pretty simple, guys. if you believe that a state has the "right" to prohibit same sex marriages, then they also have the right to prohibit interracial marriages. now, you might be ok with that from a philosophical or a personal standpoint; i'd imagine a lot of people around here are.
no worries, Pop. now, if we could just get people on the "news" and certain congresscritters from repeating the falsehood. the law has plenty of flaws without those guys just making stuff up.
I mean, if you think congressional workers should pay 100% out of pocket on their premiums as if they were self-employed (like I do), then that's a perfectly legitimate opinion.
But they are in fact NOT self-employed. They're getting it no better (actually, slightly WORSE) than the average worker who gets insurance through their employer. This idea that they are "exempt" or are receiving "special" subsidies is ludicrous on its face.
Pop, you seem like an alright guy. but you are simply incorrect here. there's no way around it.
"JUST LIKE OTHER EMPLOYERS, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAYS A PORTION OF PREMIUMS OF THE HEALTH PLANS IT OFFERS TO ITS WORKERS. There was concern on Capitol Hill this year, however, that the employer contributions wouldn’t be made to the health exchange plans when members of Congress and their staffs made the switch in January 2014 to their new insurance. The relevant provision in the law didn’t address the federal government’s employer contribution, which is CURRENTLY 72 PERCENT OF PREMIUMS ON AVERAGE. So no employer contribution would be quite a blow to many congressional workers — just as it would be to other workers who get health insurance through their jobs. (WHILE EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS VARY FROM FIRM TO FIRM, THE OVERALL AVERAGE EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION WAS 82 PERCENT FOR SINGLE INSURANCE PLANS AND 71 PERCENT FOR FAMILY PLANS in 2013, according to the latest employer survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.)
But the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the FEHB Program, issued a proposed rule on Aug. 7 saying that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO MAKE THE PREMIUM CONTRIBUTIONS. OPM SAID THE CONTRIBUTION WOULDN’T BE GREATER THAN WHAT IS OFFERED UNDER THE FEHB PROGRAM, AND LAWMAKERS AND THEIR STAFFS WOULDN’T BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE TAX CREDITS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO OTHER AMERICANS BUYING COVERAGE THROUGH THE EXCHANGES."
yeah guys, I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand. congress IS NOT exempt.
congressional members and their staff are employees.
their employer (the federal govt) contributes to their health care plan.
just like my employer did before i started working for myself.
just like my mom's employer does, my dad's, my neighbor's, probably most of you who are employed.
this is not the same as being "exempt". they will be getting their policies through the exchanges - something that the rest of us aren't necessarily required to do.
from the Factcheck link:
the federal government, as the employer, will still be able to make a contribution to health insurance premiums as it currently does. THE CONTRIBUTION WILL BE NO GREATER THAN THAT NOW OFFERED TO MEMBERS AND THEIR STAFFS UNDER THE FEHB PROGRAM, AND MEMBERS AND THEIR STAFFS WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR PREMIUM TAX CREDITS MADE AVAILABLE TO OTHER PERSONS PURCHASING HEALTH INSURANCE THROUGH THE EXCHANGES.
so, if you're still saying "congress is exempt", i'm left to think that you literally do not understand words. which would certainly help explain why so many of our representatives in Congress are morons.
GroveReb- Congress IS NOT exempt.
yeah, i definitely need to familiarize myself w/ the particulars of this delay. but regarding what little i do know/ understand, i think it's some real b.s.
All Comments »
By Chris Davis, Susan Ellis, Toby Sells, and Maya Smith
download this issue
click here to see more »