Gotta disagree. Staffers do all the grunt work.

 

Pun intended.

You are correct, but if you don't want to have your compensation dictated by the taxpayer, you should look for employment elsewhere.

Gotta disagree. Staffers do all the grunt work.

 

Pun intended.

 

I wasn't clear....I should have specifically said in regards to Congress. Staffers do get the bad end of the stick.

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.

 

On one hand I do agree with you. On the other hand, regardless of who you work for, you deserve to be treated fairly (and I'm referring strictly to staffers...our elected officials should be held accountable by the taxpayer). And the taxpayer deserves to have competent folks performing the tasks that staffer do. We should want the best people available to do these jobs. And by continuing to pay a portion of their premium (like it has always been..remember this is nothing new), the best people can be retained in these positions.

 

You are correct, but if you don't want to have your compensation dictated by the taxpayer, you should look for employment elsewhere.

 

And when exactly has the taxpayer ever explicitly dictated how much these folks get paid?? It has never been an issue before, but now it suddenly is??

It is easy to solve for a staffer. Dont be one or work elsewhere if you want health insurance. Let the boss pay for your insurance since they need such high quality gophers. A factory pays for their workers, why not a Pelosi pay for her own HQ staffer.

So the staffer that takes care of the Obama dog (Bo) should have tax payer insurance. How high quality do you have to be to feed and water a dog and pick up poop.

Shouldnt his kids be doing that.

So the staffer that takes care of the Obama dog (Bo) should have tax payer insurance. How high quality do you have to be to feed and water a dog and pick up poop.

Shouldnt his kids be doing that.

 

Really??? You think that is an actual position (although if it is, every president has had one, since the presidential dog is always a big deal). And that's really over simplfying things. I'm sure that person is probably part of the White House Maintenance staff, and has other responsibilities.

 

It is easy to solve for a staffer. Dont be one or work elsewhere if you want health insurance. Let the boss pay for your insurance since they need such high quality gophers. A factory pays for their workers, why not a Pelosi pay for her own HQ staffer.

 

In actuality, staffers are typically paid directly out of "office funds" (by the official they work for), although some do get paid out of committee funds. And again, this premium has been partially funded FOR YEARS. Why wasn't this such a big deal 5, 10, or even 30 years ago?? Also, none of these rules prevent congress or staffers from putting there money where there mouth is and refusing these subsidies.

What is healthcare for the average person? I'd be willing to bet that my healthcare is above average. If Congress' healthcare is as good as mine then more power to them.

What is healthcare for the average person? I'd be willing to bet that my healthcare is above average. If Congress' healthcare is as good as mine then more power to them.

 

Again this is tricky. But like someone posted earlier there needs to be a distinction between public/private worker. Public workers answer to the taxpayer. If congress wants to pass laws that hurt more people than it helps then I would argue they should feel the brunt of that pain.

Again this is tricky. But like someone posted earlier there needs to be a distinction between public/private worker. Public workers answer to the taxpayer. If congress wants to pass laws that hurt more people than it helps then I would argue they should feel the brunt of that pain.

 

Okay, but don't people have the choice to decide if they want to work in the public spectrum or the private sector?

Okay, but don't people have the choice to decide if they want to work in the public spectrum or the private sector?

 

Sure they do. The point being made is if a public sector employee is forcing a rule or law on me then I think they should feel the downside of law. If they are going to force tax payers to buy a product they may not want then why should we as taxpayers provide them with the insurance they want?

Sure they do. The point being made is if a public sector employee is forcing a rule or law on me then I think they should feel the downside of law. If they are going to force tax payers to buy a product they may not want then why should we as taxpayers provide them with the insurance they want?

 

And I think that was the point of forcing them to purchase the insurance through the exchanges. The decision to continue the subsidies came from the idea that without continuing the subsidies, they were being treated differently from other employees. Other employees throughout the country who already had insurance were not being FORCED to buy new insurance through the exchange. If their old insurance wasn't up to standard, they were free to pursue this option, and get subsidized. Or they could drop their existing coverage and buy better coverage through the exchange without subsidy (if their existing coverage was up to "standard"). Federal employees had no choice, plus being forced to bear the full cost of insurance (in essence forcing a pay cut on them). And again.....these subsidies have existed for a very long time. Technically, "taxpayers" have been paying for this long before this bill ever existed. And it never seemed to be a problem.

And I think that was the point of forcing them to purchase the insurance through the exchanges. The decision to continue the subsidies came from the idea that without continuing the subsidies, they were being treated differently from other employees. Other employees throughout the country who already had insurance were not being FORCED to buy new insurance through the exchange. If their old insurance wasn't up to standard, they were free to pursue this option, and get subsidized. Or they could drop their existing coverage and buy better coverage through the exchange without subsidy (if their existing coverage was up to "standard"). Federal employees had no choice, plus being forced to bear the full cost of insurance (in essence forcing a pay cut on them). And again.....these subsidies have existed for a very long time. Technically, "taxpayers" have been paying for this long before this bill ever existed. And it never seemed to be a problem.

 

Are we ignoring the thousands of private sector workers who are being forced to exchanges ?

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.

 

 

Forcing it upon whom? I have health insurance. You do, I assume.

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.

 

So you're saying you do not have health insurance today?

Forcing it upon whom? I have health insurance. You do, I assume.

 

I do yes. But some workers aren't as lucky. Some companies are choosing to quit offering health care because it makes financial sense for them but not necessarily the worker. Some companies are sending out letters warning workers of the possibilty in the future. Perfect example is a certain steel mill in Wilder. But mainly forcing people to buy the product that don't have it and may not want to buy it.