(Don't this posted the first time.)<quoted text>
Carol, Carol, Carol, Congress was always in compliance with the ACA. The law requires large employers to provide health insurance for their employees and that's exactly what it did through the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. It was Republican Chuck Grassley who put a wrinkle in it with an amendment requiring members of Congress and their staff to purchase insurance through a Federal exchange. There was no mention of payment in the amendment so the government decided to continue contributing to congressional health plans in the form of subsidies just like many private companies do for their employees. David Vitter R Louisiana wanted to eliminate those subsidies which is both mean spirited and stupid. House and Senate staffers have a lot of knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes and if you piss them off they might get "chatty" to the wrong people. It would also make it more difficult to recruit the kind of talented staffers that members of Congress need to run their offices.
Business was able to present a compelling case for the one year delay on their mandate. There's no such compelling reason to delay the rest of the law.
While you present a valid argument, the "wrinkle" the OPM "fixed" still provides Congress with taxpayer subsidies many Americans will not receive.
If the ACA were the solution to health care reform, Congress and their staff should have been eager to get on the same exchanges they, themselves, passed for everyone else.
Why should a law they passed onto everyone else put them in a position of having to worry about recruiting talented staffers?
The problem is Democrats are the only ones who wanted this and passed it.
Also, Congress is not a private company or entity. Each Congressperson and their staff work for us and their constituents and taxpayers pay for these subsidies.
Many Americans are being forced out of their current plans and into exchanges that are potentially more expensive with less coverage and do not get the same subsidies.
So no matter how valid your argument may seem on the surface, what's underneath doesn't feel right to many Americans.
Even if they're getting the same coverage they've always had, it's still at the taxpayers' expense and many are paying more for their own coverage.
A "wrinkle" in the ACA to some looks like a major flaw to others.