who make violent threats, try to destroy people personally, and engage in other immoral behavior that they somehow rationalize to themselves and their readers. But mostly I see it coming from the left.)

It is a disturbing trend to see such rhetoric coming from so-called “respectable” people, as opposed to Internet narcissists and obsessives who sit around the house all day nursing their grudges.

That said, Brauer is an Internet buddy of torture fantasist Matt Osborne, so maybe we shouldn’t be too surprised. And maybe he ain’t all that respectable.

What he is, now, is out of a job. As Ken White explained recently, the First Amendment protects us from government squelching our speech because of our viewpoint — but speech has consequences, and ought to. Maybe Brauer saw his fellow travelers like Osborne and Rauhauser engaging in such rhetoric and getting away with it, but forgot that, unlike them, he had an actual life and something to lose.

To bring this full circle, Ted Cruz has a lot to lose with this gambit, but if it works, we all have a lot to gain. I wish Cruz luck, and I applaud his remarkable political courage.

It’s truly nice to see someone with actual principles in politics, isn’t it?

189 Responses to “Ted Cruz on Fox News Sunday; And a Democrat’s Wish that Cruz’s Aide’s Children Die”

  1. Ding.

    By the way I am still slammed at work; hence the slow blogging pace.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. Of course the media, the left and the GOP establishment are trying to make Cruz out as some sort of buffoon.

    The problem, though, is his bona fide credentials far outweigh the the President’s unless you want to include the Nobel Peace Prize — that he shares with Yassar Arafat.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  3. As for me, I am fed up with doing things to win elections.” — I remember lots of heated rhetoric on this point oh boy and some name calling too.

    Bottom line is the position the “middle” takes in this country are defined by the the “extremes.”

    Bu making the argument constantly, without remorse, with as much logic as possible, and never ceding an inch to the other side does one begin to redefine the terms upon which 51% of the populace agrees more often with your side than the other.

    Fact is the Left has done so for 100 years since Wilson and they have changed what it means to be Conservative or Democrat. Think about it, even the most liberal Democrat of 1917 is a lunatic right winger today. And they never give up an issue. Never. No matter what the electorate says — they just tee it up again and again and again until they bake their will into the law and society.

    Conservatives need to commit to a brand which is not Democrat lite but full on conservative with a serious strain of libertarianism. They need to fight every time including taking out people like McCain and Grasserly. So it does requires “purifying the party first” if you are to turn “the slippery slope” from left leaning to right leaning. Conservatives must be obsessive.

    Christian did not convert pagans with compromise but with extreme examples of devotion and a message. Islam the same. Abolitionist were crazy too. Conservatives need to take over the (R) Party and get crazy about their principles and beliefs.

    So, I welcome this mindset and view it as the single only way to get this Country on a path that works. But first, we must eliminate the RINO.

    Rodney King's Spirit (5afc40)

  4. Not sure what Ted Cruz’s risk is. He has 5 years more in office before he is up for re-election. He’s a smart guy with good ideas, but he is serving himself while putting every single Congressman at risk. Twice. Before Cruz faces re-election. Cruz is ‘Tom Hanks’, and this is his ‘Bosom Buddies’ phase.

    TimesDisliker (72cadf)

  5. #4 Silly point if you assume Cruz actually care about his career. This, if it don’t work, is a career limiting move. It is a slap in the face of the GOP Mandarin. It also makes the House GOP look silly even if he is 100% right in what he is doing. But I view it as both sides doing what is right. If Cruz can win then he proves to the Country that it is not only the House that does want Obamacare but also the Senate even if by seemingly contradictory means. You take these two defeats along with polls … you might get some version of repeal.

    Rodney King's Spirit (5afc40)

  6. The Brauer story was interesting. When flamed for saying such awful things about the Cruz staffer (and note that the Left never said a word about him attacking a woman in the way he did), he doubled down, calling her one of Cruz’s “pubic lice.”

    Then he apologized to her, and the Sacramento Dems fired him. I’m glad they did that, and I would like to believe that Team R would do the same thing, if one of their representatives said such a thing.

    I’m a big believer in freedom of expression, but at some point, it becomes a form of aggression. Where to draw the line?

    I believe that part of it, prude that I am, is because we have decided to abandon all sense of ethos and proportion; we confuse honesty with tactlessness, crudity with forthrightness, bullying with strength, partisanship with honor. So here we sit. Calls for civility stated by people who show little.

    Why? I believe it is because many people believe themselves to be “correct” and thus “good” in the cosmic sense that Thomas Sowell wrote about…so if you are disagreed with, your opponents must be the opposite. And one can do terrible things to evil people. I guess that is the twisted ethical gravitational center of such people.

    I have made no friends by arguing that calling opponents mean spirited and nasty names is acid on our culture. Most people disagreed with me here, when I have tried to make that point. Why, I had been called a “hall monitor” and a “wimp” more than once on that topic.

    But the Brauer case (and many, many like it) shows where that thinking goes. You dehumanize or demonize your opponent, then the sky is the limit (or the reverse) so far as attacking them.

    Sigh.

    Anyway, because Brauer was an *official* representative of the DNC in Sacramento, I think his firing is fine. Especially because Twitter (like FaceBook or other social media) truly isn’t private. But I do worry about freedom of expression. At the same time, wishing the death of the children of your opponent is hardly freedom of expression.

    Sorry for the lecture. My prescription for people like Brauer? Democrats and Republicans alike should get themselves some tar, some feathers, and drive people like that out of politics. Shun them, if you can’t run them out of town on a rail. My opinion only.

    Simon Jester (809716)

  7. @Rodney King’s Spirit (5afc40) — 9/22/2013 @ 6:51 pm “But first, we must eliminate the RINO.”

    You do realize that defining, alienating, and “eliminating” the RINO is why Obamacare (and Obama) passed in the first place, right. Right.

    TimesDisliker (72cadf)

  8. I have a friend who says the most vile things about Cruz. I have often wondered if the best solution is to imagine saying such things face to face. If that happened—or if we all thought that way—maybe things would be more civil.

    I strongly approve of politicians working for what they believe. Voters can approve or disapprove.

    And I am deeply worried about the “top Republicans” who sent opposition research to Fox News. What they heck are they doing?

    They are forgetting Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment.

    Simon Jester (809716)

  9. Well lets consider four of the Senators who were replaced in 2008, only Coleman could be considerate
    moderate, this required election fraud, Stevens was no moderate, that took prosecutorial fraud, Talent was a conservative, as was Craig, despite some of his predilictions,

    narciso (3fec35)

  10. —You do realize that defining, alienating, and “eliminating” the RINO is why Obamacare (and Obama) passed in the first place, right. Right.

    Not sure how you can state this. Obamacare was passed without any Republican votes, look it up. And 2010 which was in reaction to Obama care brought resounding Republican victories – many of which were Tea Party not Rino.

    red (ac28a9)

  11. hence the slow blogging pace.

    Doesn’t seem slow to me at all. If anything, there often are so many blog entries on closely related topics, that I lose track of which threads I previously was reading and posting to.

    But mostly I see it coming from the left.

    I don’t think it’s merely coincidental that the ratio of loons from the left who’ve gone on murderous rampages, including the most recent one a few days ago, to the ratio of loons on the right is tilted noticeably towards the left. The epitome of that — and in light of 50 years having passed since 1963 — is the most notorious assassin in modern US history, Communist-sympathizing Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Mark (58ea35)

  12. You do realize that defining, alienating, and “eliminating” the RINO is why Obamacare (and Obama) passed in the first place, right. Right

    I’m not sure I agree with that. We lost because the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency, and that happened primarily because of the electorate’s anti-Bush attitude.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  13. #10 Well said, red.

    felipe (6100bc)

  14. @#10 Comment by red (ac28a9) — 9/22/2013 @ 7:22 pm Not sure how you can state this. Obamacare was passed without any Republican votes, look it up.

    Oh, I assure you I am quite familiar with the votes and the (R) going from 55 Senate seats in 2004 to 39 in September 2009. Look it up.

    How do you think the Dems got 60 votes? A bunch of self-important loudmouth (R)s, who forgot that their vote only counts “1”, tries to tell everybody else that Gay Marriage, Abortion, Prayer in Schools, etc. is a priority. Tries to “shame” everybody else into falling into their agenda. The numbers and results speak for themselves. Keep playing that “RINO” card, and the (R) is going to wind up just as irrelevant as the Libertarians.

    TimesDisliker (72cadf)

  15. What a remarkable commentary.

    Thank you.

    ThOR

    ThOR (130453)

  16. The only way to prevent funding for ObamaCare to be rammed down our throats, procedurally, is to filibuster this bill.

    I always find it interesting when the right refers to something being rammed down it’s throat when it is in fact talking about a bill being passed by majorities (or super majorities in some cases) of both houses of congress and then signed by the sitting president, all of whom of course were elected by majorities of the nation, state or home district as the case may be.

    Really what isn’t being rammed down your throat if you use that criteria?

    Or could it be that this is a phrase you use for any democratic action you just happen to dislike, maybe in an attempt to delegitimize the perfectly legitimate? Nah couldn’t be that.

    Tlaloc (d061fc)

  17. Tlaloc brings the silly.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  18. “I always find it interesting when the right refers to something being rammed down it’s throat when it is in fact talking about a bill being passed by majorities (or super majorities in some cases) of both houses of congress ”

    And I find your fabrications interesting Tladoc.
    Well, no, I don’t.

    SPQR (768505)

  19. And I find your fabrications interesting Tladoc.

    Really? So the bill under discussion won’t be passed by both houses and signed by the president before going into effect?

    What exactly was my fabrication? Or do you use that word to mean facts you don’t like?

    Tlaloc (d061fc)

  20. Tladoc, it wasn’t passed by super-majority in either house. And it only passed in the Senate because of a dishonest parlimentary trick. All while unpopular nationally.

    “Forced down the throat” of America is perfectly valid rhetoric.

    SPQR (768505)

  21. But then I can’t recall you being familiar with any facts.

    SPQR (768505)

  22. Tlaloc is obviously fond of incentives such as the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, Gatoraid and other state specific bribes which got the vote to majority. But no, huh uh, that’s not ramming O-Care down people’s throats in his world.

    elissa (8fed7c)

  23. elissa, all the armtwisting and corrupt deals … to get Democrat votes.

    SPQR (768505)

  24. Tladoc, it wasn’t passed by super-majority in either house. And it only passed in the Senate because of a dishonest parlimentary trick. All while unpopular nationally.

    Au contraire.

    On November 7, the House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act on a 220–215 vote and forwarded it to the Senate for passage.[58]

    On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed by a vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against except one (Jim Bunning (R-KY), not voting).[90

    With Democrats having lost a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate, but having already passed the Senate bill with 60 votes on December 24, the most viable option for the proponents of comprehensive reform was for the House to abandon its own health reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and pass the Senate’s bill,

    House Democrats agreed to pass the Senate bill on condition that it be amended by a subsequent bill.[95] They drafted the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which could be passed via the reconciliation process.[96][100][101] Unlike rules under regular order, as per the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 reconciliation cannot be subject to a filibuster, which requires 60 votes to break, but the process is limited to budget changes; this is why the procedure was never able to be used to pass a comprehensive reform bill in the first place, such as the ACA, due to inherently non-budgetary regulations.[102][103] Whereas the already passed Senate bill could not have been put through reconciliation, most of House Democrats’ demands were budgetary: “these changes — higher subsidy levels, different kinds of taxes to pay for them, nixing the Nebraska Medicaid deal — mainly involve taxes and spending. In other words, they’re exactly the kinds of policies that are well-suited for reconciliation.”[100]

    The House passed the Senate bill with a vote of 219 to 212 on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.[106]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Legislative_history

    So as you can see the bill twice met a 60% vote thresholds in the senate as well as twice meeting 50% thresholds in the house.

    Guess your memory isn’t what you thought it was.

    Tlaloc (d061fc)

  25. Tlaloc is obviously fond of incentives such as the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, Gatoraid and other state specific bribes which got the vote to majority. But no, huh uh, that’s not ramming O-Care down people’s throats in his world.

    It’s a big part of legislating and always has been. Is it noble and great? Nope. But is it the horrible thing you are making it out to be? Not really. It’s a fundamental part of representative democracy- your reps look out for their constituents best interests.

    You do realize the founding fathers legislated exactly the same way, right?

    Tlaloc (d061fc)

  26. ==The House passed the Senate bill with a vote of 219 to 212 on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.]==

    Yes, evidence of a popular bipartisan bill coming to fruition–a convincing,resounding victory for O-Care, right, Tlaloc. LOL

    elissa (8fed7c)

  27. Yes, evidence of a popular bipartisan bill coming to fruition–a convincing,resounding victory for O-Care, right, Tlaloc. LOL

    *shrug*

    As long as you acknowledge the bill was passed by majorities and super majorities of congress and signed by a president in full accord with out traditions of government then we’re good here.

    Or do you continue to maintain in contradiction of all facts that this bill was shoved down your throat?

    Tlaloc (d061fc)

  28. Tladoc, you can’t even read your own quote. The bill was passed in the Senate in January using reconciliation to avoid the 60 vote requirement because they didn’t have 60 votes any longer.

    You are still as stupid as ever. Actually, I am wrong. You are dishonest.
    From your link – the part you omitted like the lying incompetent you are:

    “However, House Democrats were not happy with the content of the Senate bill, and had expected to be able to negotiate changes in a House-Senate Conference before passing a final bill.[95] With that option off the table, as any bill that emerged from Conference that differed from the Senate bill would have to be passed in the Senate over another Republican filibuster; most House Democrats agreed to pass the Senate bill on condition that it be amended by a subsequent bill.[95] They drafted the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which could be passed via the reconciliation process.[96][100][101] Unlike rules under regular order, as per the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 reconciliation cannot be subject to a filibuster, which requires 60 votes to break, but the process is limited to budget changes; this is why the procedure was never able to be used to pass a comprehensive reform bill in the first place, such as the ACA, due to inherently non-budgetary regulations.[102][103] Whereas the already passed Senate bill could not have been put through reconciliation, most of House Democrats’ demands were budgetary: “these changes — higher subsidy levels, different kinds of taxes to pay for them, nixing the Nebraska Medicaid deal — mainly involve taxes and spending. In other words, they’re exactly the kinds of policies that are well-suited for reconciliation.”[100]”

    Just as I said. A parlimentary trick to pass the House changes through the Senate.

    SPQR (768505)

  29. I continue to maintain it was shoved down my throat.

    elissa (8fed7c)

  30. Tladoc, I have just shown you are a lying incompetent … and an incompetent liar.

    SPQR (768505)

  31. Tladoc, you can’t even read your own quote. The bill was passed in the Senate in January using reconciliation to avoid the 60 vote requirement because they didn’t have 60 votes any longer.

    The amendment was passed using reconcilliation. The actual PPACA was passed previously with 0 votes, you know that thing you claim never happened but actually happened twice.

    You know you could simply acknowledge your mistake instead petulantly attacking me for your error.

    Tlaloc (d061fc)

  32. “Just as I said. A parlimentary trick to pass the House changes through the Senate.”

    Would you have preferred a bill without the House changes? That passed with 60 votes in the Senate.

    Dhar (701018)

  33. elissa, you would think that after being pantsed before when arguing with me, he would learn…

    SPQR (768505)

  34. I continue to maintain it was shoved down my throat.

    inured to facts and determined to feel wronged no matter what. A pity.

    Tlaloc (d061fc)

  35. Tladoc, you lied and its my fault? Bwahahaaa.

    SPQR (768505)

  36. Dhar, that bill only passed in the House because of the parlimentary trick to induce House Democrats to vote for it as Pelosi had so few votes.

    SPQR (768505)

  37. Tladoc, the bill is stained with the “Cornhusker” payoff and parlimentary trick forever.

    SPQR (768505)

  38. Tladoc, you lied and its my fault? Bwahahaaa.

    A hint, SPQR: everyone can see you were wrong here. You said it never passed with 60 votes. It did. Continuing to deny it aggressively is jut pathetic. You can’t honestly think you will fool anyone. Now granted some posters here may claim to agree with you out of loyalty (conservativism is nothing if not cult-ish) but you know perfectly well that your mistake is obvious, and what’s more your fragile ego is now obvious as well. Instead of just saying “oh yeah I made a mistake” you’ve dug yourself in deeper and deeper by insisting you’re right when the facts say otherwise.

    You can do better than this.

    Tlaloc (d061fc)

  39. Together with dishonest parlimentary tricks, incompetent implementation, insurers abandoning it, the jobkilling … we have Democrat hatespeech:
    http://twitchy.com/2013/09/22/unhinged-ucsf-fundraiser-wishes-death-on-all-obamacare-nonbelievers-nick-searcy-shreds/

    SPQR (768505)

  40. Tladoc, to the contrary, you were the one caught omitting from wkipedia the very text that confirmed my point. Like the incompetent liar you are.

    SPQR (768505)

  41. Here’s something you need to understand about life, Tlaloc. You yourself can love something (Like Obamacare) to pieces. You may think that for you it’s going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. I didn’t, and don’t feel that way. ACA`was based on lies and phony numbers. It passed through corrupted vote by people who had not even read the bill. My health insurance has already changed for the worse expressly due to O-care implementation as I knew that it would. ACA was rammed down my throat. I resent it and I am angry about it. Deal with it.

    elissa (8fed7c)

  42. What, specifically, did the post say might be rammed down our collective throat?

    The original bill or current funding for it?

    Our troll seems to be arguing it’s the former. I have this memory of having argued that it was the latter.

    If only the original text of my post had been saved somewhere, so that it could be referenced. If I had anything to do with the setup of this site, I would have preserved the text of the post right above these comments, so that accessing the original text would be as easy as scrolling up.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  43. Tlaloc?

    Consistent with our system of government, all the Democrats need to do to get funding for ObamaCare is to convince a majority of the Republican dominated House to vote for it.

    (And then get the Senate to vote for it and the President to sign it, and those are a given.)

    That’s how our system works.

    You agree with our system, right?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  44. Does Tlaloc wish to violate our Constitution and take funding decisions (i.e. the control over where such decisions originate) away from the House?

    I cannot imagine he does, for that is our constitutional structure, which is observed by every honorable man.

    And Tlaloc is an honorable man!

    Patterico (9c670f)

  45. Since the IRS is going to be enforcing the debacle of Obamacare, and in light of all its crooked practices in filtering tax applications, the following sentiments in a Gallup opinion poll from 4 months ago are another reason why I have more disgust than ever before for Democrats in this era of their wonderful Obama, of their and his Jeremiah-Wright-ized “goddamn America.”

    gallup.com, May 23, 2013

    Views of IRS Power, 1997 vs. 2013 Gallup Polls

    —————–Democrats—–Independents—–Republicans
    1997
    Given right amount of power…..21%…..23%…..22%
    Given more power than it needs….73%….73%….76%

    2013
    Given right amount of power…..39%…..33%…..20%
    Given more power than it needs…..53%…..61%…..75%

    1997
    Uses powers responsibly…..27%…..26%…..29%
    Frequently abuses its powers….69%….68%….69%

    2013
    Uses powers responsibly…..54%…..32%…..20%
    Frequently abuses its powers….33%….65%….78%

    Since this society already is so dumbed down, it will make perfect sense if more and more Americans begin to attitudinally (ie, emotionally and ideologically) shrug and yawn at the idea of people in general fudging on their taxes. If it’s good enough for the Greeks, it’s good enough for us.

    Another positive thing that can come out of all the ongoing scandals and Banana-Republic-ization of the US in 2013 is if growing numbers of Americans start to take the following not just as tongue-in-cheek but as increasingly fully, totally accurate:

    What People Think Government Workers Do

    Mark (58ea35)

  46. “Dhar, that bill only passed in the House because of the parlimentary trick to induce House Democrats to vote for it as Pelosi had so few votes.”

    So is your problem with the changes, or with the bill that passed with 60 votes?

    “Consistent with our system of government, all the Democrats need to do to get funding for ObamaCare is to convince a majority of the Republican dominated House to vote for it.”

    When the House votes on a CR that funds the ACA, it will pass. It could have been done already.

    Dhar (701018)

  47. I agree with ThOR. Excellent post.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  48. Excellent comments by Patterico, too.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  49. I agree with DRJ.

    nk (875f57)

  50. ==When the House votes on a CR that funds the ACA, it will pass. It could have been done already.==

    Dhar–are you saying you believe there are presently enough votes in the House to pass a bill that includes funding for ACA? That seems not only to fly in the face of conventional wisdom, but seems to contradict the bi-partisan House vote that just defunded O-Care, not to mention all the prior House votes that repealed Obamacare.

    elissa (8fed7c)

  51. Great post.

    Cruz has heart and is thinking about the big picture in a way all these so-called savvy politicos never manage to. But more importantly he is doing an awesome job representing me, his voter.

    Dustin (303dca)

  52. I agree with nk.

    Dustin (303dca)

  53. When the House votes on a CR that funds the ACA, it will pass. It could have been done already.

    @46 Comment by Dhar (701018) — 9/22/2013 @ 9:54 pm

    The House can approve the CR without funding Obamacare — that is part of our Constitution:

    Article. I.
    Section. 7.
    All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

    Since our Supreme Court decided that Obamacare was a tax, the House has the right and duty to vote according to the wishes of their constituents.

    The President and many of his supporters may despise the Constitution and the people’s representatives (some Democrats have wished death on the children of their political opponents), but the fact remains that the House is well within its authority. Had Obamacare passed in a bipartisan manner — and without corrupt maneuvers like the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, Gatoraid, etc, and without exceptions from entities largely supportive of Obamacare(!), and without all the falsehoods given by the President, and with a majority of support by Americans — then Obamacare would be accepted, but it did not. As a result, our Constitution allows the House to defund it if they see fit to do so. An honest person would note that the American people have overwhelmingly rejected Obamacare and therefore the House is rightfully doing its Constitutional duty.

    This is not even to mention the fact that what was passed by Congress has since been repealed and rewritten by the President, which is not in accordance with the Constitution at all.

    For our Country and our Constitution, Godspeed, Mr. Ted Cruz.

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  54. As I understand it, Cruz is not proposing to filibuster the House resolution; voting against cloture is not the same thing as a filibuster, and it’s a mistake to conflate the two. Voting against cloture is often a means of sustaining a filibuster, but it isn’t itself one. It merely keeps the usual rules in play, including the potential for a filibuster, the ability to threaten one if need be. And what he’d like to be able to filibuster, if necessary, is not the House resolution but the amendment Reid will make to it as soon as he has cloture. If there’s no amendment there will be no filibuster.

    Milhouse (82b1e0)

  55. Some of us are agreeable tonight.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  56. SPQR, trying to delineate, on the Left, between stupid and dishonest reminds me of a nonsense joke that was popular(?) back in my college days:

    What’s the difference between a duck?
    Nothing, one leg’s the same!

    askeptic (2bb434)

  57. If Cruz can get just 1% more of the public to understand the sleight of hand that the Senate plays with amendments after, it will have been worth the effort. How exactly did the ACA “originate”, BTW? Hmm? Hmm? Does anyone remember?

    nk (875f57)

  58. *after cloture*

    nk (875f57)

  59. Laudable post Rico. You have a fine way of rendering the intrigues of law and politics with clarity.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  60. Tlaloc is Dimwit, yes?

    Icy (e8ca44)

  61. There are a number of ways the ACA can be seen by some as having been rammed down their throats.
    Even Congress complained that the bill was boning its staff

    Of course there are smart resourceful people out there who realized they were going to get stuck with the bill, so thev adapted. Corporations, unions, guilds asked for, and received exemptions and waivers from the upcoming ramming.
    Businesses that did not receive exemptions or waivers realized that in order to remain financially viable they had to cut hours for employees… who likely feel drilled.

    This all leaves an ever smaller pool of net positive payers to fund the ACA.

    Another stick in the craw is the compliance paperwork. This will create jobs that don’t produce anything and just add to overhead. Small businesses are confused by a poorly drafted, confusing law that contains numerous internal contradictions.

    Last but not least is the uncertainty of costs going forward. Smart money is betting that the rates of this ACA “tax” will need to rise dramatically in order to cover payouts and inexorable bloat in the governmental administration of the program… and that doesn’t include theft (preventative care… whatever that defines out as, seems like a ripe lowhanging fruit for thieves) nor does it includes diversion of funds to things redefined as “healthcare” like bike lanes, studies about spa treatments, climate change etc.

    Good doctors with big solid private practices are moving out of networks and going to cash or credit card so they can pay off their medical school bills and make some money while they still can.
    My orthopedic surgeon and my dermatologist are planning for it and I *ahem* know a psychiatrist who does 15 minute appointments a $175 and takes only green cash… (the hit is softened by an enormous and impressive stash of free samples) or so I’ve heard….

    steveg (794291)

  62. The left so hates the good people on this earth, perhaps it’s time to end their fun and games.
    Cruz\West 2016

    mg (31009b)

  63. Unfortunately, he is not out of a job. He merely lost a volunteer position with the ‘rat party.

    His boss at his communication firm day job thinks we’re “irrational” for thinking there should be consequences for death threats and vile sexual slurs directed at his political opponents. She’s a proud prog.

    ChicagoRefugee (e6639b)

  64. …fight every time including taking out people like McCain and Grasserly.

    Huh? McCain I understand, but Grassley? Are you sure you don’t mean McCain’s little friend Graham whose term is up in ’14? Grassley is a decent guy, has an A from Numbers USA, and is likely on his last term anyway.

    Democrat Iowa Senator Harkin is retiring in ’14 and I’m really liking Sam Clovis to replace him. He’s a former military officer and history professor. A leader, not a beltway politician.

    ChicagoRefugee (e6639b)

  65. “That seems not only to fly in the face of conventional wisdom, but seems to contradict the bi-partisan House vote that just defunded O-Care, not to mention all the prior House votes that repealed Obamacare.”

    Until quite recently conventional wisdom was that the Leadership would let the House vote on just that. The reason people got upset about that is because it would have passed. Eventually they will vote to open the government and fund the ACA. The only question is whether they will be so cowed as to also end sequestration.

    “The House can approve the CR without funding Obamacare — that is part of our Constitution:”

    No doubt. But the question is what they will do when something is put before them.

    “As I understand it, Cruz is not proposing to filibuster the House resolution; voting against cloture is not the same thing as a filibuster, and it’s a mistake to conflate the two. ”

    Nobody really ‘filibusters’ anymore, but instead cloture is used to set the 60 vote requirement. Although the government shutting down because Cruz wants to talk against the House bill would be quite a spectacle. One that would resolve this crisis mighty quick.

    Dhar (701018)

  66. Tlalalala’s asshattery continues apace.

    JD (5c1832)

  67. Dhar – on what planet is there a majority in the House that approves of funding the unaffordable ObamaCare act ?

    JD (5c1832)

  68. Put it up for a vote and you’ll see. The leadership was about to do just that and there was a rebellion. Did you notice that?

    Dhar (701018)

  69. Dhar-what is your primary source of news? A friend’s facebook page? With respect, you might want to broaden your range of information because you are giving the impression that you are not well informed on this topic or politics in general. Did you even read Patterico’s excellent post before you jumped in? Are you aware that ACA is very unpopular out in the real America and that congresspeople and senators of both parties have been getting an earful and many are looking for ways to safely distance themselves from it?

    elissa (8fed7c)

  70. No, Elissa. The Dhar’s and tllalalalala’s of the world don’t often venture outside their little bubble.

    JD (03db5b)

  71. Democrats wish death on a lot of children. This is one of their less endearing attributes.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  72. I think Dhar is confusing the ObamaCare vote with reports the Republican leadership in the House was willing to allow a stand-alone vote on the debt ceiling.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  73. Good comment, steveg.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  74. As regulars here know, I despise wikipedia. But I used Tladoc’s own link to show how my point was present in his own ‘source’ and he was too dishonest to copy it out.

    SPQR (768505)

  75. Although the government shutting down because Cruz wants to talk against the House bill would be quite a spectacle.

    And that’s an outright lie. Cruz does not want to talk against the House bill, and is not threatening to do so in any way. Cruz wants to talk against Reid’s amendment to the House bill, that will add 0bamacare funding to it — and so he should. That amendment deserves to be filibustered, and so cloture on the bill must be defeated, because it would apply to all amendments as well.

    Defeating cloture is not a filibuster. It’s not even a modern-day “filibuster”. It’s merely a means to keep the filibuster on the table. It’s like the difference between defending yourself from a mugger, and carrying a gun so you can defend yourself if and when you need to.

    Milhouse (0ea53d)

  76. No doubt. But the question is what they will do when something is put before them.

    @65 Comment by Dhar (701018) — 9/23/2013 @ 4:29 am

    No doubt, which is why we call this an experiment in self-government, to include all of its checks-and-balances.

    When a putrid law is crafted by pure partisanship, overt corruption, excepted classes, ample falsehoods, and without popular support — the question is what they will do to correct it when it is put before them. We may find that if they do not get it right, our little experiment is in jeopardy of terminating.

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  77. Put it up for a vote and you’ll see. The leadership was about to do just that and there was a rebellion. Did you notice that?

    @68 Comment by Dhar (701018) — 9/23/2013 @ 4:48 am

    The House has passed 40 acts to eliminate Obamacare. Did you notice that?

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  78. SPQR @39, the left is giving the GOP all the ammo it needs to kill Obamacare.

    This Stephanie Handler at UCSF, as well as this Allan Brauer character, are tell Americans exactly how health care will be rationed once government is in charge. It will be denied to their enemies. Just like the IRS denied tax exempt status to their enemies to cripple them politically.

    It’s important to note that Obama didn’t need to expressly tell the IRS to do that. Because the bureaucrats at the IRS didn’t need to be told. They think of anyone who wants to shrink government as their own enemies, not just Obama. And Obamacare means more IRS employees, more power for the agency, and more dues paying government employee union members. Who will in turn lobby the government for more government.

    The IRS didn’t need to be told who to target by Obama, because the TEA Party threatens their own places at the public trough.

    The bureaucrats who administer Obamacare will act precisely the same way. It should be noted that this Handler b**** is an employee of UCSF. That is a public university, so she works for the state. Ironically at a public university devoted entirely to health sciences.

    This person who wishes to deny people she disapproves of politically is exactly the kind of person you will find throughout DHS, and public health agencies across the country.

    I recall that when David Vitter was among the Republicans fighting the special carve-out from Obamacare for Congress and their staffers, the Dems in the Senate introduced a motion to deny the carve-out to anyone reasonably suspected of sex with a prostitute.

    Whatever one thinks of Vitter, that motion illustrated exactly how the left intends to use Obamacare. As a club to force compliance with whatever happens to be their issue of the day.

    It also shows exactly why Obama and his minions want to gather blackmail-quality intimate personal details about every individual, unrelated to providing health care, on a federal database. We all know how that will be used, too.

    I honestly don’t see why the GOP isn’t highlighting the vengeful, malicious nature of this law and its proponents.

    Steve57 (a256f0)

  79. “The House has passed 40 acts to eliminate Obamacare. Did you notice that?”

    Yup. And they’ll pass a CR that funds the ACA.

    “Cruz wants to talk against Reid’s amendment to the House bill, that will add 0bamacare funding to it — and so he should. ”

    This isn’t the way that it works my friend. I’d be surprised if he even has 41 votes for his tantrum.

    “Dhar-what is your primary source of news? A friend’s facebook page? With respect, you might want to broaden your range of information because you are giving the impression that you are not well informed on this topic or politics in general.”

    Pick your source. The more right wing the better. If it’s praising Cruz or the tea party for not letting Boehner cave, then it’s recognizing that if Boehner let the House vote on a CR that funds the ACA, then that CR would pass the house.

    Dhar (701018)

  80. “I recall that when David Vitter was among the Republicans fighting the special carve-out from Obamacare for Congress and their staffers, the Dems in the Senate introduced a motion to deny the carve-out to anyone reasonably suspected of sex with a prostitute.”

    There’s no carve out, they get the exchange rather than federal employee plans. Vitter got himself into a hole where the one upmanship in hate for the ACA led him to think the only way to be cool was to cut salaries for staffers. Sad.

    Dhar (701018)

  81. Dhar is kind of slow.

    This isn’t the way that it works my friend.

    You aren’t friends with them, and it absolutely is the way it works. If he does not have the votes, then cloture will be invoked. You trolls just make things up as you go.

    Oh, I missed the rule that says he needs Dhar’s approval and 41 votes in order to oppose the Dems funding something te American public does not want.

    I propose a rule, referring to ObamaCare as the ACA should mark someone as a liar.

    JD (5c1832)

  82. Bbbbbut David Vitter!!!

    elissa (8fed7c)

  83. Now Dhar is lying about the dishonest “waiver” for congressional staffers, etc. flat out lying.

    JD (5c1832)

  84. Which iteration is he JD, they are all pretty maudlin,

    narciso (3fec35)

  85. “Oh, I missed the rule that says he needs Dhar’s approval and 41 votes in order to oppose the Dems funding something te American public does not want. ”

    Well he does need 41 votes to block cloture….

    I suppose folks thought the polls were “skewed” and then were surprised on election day. Remember that feeling? It will happen again.

    Dhar (701018)

  86. “Vitter got himself into a hole where the one upmanship in hate for the ACA led him to think the only way to be cool was to cut salaries for staffers. Sad.”

    Dhar – Too bad that’s a complete misrepresentation of the situation. Lawyers determined that congressional staffers would have to pay for the miracle of Obamacare out of their own pocket. Without an increase in salaries, that would reduce take home pay, just like the rest of America is experiencing. Since Congressional staff are all special snowflakes, unlike ordinary Americans, that could not be allowed to happen, they were made whole for the insurance subsidies they were potentially losing, again, unlike the rest of America. Special deal for special folks!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  87. Dhar – you are kind of slow. I mean really slow, like frozen molasses flowing uphill slow. I have no reason to believe Cruz has the votes, never claimed to believe that. I was simply responding to your gibberish and nonsense. I should have known better.

    JD (5c1832)

  88. According to Politico, Sen. Vitter wants no subsidies for lawmakers or staffers. So do you support this excellent idea, Dhar?

    A testy debate over whether lawmakers and Capitol Hill staff should receive federal subsidies for their health insurance under Obamacare is coming right back to the Senate.
    Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) plans to file an amendment to House-passed spending bill now under consideration by the Senate that would require lawmakers, the president and administration appointees no longer receive those subsidies.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/david-vitter-subsidies-obamacare-97240.html#ixzz2fl5CGiwc

    elissa (8fed7c)

  89. I suppose I should have asked if you know the difference between a salary and a subsidy, Dhar.

    elissa (8fed7c)

  90. Elissa – it is just spitting out crap it skimmed over at think regress and media nutterz.

    JD (5c1832)

  91. Yup. And they’ll pass a CR that funds the ACA.

    @79 Comment by Dhar (701018) — 9/23/2013 @ 4:58 pm

    That may likely happen or it may not happen, but does not change your initial falsehood @68.

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  92. “Vitter wants no subsidies for lawmakers or staffers. So do you support this excellent idea, Dhar? ”

    Sounds like a bad idea. I see no reason why all those House staffers (most are GOP, you know) should have their benefits cut. But then again, maybe you think they shouldn’t have staff at all?

    “Lawyers determined that congressional staffers would have to pay for the miracle of Obamacare out of their own pocket”

    That’s not what the law says… But Vitter does want to change it.

    Dhar (701018)

  93. ==I see no reason why all those House staffers (most are GOP, you know) should have their benefits cut.==

    Benefits cut? We’re not talking about benefits. We’re talking about our tax dollars being used to subsidize Obamacare premiums for a group of “elite” people who are already making substantial salaries on our dime. I don’t care what party they belong to. Your willful dishonesty makes you unworthy of further attention here.

    elissa (8fed7c)

  94. “Benefits cut? We’re not talking about benefits. We’re talking about our tax dollars being used to subsidize Obamacare premiums for a group of “elite” people who are already making substantial salaries on our dime. ”

    You know they had employer contributions to their health plans right? That continues unchanged.

    Dhar (701018)

  95. Not very many Americans have employer contributions to their health insurance premiums these days, Dhar.

    But you go ahead and continue to advocate for more special perks for the DC elite. Its sooooo Democrat Party of Today.

    SPQR (768505)

  96. Sounds like a bad idea. I see no reason why all those House staffers (most are GOP, you know) should have their benefits cut.

    @92 Comment by Dhar (701018) — 9/23/2013 @ 6:08 pm

    You know, it is interesting that you think “most are GOP…” has anything to do with right or wrong. Regardless of party, if something is wrong, then it is wrong.

    But then again, maybe you think they shouldn’t have staff at all?

    Even more interesting is that no one has even suggested that — except you. The logic of the discussion was that the law for one ought to be the law for all, which you have disagreed with. Even if you cannot logically defend your position, there is no need to make up arguments against statements that nobody but you has made. That is intellectually dishonest.

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  97. Like so many, I think Obamacare is designed to fail in order to create an opportunity for a truly socialist health care system. With such an apparatus, the Democrats can wield far greater power over their opponents and their families, as already hinted at by Democratic party members. I think the true goal is not just single-payer, but single-party too.

    Then — hanging in there against all odds, shouldn’t have a chance in Hades of succeeding — there is that pesky Congress that gets in the way, no wonder the President so despises it so.

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  98. “Not very many Americans have employer contributions to their health insurance premiums these days, Dhar.”

    But congressional staffers do, and so do the employers that compete with them. It’s actually not that high paying of a job, compared to what they could get on the private sector. But taking away the employer contribution would be a big hit.

    “The logic of the discussion was that the law for one ought to be the law for all, which you have disagreed with”

    I don’t see the logic in doing away with employee health benefits for congressional staffers, no. I do see the logic of them having to get plans that are on the exchange. And that they got.

    Dhar (701018)

  99. But congressional staffers do, and so do the employers that compete with them. It’s actually not that high paying of a job, compared to what they could get on the private sector. But taking away the employer contribution would be a big hit.

    Let them go to the private sector, then. They’re replaceable by the busload.

    nk (875f57)

  100. Dhar is aggressively dishonest. Or aggressively stupid. Or both.

    JD (c17d22)

  101. Will Congress heed the warning on their Obamacare exemptions? Per the Weekly Standard:

    The poll data is clear and cuts across party lines: 92 percent of the public does not think it is right that Congress and their staff are letting the Obama administration exempt them from the costs of Obamacare.

    Dhar hardest hit.

    elissa (8fed7c)

  102. ““Lawyers determined that congressional staffers would have to pay for the miracle of Obamacare out of their own pocket”

    That’s not what the law says… But Vitter does want to change it.”

    Dhar – Gee, what does the law say that caused the Senate to threaten personal retribution against Se. Vitter for suggesting that congressional staffers not get waivers from the effects of Obamacare? Please enlighten us.

    Also, since President Obama keeps assuring us these are affordable policies, how could this be a meaningful number for congressional staffers? It’s not like they’re ordinary American wage slaves or anything and their salaries are not being cut as you wrongly suggested.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  103. Elissa – it is a noxious “waiver” where Teh One, once again, ignores the law to give a special privilege to one of his constituent classes.

    JD (5c1832)

  104. I suppose folks thought the polls were “skewed” and then were surprised on election day. Remember that feeling? It will happen again.

    Yep. Sort of like the feeling the following people, per below, are having or will be having.

    I bet a good percentage of such folks are either staunch Democrats/liberals (eg, college employees or devout unionists) or wavering, squishy independents (ie, psuedo-centrists). They’re sort of like the good people of, for example, the city of Detroit. People stuck on stupid.

    On most days following an election such folks may feel satisfied and relieved about their ideology. Good for them. But good for me too, because I don’t have to shed even a small tear for such people’s overall plight in life. And why should I when they are their own worst enemy. So while they’ll win the battle, they’ll also lose the war.

    C’est la vie, baby.

    cnbc.com, Augugst 14, 2013:

    Employers around the country, from fast-food franchises to colleges, have told NBC News that they will be cutting workers’ hours below 30 a week because they can’t afford to offer the health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

    “To tell somebody that you’ve got to decrease their hours because of a law passed in Washington is very frustrating to me,” said Loren Goodridge, who owns 21 Subway franchises, including a restaurant in Kennebunk. “I know the impact I’m having on some of my employees.”

    Luke Perfect, who has worked at Goodridge’s Kennebunk Subway for more than a decade, said it was “horrible” to learn he was among the employees whose hours would be limited, and that it would be a financial hardship. “I’m barely scraping by with overtime,” he said.

    The White House dismisses such examples as “anecdotal.” …But the president of an influential union that supports Obamacare said the White House is wrong.

    “It IS happening,” insisted Joseph Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which has 1.2 million members. “Wait a year. You’ll see tremendous impact as workers have their hours reduced and their incomes reduced. The facts are already starting to show up. Their statistics, I think, are a little behind the time.”

    NBC News spoke with almost 20 small businesses and other entities from Maine to California, and almost all said that because of the new law they’d be cutting back hours for some employees – an unintended consequence of the new law.

    At St. Petersburg College, a public university in Florida where most of the faculty is part-time, 250 have had their hours reduced for the fall term because the college said it can’t afford to offer them health insurance.

    Part-time math professor Tracey Sullivan said she will lose half her income because of the cuts.

    “I never thought it would impact me directly,” said Sullivan. “I was stunned when I got the email…I love teaching at St. Pete College but that is a significant cut.”

    Mark (58ea35)

  105. A few years ago, a business client of mine said to me that in three decades of business, he never before had a president who hated him.

    SPQR (768505)

  106. I don’t see the logic in doing away with employee health benefits for congressional staffers, no. I do see the logic of them having to get plans that are on the exchange. And that they got.

    @98 Comment by Dhar (701018) — 9/23/2013 @ 7:31 pm

    Nobody does, which is why nobody argued that, except you. That you now pretend that someone here is suggesting that congressional staffers be stripped of any health care benefits is an empirical example of your dishonesty.

    You have failed to defend the notion that congressional staffers should be exempt from Obamacare costs, unlike American citizens who will have no such exemptions. Upon that failure, you then created the idea that someone here is arguing that congressional staffers should have no health care benefits, which is a falsehood.

    Not that I blame you; Obamacare is such an immoral and irrational “train wreck” — falsehoods is all a supporter of Obamacare has to defend it.

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  107. SPQR — ya know, I feel the exact same way.

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  108. 94. …You know they had employer contributions to their health plans right? That continues unchanged.

    Comment by Dhar (701018) — 9/23/2013 @ 6:41 pm

    You do realize that’s illegal per section 1512 of Obamacare.

    (3) if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Exchange, the employee will lose the employer contribution (if any)…

    So Congressional staffers will keep the employer contribution when they purchase health insurance on the exchanges. Something that’s illegal for all other Americans.

    You did know that, right?

    Of course you did; that’s the essence of lying.

    Essentially this is a special taxpayer subsidy just for Congress, being paid for by taxpayers who don’t qualify for a subsidy themselves.

    Steve57 (a256f0)

  109. Allan Brauer got a little confused. He didn’t give the right curse (according to his opinion)

    It should have been:

    “May your children all die from debilitating, painful and curable diseases, except that you won’t be able to afford the cure”

    (Because, in his mind, Amanda Carpenter was helping prevent people from seeing doctors. If a disease was incurable, it wouldn’t help to see doctors, and what kind of karma would there be with that?)

    Except, of course, Allan Brauer is an idiot. (and really stuvk on self-righteousness)

    Not only is he all wrong, he can’t even think straight. The karma would come from a curable disease, or one that could have been curable, but for avoiding doctors to save money, or something, not an incurable one.

    Sammy Finkelman (8eda0c)

  110. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/23/2013 @ 5:35 pm

    Lawyers determined that congressional staffers would have to pay for the miracle of Obamacare out of their own pocket.

    It slowly began to dawn on people, as the time got near, that that’s what the bill said. The employer contribution disappeared.

    Without an increase in salaries, that would reduce take home pay, just like the rest of America is experiencing. Since Congressional staff are all special snowflakes, unlike ordinary Americans, that could not be allowed to happen, they were made whole for the insurance subsidies they were potentially losing, again, unlike the rest of America.

    Dropping coverage and throwing people onto he exchange is one thing an employer could do. The tax if even one employee of a sufficiently big employer (that’s where cutting employees or hours comes in) received a reduced price on an exchange is less than what insurance would cost.

    Any increase in insurance costs, is, of course a pay cut, not to mention that the insurance may be worse, both in quality and financially.

    Sammy Finkelman (8eda0c)

  111. Comment by Steve57 (a256f0) — 9/23/2013 @ 9:10 pm

    So Congressional staffers will keep the employer contribution when they purchase health insurance on the exchanges. Something that’s illegal for all other Americans.

    Well, no. If an employer does not provide coverage, an employee is eligible to use an exchange.

    What happened here is that the employer (the federal government) is now, thanks to he innovative constitutional lawyer Barack Obama and his legal staff, paying part of the premium, which no other employer can do and have employees use the exchange.

    But using the exchange is bad for the staff. An earlier talking point was to allow all Americans to buy into or use the federal employee plan. None of them want to be affected by it. They want their old plan.

    Now Super-Obama, besides allowing the continued premium support without any special legislation, also let members of Congress decide who was and who was not personal staff, as opposed to committee or leadership staff. Only personal staff are affected by this.

    Sammy Finkelman (8eda0c)

  112. “Any increase in insurance costs, is, of course a pay cut”

    Sammy – Any increase in insurance costs reduces tax home pay. Salaries remained the same, unlike Dhar’s assertion. Cash compensation is unchanged. The employee if they decide to purchase insurance rather than paying a fine winds up with less money to take home if payment for the insurance is taken out of is taken out of a paycheck.

    Don’t mix terminology. Pay has remained the same. The cost of benefits has increased.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  113. @108 Comment by Steve57 (a256f0) — 9/23/2013 @ 9:10 pm

    Wow. Perfectly said.

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  114. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/23/2013 @ 9:52 pm

    Don’t mix terminology. Pay has remained the same. The cost of benefits has increased

    True but a cut in benefits, is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as a pay cut, if the employee is not able or wllinmg to live wthout the benefit. There’s no use and no point in saying it is not a pay cut, or equivalent to one.

    Sammy Finkelman (8eda0c)

  115. Mcconnell care sounds better than obama care.

    mg (31009b)

  116. “True but a cut in benefits, is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as a pay cut, if the employee is not able or wllinmg to live wthout the benefit. There’s no use and no point in saying it is not a pay cut, or equivalent to one.”

    Sammy – So what you are saying is that there was nothing wrong with my original statements, that it is entirely up to the employee whether or not to reduce his/her take home pay by purchasing insurance with his/her unchanged pay and that you are merely quibbling for the sake of quibbling.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  117. Sammy – So what you are saying is that there was nothing wrong with my original statements…

    He does that. If you look at comment #111 he quotes me, then says “Well, no.”

    Following a brief detour into non-sequiturville he proceeds to detail how everything I said before his “well, no,” is in fact correct.

    Steve57 (a256f0)

  118. ” (3) if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Exchange, the employee will lose the employer contribution (if any)…”

    But these words aren’t actually in the ACA. And it’s in section 1312, not 1512. If you read the ACA section you’ll see it’s about their employer provided plans being made available on the exchange. And it also says, “Notwithstanding any other law” so other laws that prohibit this are, well, notwithstanding.

    “So Congressional staffers will keep the employer contribution when they purchase health insurance on the exchanges. Something that’s illegal for all other Americans.”

    The ACA does single out staffers and members for this treatment.

    “Gee, what does the law say that caused the Senate to threaten personal retribution against Se. Vitter for suggesting that congressional staffers not get waivers from the effects of Obamacare?”

    Vitter didn’t want waivers for members and staff. He wanted to cut their compensation.

    Dhar (701018)

  119. Dur is a lousy liar. And contradicts itself. It is rather pathetic.

    JD (5c1832)

  120. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/23/2013 @ 10:58 pm

    Sammy – So what you are saying is that there was nothing wrong with my original statements, that it is entirely up to the employee whether or not to reduce his/her take home pay by purchasing insurance with his/her unchanged pay and that you are merely quibbling for the sake of quibbling

    No, what’s quibbling is arguing this is not (the same thing as) a pay cut.

    It’s really foolish to argue that requiring people to pay for a benefit they are used to getting and want, and may even be legally required to get or need to get as a condition of their job, – doing that without increasing their pay – it’s foolish to argue this is not really a pay cut.

    Sammy Finkelman (8eda0c)

  121. By the way, while pay of staffers can be raised, it might be that letting memebers of Congress back in could be a violation of the 27th amendment, which says:

    No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened/

    The contribution to the health plans of members of Congress might very well be considered compensation, even though it is not taxable, because compensation is more than cash. In 2010 it was scheduled to take effect after two more elections of the House of Representatives. To change this by legislation now, with an effective date any earlier than Wednesday, November 5, 2014, might very well be a violation of the 27th amendment!

    (This idea is not original with me – I read it in a newspaper, I think a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece)

    Sammy Finkelman (8eda0c)

  122. 111. Comment by Steve57 (a256f0) — 9/23/2013 @ 11:12 pm

    If you look at comment #111 he quotes me, then says “Well, no.”

    Following a brief detour into non-sequiturville he proceeds to detail how everything I said before his “well, no,” is in fact correct.

    It could sort of technically correct, but it is really not. The exchange, for all other people, is for people who do not get insurance through their employer, and if the employer contributes tax free money maybe that means they are getting it through their employer. It’s not a benefit for the employee.

    All the exchange does, besides advertising, is offer subsidies (or rather tax credits) to people with estimated annual income below a certain threshhold. If somebody estimates wrong, they could wind up owing a lot of money – and there are even worse outcomes possible. (The IRS won’t place a lien on anything – the money is supposed to come from withholding income tax refunds. The worse outcome is if someone gets enrolled in a managed care plan under Medicaid and then is found ineligible.)

    Sammy Finkelman (8eda0c)

  123. “The contribution to the health plans of members of Congress might very well be considered compensation, even though it is not taxable, because compensation is more than cash.”

    Sammy – Benefits are part of an employee’s compensation package, which typically consists of salary (pay) and benefits. While adjusting one component of the package may adjust its overall size, it is truly quibbling to say that adjusting a benefit affects salary (pay) when that side of the equation remains completely unchanged. Basic math. YMMV.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  124. Sammy–maybe this example will help. As a perk/benefit for a few years I was given free parking by my company in the parking garage adjacent to our building. By this, I mean they bought the coded hangtag that allowed me to enter and park there every day at no cost to me, rather than my having to use the outside lot for which there was never a charge. They subsidized my parking. This was of great value to me especially in Chicago winters. But when the budget cuts hit, the parking benefit was about the first thing to be evaporated. My salary did not change. I had the choice of paying my own way in the garage or of scraping snow off my windshield in the outside lot. For them to have “made me whole” would sort have negated the point of the budget cut savings, no?

    elissa (622f9f)

  125. Dhar beclowns himself again.

    But these words aren’t actually in the ACA. And it’s in section 1312, not 1512.

    Yes, Dhar, those words are actually in the ACA. Section 1512 begins on page 343 of the certified full-text version of the ACA on the HHS site. Sorry for the length, folks, and for the fact I didn’t bother to fix all the stupid breaks they put into pdf documents.

    http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/law/patient-protection.pdf

    SEC. 1512. EMPLOYER REQUIREMENT TO INFORM EMPLOY-
    11
    EES OF COVERAGE OPTIONS.
    12
    The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is amended by
    13
    inserting after section 18A (as added by section 1513) the
    14
    following:
    15
    ‘‘SEC. 18B. NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES.
    16
    ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with regulations
    17
    promulgated by the Secretary, an employer to which this
    18
    Act applies, shall provide to each employee at the time of
    19
    hiring (or with respect to current employees, not later than
    20
    March 1, 2013), written notice—
    21
    ‘‘(1) informing the employee of the existence of
    22
    an Exchange, including a description of the services
    23
    provided by such Exchange, and the manner in which
    24
    344
    HR 3590 EAS/PP
    the employee may contact the Exchange to request as-
    1
    sistance;
    2
    ‘‘(2) if the employer plan’s share of the total al-
    3
    lowed costs of benefits provided under the plan is less
    4
    than 60 percent of such costs, that the employee may
    5
    be eligible for a premium tax credit under section
    6
    36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and a cost
    7
    sharing reduction under section 1402 of the Patient
    8
    Protection and Affordable Care Act if the employee
    9
    purchases a qualified health plan through the Ex-
    10
    change; and
    11
    ‘‘(3) if the employee purchases a qualified health
    12
    plan through the Exchange, the employee will lose the
    13
    employer contribution (if any)
    to any health benefits
    14
    plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion
    15
    of such contribution may be excludable from income
    16
    for Federal income tax purpose

    Any private citizen forced onto the exchange by their employer, or who chooses not to purchase insurance from their employer, loses their employer contribution. In the second instance, the employee is ineligible for government subsidy.

    http://www.opm.gov/news/releases/2013/08/opm-issues-proposed-rule-which-details-how-members-of-congress-and-congressional-staff-will-be-insured-through-the-health-insurance-exchanges/

    Only members of Congress and their staffs keep their employer subsidy. Which pays for 75% of the cost of their coverage. This is a huge boondoggle unavailable to any other Americans. Taxpayers who have to purchase on the exchanges and don’t qualify for a subsidy will not be forced to pay to subsidize the health insurance of a privileged class of Americans who make just as much money or more than they do.

    And even if those Congressional staffers’ incomes did qualify them for a subsidy, the one they get through the FEHB program is much larger.

    So, are you going to stop lying now, Dhar?

    Steve57 (a256f0)

  126. The ACA does single out staffers and members for this treatment.

    One more point about Dhar’s mendacity. The act didn’t single out staffers and members for this treatment.

    Obamacare is treating millions of other Americans in exactly the same way.

    It’s kind of rich that the liberals are demanding the GOP accept Obamacare as the law of the land, while defending carve outs from the law by illegal OPM rule-making.

    The Obamacare act states that regardless of any other provision Congress members and staff must either buy insurance on the exchanges or insurance created by law under the ACA. There is no legal justification whatsoever for OPM to create these rules that provide special benefits for these people out of thin air.

    Steve57 (a256f0)

  127. Here’s how Obamacare is treating millions of Americans.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/23/aca-family-glitch-issues/2804017/

    Congress defined “affordable” as 9.5% or less of an employee’s household income, mostly to make sure people did not leave their workplace plans for subsidized coverage through the exchanges. But the “error” was that it only applies to the employee — and not his or her family. So, if an employer offers a woman affordable insurance, but doesn’t provide it for her family, they cannot get subsidized help through the state health exchanges.

    That can make a huge difference; the Kaiser Family Foundation said an average plan for an individual is about $5,600, but it goes up to $15,700 for families. Most employers help out with those costs, but not all.

    “We saw this two-and-a-half years ago and thought, ‘Has anyone else noticed this?'” said Kosali Simon, a professor of public affairs at Indiana University who specializes in health economics. “Everyone said, ‘No, no. You must be wrong.’ But we weren’t, and that’s going to leave a lot of people out.”

    Actually lots of people noticed this, pace Prof. Simon.

    So, taxpayers who don’t qualify for a subsidy because they don’t spend 9.5% of household income on their employer-provided insurance, and who aren’t eligible for a subsidy on an exchange when forced to buy a separate policy for the rest of their family because they already get an employer contribution, will be subsidizing the health insurance for Congress members and staff no matter how little of a percentage of household income they would spend to get coverage.

    This is indefensible, but that won’t stop Dhar from trying to defend it.

    Steve57 (a256f0)

  128. “And even if those Congressional staffers’ incomes did qualify them for a subsidy, the one they get through the FEHB program is much larger.

    So, are you going to stop lying now, Dhar?”

    Lying what? That’s the point of the ACA section 1312 — they get their employee contribution to buy a plan on the exchange. Taxpayers used to contribute to their healthcare as government employees, and they continue to do so. The point was to force them to experience the plans on the exchange, but not to be a cut in their compensation.

    “Obamacare is treating millions of other Americans in exactly the same way.”

    It singled them out as people who have to get their employee health plan on the exchange, notwithstanding any other law.

    Dhar (701018)

  129. Shorter Dhar: “No, I will not stop lying.”

    There is no provision in that section for Congress members or staffers to keep their employer contribution when buying on the exchanges.

    http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/law/title/i-quality-affordable-health-care.pdf

    Pages 157-158 for those reading along.

    (D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.
    (i) REQUIREMENT. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are:
    (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
    (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).
    (ii) DEFINITIONS. In this section:
    (I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS. The term “Member of Congress” means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
    (II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF. The term “congressional staff” means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.

    The Obama administration has no legal authority to claim Congress members and staffers can keep their employer contribution. There is no language in 1312 that provides that authority. And 1512 states that when people purchase on the exchange they lose their employer contribution.

    Keep lying Dhar. Keep claiming language that is in the ACA isn’t in the ACA. Keep claiming that language that isn’t in the ACA is in the ACA.

    Your obvious, easily refutable lies very good for people like me who despise Obamcare.

    As an aside, it’s clear you are somehow or another a government parasite.

    Steve57 (b0c53e)

  130. Raise your hand if you are surprised that Dur is after going to defend his demonstrated dishonesty.

    JD (5c1832)

  131. It is remarkable how things like Dur persist in the face of their demonstrated dishonesty. The have their Narrative and will defend it no matter what. Little lies. Big lies. No matter.

    JD (5c1832)

  132. I don’t see anybody raising their hands, JD.

    The fact that this special privilege, no where authorized by law, is indefensible would never in a million years stop Dhar from trying to defend it.

    Which is good. Very good.

    Steve57 (b0c53e)

  133. Two words summarize the administration implementation of Obamacare – incompetent and corrupt.

    SPQR (768505)

  134. I would prefer malicious and incompetent, SPQR.

    This administration is competent at both.

    Steve57 (b0c53e)

  135. “There is no provision in that section for Congress members or staffers to keep their employer contribution when buying on the exchanges.”

    Sure there is. What do you think they are referring to when they talk about plans “that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff” ?

    That means their employee health plans. If it’s just people off on the exchange buying things on their own, then it’s not being “with respect to their service” or “made available” by their employer.

    Dhar (701018)

  136. Great optics there dhar.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  137. Durp is just flailing about. And in the process, is letting some of its rhetorical tics slip out.

    JD (b2da42)

  138. Why should f***ing members of f***ing Congress or their f***ing staves (sic) even be f***ing mentioned. Why shouldn’t they be f***ed without vaseline the way we are getting f***ed without vaseline?

    nk (875f57)

  139. After reading Dhar’s comment @135, I will offer a special prayer tonight thanking God for my enemies.

    Steve57 (b0c53e)

  140. So, Dhar, it’s your plan to stick with obstinate stupidity?

    Steve57 (b0c53e)

  141. Just curious, Dhar. How right were you about this?

    118.

    ” (3) if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Exchange, the employee will lose the employer contribution (if any)…”

    But these words aren’t actually in the ACA. And it’s in section 1312, not 1512. If you read the ACA section you’ll see it’s about their employer provided plans being made available on the exchange. And it also says, “Notwithstanding any other law” so other laws that prohibit this are, well, notwithstanding.

    Comment by Dhar (701018) — 9/24/2013 @ 4:17 am

    Before we move on to your next bout of idiocy.

    Steve57 (b0c53e)

  142. Friends don’t let friends, take ThinkRegress seriously.

    narciso (3fec35)

  143. Of all the crazee, slimy things with respect to the Obamacare roll out and implementation, Derp chooses to wave his baton in support of special privileges and unlawful exemptions for the legislators and staff? Un effen believable.

    elissa (622f9f)

  144. I truly want him to keep it up, elissa. I truly do.

    Steve57 (b0c53e)

  145. “Of all the crazee, slimy things with respect to the Obamacare roll out and implementation, Derp chooses to wave his baton in support of special privileges and unlawful exemptions for the legislators and staff? Un effen believable.”

    You do get that the whole point of this section was not to get them a privilege, but to get their employee plans to be the exchange ones, right? Like, this isn’t some privilege.

    Dhar (701018)

  146. Ok, Dhar, I trust you. You can put just the tip in.

    nk (875f57)

  147. Comment by Steve57 (b0c53e) — 9/24/2013 @ 5:44 pm

    The Obama administration has no legal authority to claim Congress members and staffers can keep their employer contribution. There is no language in 1312 that provides that authority.

    There is no language that takes that away.

    Since members of Congress really shouldn’t be using the exchanges, and use it only because of the words “Notwithstanding any other law” it is at lesast afgabk wfollows that the only things changed by that provion is that the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff are ones offered through an Exchange established under the PPACA, but the contributions should still go forward.

    Sammy Finkelman (8eda0c)

  148. * it is at least arguable

    Sammy Finkelman (8eda0c)

  149. The whole point was that Congress critters and staffers had to confront the the exchanges exactly as other Americans did.

    When Obama directed that OPM issue a special rule that they, and no one else, got to keep their employer contribution he undermined that section.

    You do get that?

    Of course you do. It wouldn’t be a lie on your part if you didn’t know the truth.

    Steve57 (b0c53e)

  150. Yeah Steve57. He’s all about screwing over small business, hourly workers, and middle class families. But mess with the congresscritters and staff’s special perks or subsidies?—Katy bar the door!!

    elissa (622f9f)

  151. Oh, good, Dhar. You apparently have Sammy on your side.

    Steve57 (b0c53e)

  152. 147. …There is no language that takes that away.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (8eda0c) — 9/24/2013 @ 7:34 pm

    Yes, there is.

    Steve57 (b0c53e)

  153. 145. …You do get that the whole point of this section was not to get them a privilege, but to get their employee plans to be the exchange ones, right? Like, this isn’t some privilege.

    Comment by Dhar (701018) — 9/24/2013 @ 7:31 pm

    And to pay for it just like ordinary Americans. You do get that, right?

    Of course you do. That’s the part you have to lie about.

    Steve57 (b0c53e)

  154. Say, who is the congress’s “employer” Dhar? Is it the taxpayers or is it Barack Obama? Why he messin’ with my employees, anyway?

    elissa (622f9f)

  155. “And to pay for it just like ordinary Americans. You do get that, right?”

    The problem is cutting their compensation wasn’t the plan, and the law isn’t written in a way that supports that interpretation. If there’s no employer contribution, then they are not plans that are with respect to their service.

    The plan was to shift them from FEHBP to the exchange, so they would experience the exchange — signing up, being billed, getting the plans and services on the exchange, etc… But none of this means their employer contribution ends.

    Dhar (701018)

  156. “Say, who is the congress’s “employer” Dhar? Is it the taxpayers or is it Barack Obama? Why he messin’ with my employees, anyway?”

    Right now they are on FEHBP.

    Dhar (701018)

  157. It does not cut their compensation.

    Everyone else’s employer contribution ends when they are dumped on the exchanges.

    JD (b2da42)

  158. Iamadimwit is utterly transparent

    JD (b2da42)

  159. Why can you not get it through your thick heard that no one–no. one. but you gives a rat’s ass about congress’s compensation or their health insurance or the “fairness” of keeping them whole under Obamacare? Did you forget that Nancy Pelosi said this was all about the “60,000,000” uninsured souls and the chirren?

    elissa (622f9f)

  160. *thick head* I mean.

    elissa (622f9f)

  161. 157. It does not cut their compensation.

    Everyone else’s employer contribution ends when they are dumped on the exchanges.

    Comment by JD (b2da42) — 9/24/2013 @ 7:52 pm

    If one is holding a minority position in government, one can only pray for this level of weapons grade stupidity.

    Steve57 (b0c53e)

  162. And Obama’s mom and those Bain employees that Romney killed.

    nk (875f57)

  163. Steve – if you use the iamadimwit metric, ObamaCare is cutting the compensation of millions of Americans.

    JD (5c1832)

  164. Yes, them too, nk.

    elissa (622f9f)

  165. And the huge cow pie known as Obamacare will be overseen by the corrupt, malicious and even stinkier IRS.

    Awhile ago some folks were arguing adamantly against a character like Edward Snowden or, more recently, Vladamir Putin. Their points weren’t or aren’t necessarily incorrect or incorrect at all. But pardon me if my sympathies and enthusiasm for their reaction and opinion struggle to rise to the occasion. Then again, perhaps that’s all part of the tricky strategy of Obama: to make even more Americans like me start to give his beloved US-despising Jeremiah Wright some benefit of the doubt.

    Gallup.com, September 13, 2013: Americans’ trust and confidence in the federal government’s ability to handle international problems has reached an all-time low, with 49% saying they have a great deal or a fair amount of confidence, two percentage points below the previous low of 51% recorded in 2007.

    The historical high point on this measure (83%) came in October 2001, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Americans also expressed high levels of confidence in the government on international matters in 1972 and 1974, when the question was first asked, even as the controversial Vietnam War was drawing to a close.

    Americans in the same survey also expressed historically low levels of confidence in the federal government’s ability to handle domestic problems, with 42% reporting a great deal or a fair amount of confidence. This is one point below the previous low of 43% in 2011.

    Democrats are more likely than Republicans and independents to be confident in the federal government’s ability to handle international and domestic problems. Democrats’ confidence on international problems is still relatively strong compared with 2009 levels, but their trust on domestic problems has fallen by 16 points. Confidence has eroded on both measures among independents and Republicans.

    Mark (58ea35)

  166. 155. …But none of this means their employer contribution ends.

    Comment by Dhar (701018) — 9/24/2013 @ 7:49 pm

    It just means exactly that for every citizen who doesn’t work for Congress

    But, please, keep pretending that this isn’t a special privilege.

    Steve57 (b0c53e)

  167. It’s funny how many companies are so thrilled not to be under it, isn’t it;

    http://twitchy.com/2013/09/24/move-over-jesse-jackson-ted-cruz-is-reading-green-eggs-and-ham-on-senate-floor/

    narciso (3fec35)

  168. 155. …The plan was to shift them from FEHBP to the exchange, so they would experience the exchange — signing up, being billed, getting the plans and services on the exchange, etc… But none of this means their employer contribution ends.

    Comment by Dhar (701018) — 9/24/2013 @ 7:49 pm

    156. “Say, who is the congress’s “employer” Dhar? Is it the taxpayers or is it Barack Obama? Why he messin’ with my employees, anyway?”

    Right now they are on FEHBP.

    Comment by Dhar (701018) — 9/24/2013 @ 7:51 pm

    It is my fervent wish never to stand between this guy and a TV camera.

    Steve57 (b0c53e)

  169. Shorter Dhar: “No, I will not stop lying.”

    @129 Comment by Steve57 (b0c53e) — 9/24/2013 @ 5:44 pm

    Coffee all over the keyboard! The entire thread…you just demolished him with facts, citations, and inescapable logic.

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  170. It is my fervent wish never to stand between this guy and a TV camera.

    @168 Comment by Steve57 (b0c53e) — 9/24/2013 @ 9:13 pm

    !

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  171. “Everyone else’s employer contribution ends when they are dumped on the exchanges.”

    But that’s not what the ACA does to members and their staff, it forces their employer plans onto the exchage. There’s a special section to do just that.

    Dhar (701018)

  172. You are nothing if not committed. And dishonest. But we have grown accustomed to that from you, iamadimwit.

    JD (5c1832)

  173. If you go back to the passage of the ACA, you can see the Grassley proposal being described exactly as including the employer contribution. You can also see how nobody discussed it as a significant benefit cut, like some people are now inventing it to be.

    Dhar (701018)

  174. The only people in ending things are you are your fellow travelers, Dhar. Or iamadimwit. Inventing waivers. Granting special privileges to constituent classes. The rules apply to thee, but not me. Sums it up pretty nicely.

    JD (b2da42)

  175. Everyone notices that you just flitted on to your next a as Squirrel after Steve went through and demonstrated exactly how dishonest you are being.

    JD (b2da42)

  176. Dhar, you are lying.

    Their employer plan would be:

    (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)

    Otherwise they are forced onto the exchanges just like every other American whose employer doesn’t offer insurance under Obamacare.

    That means no employer contribution.

    But keep lying, Dhar. Americans need to see what kind of mendacious, entitled parasites work for government.

    Steve57 (b0c53e)

  177. “Their employer plan would be:”

    No their employer plans are the exchange ones.

    “That means no employer contribution.”

    Then how do you explain the “with respect to their service” part of that section? These are plans made available as part of their employment. If there is no employer contribution, then they are not “with respect to their service.”

    Dhar (701018)

  178. I am aghast. The college sophomore liberal arts trolls seem to think that economics is akin to the Kreb’s cycle.

    We are lost.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  179. ==We are lost==

    I agree, Ag80. We have yet a different failed MBA troll over on another thread. I used to fear for my old age. Now I fear for next month.

    elissa (491145)

  180. dhar:

    You do understand that a government-directed health care program is not insurance?

    If that is what you want, so be it, but do not conflate the two.

    And, if government health care is what you want, we are certainly lost.

    Somewhere along the line people have forgotten what are rights and what are privileges.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  181. Correct, Dhar. It is due to their “service” as members or aides to one of the the political branches that they are forced onto the exchanges and don’t get an effin’ employer contribution.

    Because despite your mendacity and faux obtuseness, the whole point the Grassley amendment was to make sure the that they experience Obamacare precisely as those people they would inflict Obamacare upon.

    That means paying for it, just like every other American. Without an employer contribution.

    Other federal employees can keep their plan. But “with respect to their service” as congresscritters and congressional staffers means those individuals can’t.

    If a congresscritter can’t afford it on $172k a year how can anyone else. If congress is going to suffer “brain drain” because staffers are going to leave that puts congress in exactly the same position as companies across America.

    The fact that no one discussed this as a cut in their benefits just means the people inflicting Obamacare on the rest of America are too stupid to figure things out. Because it was meant to be exactly the same cut in benefits as every other American who is forced onto the exchanges will experience.

    But keep lying, Dhar. Seriously, I don’t want you to quit. I want you to be an example.

    Steve57 (b0c53e)

  182. “It is due to their “service” as members or aides to one of the the political branches that they are forced onto the exchanges and don’t get an effin’ employer contribution.”

    No. They’re free to be on their spouse’s plans, for example. So they’re not forced to be on the exchange, they can get health coverage elsewhere so long as it follows the rest of the law, of course. This is a limitation on what can be made available to them as part of their service, meaning employer contribution. If they want an employee plan it is limited to the exchange.

    “Because despite your mendacity and faux obtuseness, the whole point the Grassley amendment was to make sure the that they experience Obamacare precisely as those people they would inflict Obamacare upon.”

    At the time it was described as meaning the employer contributions go on the exchange. Go back and read the coverage of the amendment.

    “The fact that no one discussed this as a cut in their benefits just means the people inflicting Obamacare on the rest of America are too stupid to figure things out.”

    In fact it was the opposite. It was discussed that the employer contribution would continue and be limited to the exchange plans.

    I know you wish it were otherwise, but it just isn’t.

    Dhar (aa0e66)

  183. At the time it was described as meaning the employer contributions go on the exchange. Go back and read the coverage of the amendment.

    You are arguing for something NOT in the Unaffordable Care Act, and something everyone else is ineligible for. But it is not a waiver. Or a special exemption.

    JD (507a70)

  184. Who knew EPWJ wrote for the Daily Beast?

    JD (507a70)

  185. I guess it must be an application of one of the Alinsky Rules, when someone gives a speech, obscure the content by making some controversy about the speaker or some side-issue about the speech.

    It was pointed out that for all of the time he spent speaking, he did not make personal attacks on anyone. Perhaps that was wrong, but I don’t remember hearing anything that was mean-spirited, as these things go.

    OT but similar, I remember seeing that some on the left said that Delay’s charitable work was a front just to get sympathy in the press (and thanks to Google, that came up relatively quick on a search, above the actual topic itself).
    I heard Delay on Bennett yesterday am; when asked what he had learned through his ordeals, he said, “How to pray for my enemies”.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  186. I guess it must be an application of one of the Alinsky Rules, when someone gives a speech, obscure the content by making some controversy about the speaker or some side-issue about the speech.

    Maybe Rule Number 2: Never go outside the expertise of your people. 😉 Obama-voter level of intellect.

    nk (dbc370)

  187. Actually, I take the sarcasm part back. Clearly Rule Number 2, applied properly.

    nk (dbc370)

  188. There really is no expertise, we can count on from Murphy, this is a pattern for her.

    narciso (3fec35)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1653 secs.