Congressional BS ( I know, redundant)

Dungheap said:
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.
Click to expand...

Given you have ignored all of mine, yeah, not to worried about ignoring yours. your straw men got knocked down, now you are whining...
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... far lower premiums? Seriously... try reading sometime.
Click to expand...

Yes, far lower premiums. Paid for by you.

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/...-health-insurance-cost/article?nclick_check=1

Members of Congress and their aides apparently will continue to have their employer pay much of their health-insurance premiums, after a deal was reached to head off a possible exodus of top congressional staff members.

Controversy bubbled up in recent days over possible unintended effects of an Affordable Care Act amendment pushed through three years ago by Sen. Chuck Grassley. The Iowa Republican had insisted that members of Congress and their aides purchase health insurance on new government exchanges, electronic systems that are to open this October. But the final version of the bill lacked specific language giving the government authority to continue paying much of those people’s premiums, as most large employers do. That could have meant that senators, representatives and their aides would have to pick up the entire cost of their health insurance, which would have meant thousands of extra dollars per year per person. Fears were raised that many leading staff members would seek other jobs with health-care benefits.
 
Howey said:
Yes, far lower premiums. .
Click to expand...

also from the article:
“As I have said in the past, requiring members of Congress and their staffs to obtain insurance through the new health care marketplaces will still provide an array of choices in a way that in many areas has proven to lower costs for consumers,” Harkin said in a prepared statement.
Click to expand...
 
Howey said:
You got that right!

Members of Congress already have excellent health care, the same provided to every federal employee in the country, with the exception of far lower premiums and deductables.

Since that meets the minimum standards of the health car law, they're fine. If they don't want the insurance, then yes, they do need to carry Obamacare. Although it that's the case, they're idiots, and republicans, of course.
Click to expand...

Howey said:
Yes, far lower premiums. Paid for by you.

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/...-health-insurance-cost/article?nclick_check=1

Members of Congress and their aides apparently will continue to have their employer pay much of their health-insurance premiums, after a deal was reached to head off a possible exodus of top congressional staff members.

Controversy bubbled up in recent days over possible unintended effects of an Affordable Care Act amendment pushed through three years ago by Sen. Chuck Grassley. The Iowa Republican had insisted that members of Congress and their aides purchase health insurance on new government exchanges, electronic systems that are to open this October. But the final version of the bill lacked specific language giving the government authority to continue paying much of those people’s premiums, as most large employers do. That could have meant that senators, representatives and their aides would have to pick up the entire cost of their health insurance, which would have meant thousands of extra dollars per year per person. Fears were raised that many leading staff members would seek other jobs with health-care benefits.
Click to expand...

Where in your second post does it address what I commented on in your first post? ( I bolded it for you)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top