I'm not wrong about anything. I referenced the wrong agency, but I still don't see what the problem is with the OPM issuing regualtory guidance what the federal government still has to pay 75% of its employee's health insurance premiums as it currently does. What's your beef with that?
Congressional BS ( I know, redundant)
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
I'm not wrong about anything. I referenced the wrong agency, but I still don't see what the problem is with the OPM issuing regualtory guidance what the federal government still has to pay 75% of its employee's health insurance premiums as it currently does. What's your beef with that?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
see how annoying it is when someones knows what you meant, but makes it an issue anyway?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Show us where they can act upon anything other than a FEHB contract as the WSJ stated. That is the issue. That was the congressional fuck up. That is why it is Congress that must fix it. Which they don't want to do because it means reopening the ACA for amendment.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So you were wrong about the agency. Thanks.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Nothing... as long as it goes through appropriations.
Congress won't do it because, as I said in my initial post, the Republicans are assholes who prefer to have their $30,000 per year staffers suffer to score a pointless political victory than do the right thing.
The ACA is always open to amendment. That's how the process works. What the Republcians would like to do is hold their staffers hostage in exchange for other amendments to the law that they can't pass otherwise.
tekkychick
New member
well said! And then they'll whine when the staffers leave and blame it on the president.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I understand how the process works... the point being that is why the Dems want to try and circumvent. Which brings us back to my question... Where are you seeing that the OPM has the authority to act on a non FEHB contract?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
and when unions feel the same thing with their high priced plans?
FYI... it was REID that introduced the portion of the bill that is problematic. Now the Dems are trying to blame the Reps because once again the Dems think something sounds great on paper, but they didn't think it all the way through. They just vote for what 'sounds good', despite not knowing what it entails.
Where are you seeing that OPM does not have the authority to pay an employer contribution for heath insurance for congressional staffers?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Why do you always restate it in a way that I did not? Why must you always create a straw man? Why can you not answer my question?
1) I stated the OPM has the authority to do so under the FEHB contracts... which Obama care is not... per the WSJ that you said was incorrect.
2) I asked you where it is you are seeing they have the authority to do so proving the WSJ incorrect.
I'm not creating a strawman. I'm asking you a question. The issue is whether OPM has the authority to pay 75% of the Congressional staffer health insurance premiums, isn't it? So why do you think it can't do it.
Actually, no. The WSJ asserted that the OPM does not have authority to make contributions towards the health insurance premiums of Congressional staffers. I don't know whether it is incorrect or not, but the OPM seems to think it does indeed have that authority, and I'm not going to take the WSJ's editorial board's word for it.
I'm asking you where it is you are seeing that the WSJ editorial board is correct and OPM is not.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, you asked "Where are you seeing that OPM does not have the authority to pay an employer contribution for heath insurance for congressional staffers?"
NOWHERE did I state the OPM didn't have authority to pay contributions. Hence, your asking where I saw it is indeed a straw man. What I DID state is that according to the WSJ article, the OPM does not have authority to pay for non FEHB contracts. Obamacare is NOT a FEHB contract.
Actually, NO. The WSJ stated clearly "OPM has no authority to pay for insurance plans that lack FEHBP contracts". You again create a straw man. So where do you see that the WSJ is wrong? Or are you just using your standard bias towards the journal and thus simply pretending they must be incorrect because you don't like them?
As I asked a long time ago... where do you see that the Journal is wrong on this point?
No, as I have shown above, you are creating a straw man over and over again. You cannot even quote the WSJ or myself correctly. You cannot provide anything to support your claim that the OPM does have the authority to act on non FEHB contracts.
The WSJ editorial board can clearly state whatever the hell it wants. What's missing is the rationale. What specifically prohibits the OPM from making contributions for employee heath insurance premiums for non-FEHP contracts? Where is that in the law? Unless and until I see something other than a naked assertion that it is so, I'm not going to waste my time trying to disprove it.
Again, this is just a game the Republicans want to play because they want to use their staffers as hostages to get changes to Obamacare that they could not pass otherwise. I mean, what kind of fucked up shit is it where the Republicans are asserting that staffers have to shoulder 100% of their health insurance premiums?
Again, this is just a game the Republicans want to play because they want to use their staffers as hostages to get changes to Obamacare that they could not pass otherwise. I mean, what kind of fucked up shit is it where the Republicans are asserting that staffers have to shoulder 100% of their health insurance premiums?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Oh I see, you are just going to stamp your feet, pretend it is inaccurate because you hate the Journal and then you will run away. If you aren't going to disprove it, then perhaps you should just remain silent. You have offered nothing to support your position.
No, not stamping my feet. Just pointing out that the WSJ editorial board asserts that something is illegal without explaining why it is illegal doesn't mean it is illegal. The onus isn't on me to disprove it just because the WSJ editorial board wrote it down. What makes it illegal?
Also, too, don't think we didn't notice you ignoring the rest of my comment.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Well, did you toe-tap at all?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Oh, not with a sexual connotation!