Older Hill aides shocked by Obamacare prices


#1

Politico:

Older Hill aides shocked by Obamacare prices

Veteran House Democratic aides are sick over the insurance prices they’ll pay under Obamacare, and they’re scrambling to find a cure.“In a shock to the system, the older staff in my office (folks over 59) have now found out their personal health insurance costs (even with the government contribution) have gone up 3-4 times what they were paying before,” Minh Ta, chief of staff to Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), wrote to fellow Democratic chiefs of staff in an email message obtained by POLITICO. “Simply unacceptable.”
In the email, Ta noted that older congressional staffs may leave their jobs because of the change to their health insurance.

Under the Affordable Care Act, and federal regulations, many congressional staffers — designated as “official” aides — were forced to move out of the old heavily subsidized Federal Employees Health Benefits program and into the District of Columbia’s health insurance marketplace exchange. Others designated as “unofficial” were allowed to stay in the FEHB program. Managers had to choose whether aides were “official” or “unofficial” by Oct. 31, and Ta said that wasn’t enough time to make an informed decision about who would benefit and who would lose out by going into the new system.

Moore’s office was one of those in which all staff were designated as “official” and pushed into the exchanges. That ended up being a problem for older staff, who weren’t accustomed to paying higher premiums because of their age.

If Schadenfreude is a sin I'm in deep trouble.

How about we pay Senators and Congressmen $5 million a year but they have to pay all their expenses out of that, including payroll, i.e., their staff would be personal rather than government employees. How generous would they be with salaries and benefits then??


#2

[quote="didymus, post:1, topic:345972"]
Politico:

If Schadenfreude is a sin I'm in deep trouble.

How about we pay Senators and Congressmen $5 million a year but they have to pay all their expenses out of that, including payroll, i.e., their staff would be personal rather than government employees. How generous would they be with salaries and benefits then??

[/quote]

How about if they are made to live under every law (past and present) that they have dumped on the rest of us? They get too many freebies as it is. I am a supporter of the Constitution and understand that that document allows for change of representatives thru elections. But in all their wisdom, I don't think our framers envisioned the masses of low information voters that are among us today.


#3

Do they mean this is unacceptable for everyone, or just for congressional staffs, or maybe just for Democrat staffs? Republicans are all rich, so it does not matter for them.:wink:

Apparently neither congressional staffs nor the elected representatives read the bill before the vote. Or maybe they went to heavily subsidized inner city public schools and don’t know how to read.


#4

:eek: :crying: *****:crying: *****:crying: *****:crying: *****:crying:


#5

All I have to say to the congressional aides is: "Welcome to our world!" ;) :D


#6

You mean they finally have to pay like the rest of us have for decades?

My rates are going down by 50% and the coverage is improving. My sister has coverage for the first time in her life because of ObamaCare–via Medicaid.


#7

Maybe John Conyers should have said “read the bill” rather than “what good does it do to read the bill when its 1000 pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to tell you what it means.” [paraphrased]


#8

Mandated healthcare. Next year, everyone will be forced to purchase a Prius and at the government discount, it will only cost $167,000 dollars each with only an increase of auto insurance by 54 percent. But, if you want to keep your old car and car insurance you can, but you will have to pay a -]tax /-]penalty of $20,000 a year.


#9

[quote="Nacho45, post:8, topic:345972"]
Mandated healthcare. Next year, everyone will be forced to purchase a Prius and at the government discount, it will only cost $167,000 dollars each with only an increase of auto insurance by 54 percent. But, if you want to keep your old car and car insurance you can, but you will have to pay a -]tax /-]penalty of $20,000 a year.

[/quote]

Hush, don't give them any ideas! They would probably require you to buy a Chevy Volt instead of a Prius because the government is currently trying to sell its GM stock at a $10 billion loss. These guys are financial geniuses and we are all too stupid to understand that equal poverty for everyone is a great idea.


#10

[quote="didymus, post:1, topic:345972"]
Politico:

If Schadenfreude is a sin I'm in deep trouble.

[/quote]

Morose delictation. You *are *in trouble.... and so am I.

How about we pay Senators and Congressmen $5 million a year but they have to pay all their expenses out of that, including payroll, i.e., their staff would be personal rather than government employees. How generous would they be with salaries and benefits then??

Yeah, they'd want to oe keep all the money so they wouldn't be able to get anything done--great solution for the problems of our nation!


#11

I think they did and that’s why only property owners, male ones at that!, could vote.


#12

As originally intended, property owners had by far the greatest stake in the laws that governed the land. The welfare state did not exist, and so those without land had little interest or skin in the game. Now unfortunately, the welfare state is so large that too many vote based solely on the interests of that state, and those have recently sought to grow that very state that is supposed to be the exception, not the rule.


#13

How about a progressive tax again, like in the 50’s. Any income over 1million/year is taxed 90%. That way the 2% of this nation that earns 98% of the income could finally pay their share.


#14

[quote="Cricket2, post:13, topic:345972"]
How about a progressive tax again, like in the 50's. Any income over 1million/year is taxed 90%. That way the 2% of this nation that earns 98% of the income could finally pay their share.

[/quote]

Do you think it is fair to deem that a income level is "sufficient" for someone and confiscate 90% of earnings over that amount to redistribute to others?

Is that the role of government? Redistribution of wealth?


#15

The role of government is to be sure all of us pay our share. That has not happened since the elimination of the progressive tax laws.

In my opinion, there is not a person out there, including myself, that knows so much, or is so skilled, or can work so hard that million dollar incomes are warranted. For example:
Football players that make 8mill/yr. Really? It is an obscenity. What most people fail to realize is that at least 80% of taxes come from the middle class. When evaluating the taxes we pay as a percentage of our income we pay the greater amount in terms of burden. The super wealthy pay the least. At a minimum the burden should be the same. Why even that would do wonders for the economy.

The average wage in the United States is around 40K/year. Only 2% make 250K or more per year. That means most of us are poor yet almost every tax break we could ever have has been stripped from us. We can’t even deduct charitable donations anymore because of the amount that has to be donated before we can. I think it is time for a little redistribution of the wealth. To few own and control too much.


#16

[quote="Cricket2, post:15, topic:345972"]

In my opinion, there is not a person out there, including myself, that knows so much, or is so skilled, or can work so hard that million dollar incomes are warranted. For example:
Football players that make 8mill/yr. Really? It is an obscenity.

[/quote]

Athletes seldom make an exorbitant amount of money more than a few years or so, if that much. It used to be that people who would come into a windfall of some kind could at least use income averaging to help their tax situation. I don't know if this info helps your argument or not but just saying.


#17

[quote="Cricket2, post:15, topic:345972"]
The role of government is to be sure all of us pay our share. That has not happened since the elimination of the progressive tax laws.

In my opinion, there is not a person out there, including myself, that knows so much, or is so skilled, or can work so hard that million dollar incomes are warranted.

[/quote]

So, If you work for KMart and facilitate KMart making $100,000 and you make, say, $25,000, that's fair. BUT, if you make 8 Million and facilitate the team making 20 Million, that is unfair?

What would you do? Regulate the ticket prices of teams? Regulate salaries? Confiscate earnings?

Government's job is not redistribution of wealth. That leads to mediocrity.


#18

[quote="Cricket2, post:15, topic:345972"]
The role of government is to be sure all of us pay our share. That has not happened since the elimination of the progressive tax laws.

In my opinion, there is not a person out there, including myself, that knows so much, or is so skilled, or can work so hard that million dollar incomes are warranted. For example:
Football players that make 8mill/yr. Really? It is an obscenity. What most people fail to realize is that at least 80% of taxes come from the middle class. When evaluating the taxes we pay as a percentage of our income we pay the greater amount in terms of burden. The super wealthy pay the least. At a minimum the burden should be the same. Why even that would do wonders for the economy.

The average wage in the United States is around 40K/year. Only 2% make 250K or more per year. That means most of us are poor yet almost every tax break we could ever have has been stripped from us. We can't even deduct charitable donations anymore because of the amount that has to be donated before we can. I think it is time for a little redistribution of the wealth. To few own and control too much.

[/quote]

Until you define fair share, this discussion always goes nowhere. Are we talking in percentages, or total amount paid?


#19

What I am saying is that no one can do anything to warrant these kinds of income. Maybe what we should do is something similar to Japan. To my understanding the CEO of a company or owner/manager if you will, can only make 17% more than the lowest paid person in the company.

As far as mediocrity: that comes from having to put up with constant layoffs due to downsizing, layoffs and mergers…of of which benefit the guys on top and are done at the expense of the “workers.” Mediocrity comes from knowing your pension will be lost when some jerk decides it is time to go “bankrupt”, but before he/she does finds a way to ensure that those monies land up in his/her pockets (Enron ring a bell?) -Or losing your pension because 6 months prior to retirement the management decides to lay you off and you lose everything. Mediocrity comes from being reminded everyday that you are replaceable and expendable. Been there, seen it all, and it is the dirt of the day.

Perhaps we should do as one of the Biblical Parables suggests: Pay everyone the same wage, no matter their position or time worked. Maybe all position should be seen as equally important and valuable and the only way to demonstrate that is to pay everyone the same wage. Because, believe me, if the "Garbage collectors stop working we will all know it, and the health of the country would disappear. If a Congressman, Mayor or Senator leaves, no one will notice for a very long time.


#20

I disagree with the premise that only Cricket2 knows how much a manager is worth to a company, or that an owner can only take as much profit from his own company as Cricket2 deems is appropriate.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.