I dont think they should get subsidys that a normal person cant get. Especially after they have created this mess we are in.

 

"The rule says for members and any staff who do go to the exchange, they do get to take a big fat taxpayer-funded subsidy with them — a subsidy that's completely unavailable to any other American at that income level going into the exchange," Republican U.S. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana said on the Senate floor in 2013. Vitter had introduced a measure that would have required members of Congress to pay the full cost of their health care.

 

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, however, said offering subsidies would ensure that key, loyal congressional staffers stay in Washington, D.C., instead of leaving the government for more lucrative positions in the private sector.

Health Care Subsidy for Congress - In Obamacare

Non-issue to me. I'm smart enough to know that a health insurance plan is simply another form of pay. It can be expensive to live in DC so if they need to waive it for staffers in order to get high-quality employees I'm cool with that.

 

I don't need the symbolism

Non-issue to me. I'm smart enough to know that a health insurance plan is simply another form of pay. It can be expensive to live in DC so if they need to waive it for staffers in order to get high-quality employees I'm cool with that.

 

I don't need the symbolism

 

This.

Non-issue to me. I'm smart enough to know that a health insurance plan is simply another form of pay. It can be expensive to live in DC so if they need to waive it for staffers in order to get high-quality employees I'm cool with that.

 

I don't need the symbolism

High quality and DC do NOT belong in the same sentence. Symbolism over substance is what the current administration is about.

High quality healthcare benefits almost ALWAYS attract high-quality staff. Especially important in low to middle-income jobs/professions.

No wonder our country is in this shape, NO ONE CARES. Yeah lets just let the rich politicians have better benefits, BY GOSH if they want their staffer to have better insurance then let them friggin pay for it out of their own freaking pocket, not mine. I have a family to take care of and dont enjoy the idea of paying for some PIECE OF CRAP staffer working for the multi millionare Diane Feinstein to get better care than my kid or me. And me having to pay for them to get it.

 

So if you are content with it, then you are WRONG, why are they better than us, why do you feel a factory worker is less than a staffer or RICH POLITICIAN, the average worker/person does more for American than any PIECE OF CRAP politican in DC.

 

Attract better staffers ,hahahahaha, if they dont want that lifestyle then dont go to DC and do that.

No wonder our country is in this shape, NO ONE CARES. Yeah lets just let the rich politicians have better benefits, BY GOSH if they want their staffer to have better insurance then let them friggin pay for it out of their own freaking pocket, not mine. I have a family to take care of and dont enjoy the idea of paying for some PIECE OF CRAP staffer working for the multi millionare Diane Feinstein to get better care than my kid or me. And me having to pay for them to get it.

 

So if you are content with it, then you are WRONG, why are they better than us, why do you feel a factory worker is less than a staffer or RICH POLITICIAN, the average worker/person does more for American than any PIECE OF CRAP politican in DC.

 

Attract better staffers ,hahahahaha, if they dont want that lifestyle then dont go to DC and do that.

 

 

How can I be wrong with an opinion that isn't based on bad data?

 

I think you mean "I disagree."

No wonder our country is in this shape, NO ONE CARES. Yeah lets just let the rich politicians have better benefits, BY GOSH if they want their staffer to have better insurance then let them friggin pay for it out of their own freaking pocket, not mine. I have a family to take care of and dont enjoy the idea of paying for some PIECE OF CRAP staffer working for the multi millionare Diane Feinstein to get better care than my kid or me. And me having to pay for them to get it.

 

So if you are content with it, then you are WRONG, why are they better than us, why do you feel a factory worker is less than a staffer or RICH POLITICIAN, the average worker/person does more for American than any PIECE OF CRAP politican in DC.

 

Attract better staffers ,hahahahaha, if they dont want that lifestyle then dont go to DC and do that.

 

 

You do realize that if the employee has enough value to a company (say the factory worker you referenced) then the employer will provide health insurance as a benefit which means the employee will NOT have to use the govt plan? You get that , right?

You do realize that if the employee has enough value to a company (say the factory worker you referenced) then the employer will provide health insurance as a benefit which means the employee will NOT have to use the govt plan? You get that , right?

Yes I know that about the factory worker.

 

So if the staffer is so important then let the politician pay for them, NOT ME OR YOU

 

Once again politicans thinking they are better than avg person

High quality healthcare benefits almost ALWAYS attract high-quality staff. Especially important in low to middle-income jobs/professions.

As I said, very little "high quality" anything in DC. Sorry, but those turds can fend for themselves.

Non-issue to me. I'm smart enough to know that a health insurance plan is simply another form of pay. It can be expensive to live in DC so if they need to waive it for staffers in order to get high-quality employees I'm cool with that.

 

I don't need the symbolism

 

I don't disagree. It's obvious better benefits and pay attract higher quality employees. My problem in this case is that the politicans are forcing a product onto the American people that they do no have to feel the negative impact from. Just doesn't sit well with me.

Non-issue to me. I'm smart enough to know that a health insurance plan is simply another form of pay. It can be expensive to live in DC so if they need to waive it for staffers in order to get high-quality employees I'm cool with that.

 

I don't need the symbolism

 

I dont want symbolism either, I want fairness. fairness is these rich old politicians having the same crap plan as anyone else, especially since they were so nice as to stick us with the plan, but EXEMPT themselves from it.

As I said, very little "high quality" anything in DC. Sorry, but those turds can fend for themselves.

 

Can't disagree with the "high quality" statement. But the truth of the matter is, that the insurance premiums for Congress and staffers have ALWAYS been subsidized by taxpayers. It was only when Republicans passed the bill requiring that Congress and staffers purchase their insurance through the exchanges (in an effort to kill the bill and where the Dems called their bluff). The bill was vague enough in the sense that, while not explicitly saying the subsidies would continue it didn't say they would either. So the administration passed a rule saying that they would continue to contribute a portion of the cost of the premiums in an effort to retain some of the lower paid staffers. Otherwise, the law the was passed requiring them to buy through the exchanges would have effectively cut their pay and possibly benefits. Remember, the vast majority of folks will not have to use these exchanges to buy insurance, as most have provided through their employer, and will not be affected. So while you're saying they are being treated differently because of the "subsidy" (that has always been there), in reality, forcing them to buy through the exchange, is in essence already treating them differently (because again, most will not need to use the exchanges).

 

Look at it this way....how would you feel if your employer completely stopped contributing to your insurance premium, AND forced you to buy through the exchanges (which effectively cuts your pay and possibly your benefits).

As I said, very little "high quality" anything in DC. Sorry, but those turds can fend for themselves.

 

Gotta disagree. Staffers do all the grunt work.

 

Pun intended.

Can't disagree with the "high quality" statement. But the truth of the matter is, that the insurance premiums for Congress and staffers have ALWAYS been subsidized by taxpayers. It was only when Republicans passed the bill requiring that Congress and staffers purchase their insurance through the exchanges (in an effort to kill the bill and where the Dems called their bluff). The bill was vague enough in the sense that, while not explicitly saying the subsidies would continue it didn't say they would either. So the administration passed a rule saying that they would continue to contribute a portion of the cost of the premiums in an effort to retain some of the lower paid staffers. Otherwise, the law the was passed requiring them to buy through the exchanges would have effectively cut their pay and possibly benefits. Remember, the vast majority of folks will not have to use these exchanges to buy insurance, as most have provided through their employer, and will not be affected. So while you're saying they are being treated differently because of the "subsidy" (that has always been there), in reality, forcing them to buy through the exchange, is in essence already treating them differently (because again, most will not need to use the exchanges).

 

Look at it this way....how would you feel if your employer completely stopped contributing to your insurance premium, AND forced you to buy through the exchanges (which effectively cuts your pay and possibly your benefits).

Well... first we need to stop this equivalency stuff regarding the public and private sector. As a public servant/employee, you are and should be at the mercy of the taxpayer, yes the taxpayer.