Restore America's Mission

That government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish!

While there is no 28th Amendment (at least not yet), Congress seems required to take ObamaCare, so why aren't they signing up?

From snopes.com:


"Are members of Congress exempt from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act health care legislation?

No. One of the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare") passed by Congress is a requirement that lawmakers give up the insurance coverage previously provided to them through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created:
(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.

(i) REQUIREMENT — Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are:

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).
An August 2013 ruling by the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was widely and inaccurately reported as exempting members of Congress from the requirement that they give up their Federal Employees Health Benefits Program coverage and instead purchase health insurance through online exchanges. That reporting was incorrect: Lawmakers are still required to purchase health insurance through government-created exchanges; what the OPM's ruling actually declared was that members of Congress and their staffs did not have to give up the federal subsidies covering part of the costs of their insurance premiums which they had previously been receiving (and which are afforded to millions of other federal workers)."

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp#S3UCDi7oJI...

This is what angers me. Both Pelosi and Reid have proclaimed "it's the law!" We know that. So, either implement fully, as intended, or not at all. It is law, so it needs to be applied equally to all, not exemptions for some big corporations, unions and special interest groups!

Views: 55

Comment

You need to be a member of Restore America's Mission to add comments!

Join Restore America's Mission

Comment by Gregg Veach on October 6, 2013 at 5:54am

Thanks for the comments. Isn't that what I said in the post? I mean, if Congress is not exempt according to "the law" as Reid puts it, but Obama grants it, then that's the problem. I said, either apply ObamaCare according to "the law" of ObamaCare by making Congress and staffers sign up and pay with their OWN MONEY, make Unions, and Corporate America sign up, or EXEMPT EVERYONE, and don't implement it! If it's "the law" then apply it as such, equally, to everyone. Congress voted for it, not us, make Congress face the consequences of it, too! Exempt one group, exempt ALL, or exempt NONE! Simple

Reid, Pelosi, and Obama have all said, "it's the law, get over it!" Well, if indeed, it is in "Affordable" Healthcare Act that Congress must sign up, then apply the law, since The Three Stooges have said, "it can't be changed."

Comment by David Wallace on October 3, 2013 at 9:00am
But, average Americans who go to exchanges lose there employer subsidies. Which is what is happening all over the Country. So the truth is that the OPM rule destroys the equality of the relationship between average Americans and staff members, it creates an elite class that has their cake and they can eat it too. If the Rules apply to average Americans they must apply to Government employees, as well. Also rates are going up, and taxes on the individual mandate are on an escalator each year. The penalties are devastating. And the burden is being shifted to Young Adults. It will devastate them as they are trying to climb up the economic ladder. All wages, all company benefits are borne by the economic activity of any business with incorporated profits, so really this dynamic if squelched or hindered doesn't work in a positive direction nor for the benefit of the employee, as profits get eaten up by an inefficient system.
Comment by Don on October 3, 2013 at 8:56am

I bought in to the OPM Ruling and I must admit that I was wrong.  I was suspicious of Sen. Mikulski who said that they were not exempt.  FEHBP, the Health Package for the Federal Government is a exchange of Insurance Companies that works similar to Obama Care.  Congress is disturbed by the question of whether they should receive the "Stipend" that FEHBP Employees do,  (the government shares the cost of the Insurance), or whether they must pay the total fee "Out of Pocket".   That folks is their delay and problem.  They fear they will lose their Congressional Employees as they jump ship for better offers elsewhere.

It is important for people to know that the FEHBP has remained the same since it was conceived.  It changes every season with offerings worked out between the Companies involved and the OPM, as probably Obamacare will.  For many years it has been the business acumen for Business's, the U.S., Government is no exception,  to assist employees by sharing the cost of the Insurance burden.   In some cases Labor Unions pick this cost up as they will make deals directly with Insurance Companies.  For employees to have to adjust their incomes to pick up the percentage they had previously not been paying is quite a burden.  Such is the case in Congress.

Events

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Investors Business Daily

Obama, Unions, Trial Bar Take Aim At Franchise Model

If the Obama Administration has its way, Ronald McDonald may soon have to wipe that grin off his face as he stands beneath the Golden Arches. One of the most successful models for expanding small-business ownership in America is under full-scale attack from unions and the White House. The political strategy is to fundamentally change the legal relationship between locally owned stores like McDonald's (MCD), Popeyes (PLKI), Taco Bell (YUM) and

Obama talks more ISIS; No U.S. combat troops, you understand

Seeking to change the ISIS narrative from "we have no strategy" to "we can do this," President Obama visited the headquarters of CENTCOM and Special Ops in Florida Wednesday and said:

"I'm not here to give a long speech." (It was 2,700 words in length.)

Once again, the commander-in-chief placed great emphasis for his immediate and global audiences on what he is not going to do: "As your Commander-in-Chief, I will not commit you and the rest of our Armed Forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq."

The president said American air power would continue to strike select ISIS targets, degrading and ultimately defeating the terrorism group. Never mind that no one has ever in the entire first century of aviation history won a war with air power alone. It takes soldiers, the old-fashioned term for BOTG, Boots On The Ground.

But just to be clear, Obama also said: "I want to be clear: The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission."

Now, wait just one minute. Did you catch the subtle shift in Obama's wording there? A week ago in his prime-time address about defeating ISIS, Obama said: "It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil."

Now, he says, the 1,600 U.S. troops currently gathering intel, providing training and support in Iraq, won't have "a combat mission." BIG difference.

Then, the nation's highest-ranking dilly-dallyer so late to recognize the ISIS threat made a breathtaking statement: "Because in an uncertain world full of breathtaking change, the one constant is American leadership."

This from the man so rushed to lead all U.S. troops out of Iraq three years ago that he left a power vacuum that drew ISIS' murderers like flies to a rotting corpse. This from the man who provided such forceful leadership ousting Syria's dictator that he's still in power, and Obama needed Russia's president to arrange the end to Syria's chemical weapons.

This from the man who provided the leadership to oust Libya's Gaddafi and create such lawless chaos that America lost four brave men in Benghazi two years ago and was forced to abandon its embassy there last month. This from the man who was going to lead an international consortium to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, which they continue today.

Obama boasted to the troops Wednesday of creating............

9 top questions for the Benghazi Select Committee

The long-awaited House Select Committee on Benghazi begins its historic open hearings today. The chair is Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, a no-nonsense former federal and state prosecutor now in his second House term.

The 50-year-old Gowdy's challenges include herding GOP colleagues in a coherent investigative direction while combating the anticipated pre-election obfuscations and complaints of Democrat members eager to protect President Obama and his wannabe successor Hillary Clinton.

But the committee's most important duty is ferreting out credible answers to thousands of questions about the deadly night of 9/11/12 when four Americans died at the hands of terrorists, the numerous conflicting accounts of that night and deciphering the administration's ensuing coverup.

Anyone familiar with the sordid Benghazi story can construct their own list of compelling queries. We invite you to leave yours in the Comments below.

In compiling ours, we acknowledge the valuable help of Aaron Klein's new book -- "The REAL Benghazi Story: What the White House and Hillary Don't Want You to Know." Klein has published dozens of questions elsewhere. Here are the varied questions we find the most compelling, in no particular order.

1) What was the real purpose of the "special mission" in Benghazi that was so important and timely that Amb. Chris Stevens was sent into this most dangerous Libyan city just as the Red Cross and other countries withdrew? Was it really trans-shipping Libyan weapons to Syrian rebels, a favored cause of Secy. of State Clinton?

2) In this dangerous environment, why were repeated requests by Stevens and others for additional security ignored by Clinton's State Department in the weeks and months leading up to that night? The compound's security was deemed so inadequate it required a special waiver from Washington to continue operation. Who authorized that waiver?

In fact, despite knowledge of at least 10 terrorist training camps in the vicinity, the mission's security was actually decreased the previous month with the removal of a special ops security detail over the protest of its commander? Why?

3) Why in the world would the mission's local security have been entrusted to a local militia, the 17th of February Martyrs Brigade, with its known ties to al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia?

4) We need to clarify this "stand down order" business. Several CIA operatives at the nearby annex say they were prevented from going to the assistance of the embattled mission by a superior named "Bob." State spokeswomen vehemently deny the claim. But in their book -- "13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi" -- the operatives say the 30-minute delay prevented the rescue of Stevens and an aide, Sean Smith.

5) Speaking of rescue, why was none attempted in Benghazi? Why were............

© 2014   Created by David Wallace.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service