Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#25372 Sep 24, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
....In this particular case, Congress is the employer who wishes to retain their qualified employees by subsidizing the cost of their health insurance at comparable levels as before.
...
When an employer chooses to offer health care benefits to their employees, the cost comes out of the business' revenues. When Congress passes legislation that allows they and their staffers to receive a subsidy available to no other American, they certainly don't pay for it - we the TAXPAYERS do. It is still hypocrisy that we get to pay for.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#25373 Sep 24, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Oooops, looks like How Now Brown Cow slipped on her own cow pie, again.
http://kff.org/about-us/
Kaiser is a non-profit, private operating foundation focusing on the major health care issues facing the U.S., as well as the U.S. role in global health policy. Unlike grant-making foundations, Kaiser develops and runs its own research, journalism and communications programs, sometimes in partnership with other non-profit research organizations or major media companies. We serve as a non-partisan source of facts, information, analysis and journalism for policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the public. Our product is information, always provided free of charge&#8201;ó&#8201;f rom the most sophisticated policy research, to basic facts and numbers, to in depth health policy news coverage provided by our news service, KHN, to information young people can use to improve their health or elderly people can use to understand their Medicare benefits.
The Kaiser Family Foundation is not associated with Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser Industries.
Of course not, they were just all founded by Henry J Kaiser - what a coincidence. And there is still at least on family member on the Kaiser Family Foundation Board.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#25374 Sep 24, 2013
"at least one family member"

Gotta proof better.
put up

Homer, GA

#25375 Sep 24, 2013
for you wrote:
<quoted text>
Darn, that's strange. All the people I know had no problem getting work in the seventies. But they were honest, reliable and trained to DO something. You are so out of touch, I feel sorry for you.
They either worked for the government or went to the Alaskan pipeline. Your ignorance is amazing. Jimmy Carter was president, interest rates were out of sight, unemployment was rampant and inflation was at record highs. Ever heard of the misery index?
Try reading a history book.
put up

Homer, GA

#25376 Sep 24, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
I am watching WSB news RIGHT NOW and the members of Congress and their STAFFERS WILL receive an government "contribution" to the cost of their healthcare. Congress will use the exchanges BUT they WILL receive HELP with their costs. Check it. Go ahead.
I was asking you a hypothetical question. What are you worried about? Why won't you answer it???? I find that rather odd(telling).
Spoken like a government employee, part of the new aristocracy that looks down on the rest of us as nothing more than chattel. So tell me, how does that advanced degree in aromatherapy translate into something useful in public service?
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#25377 Sep 24, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
What you are either missing or ignoring is that the Obamacare supporters in Congress claimed that they and their staffers would -for a change - be subject to the same laws they are imposing upon the American public. Therefore, their participation in the Federal Healthcare Program would end and they would all go on the exchanges - just like every American who does not have employer offered healthcare.
[snip]
Bottomline - if you don't like the term "exemption", fine (it is accurate, but for the sake of argument we'll not use it)- but Congress and their staffers are still receiving a benefit that no one else in this country receives. So once again, they are not subject to the same rules they impost on the rest of us.
Yep, just like prive sector employers subsidize, I mean "exempt", their employees...

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114284/con...
..lawmakers and the people who work in their offices get insurance via the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, or FEHBP. Itís the same health insurance option that other federal employees use. When the architects of the Affordable Care Act drew up legislation, they had no plans to meddle with this arrangement. Just like the people working for Intel or JCPenney would get to stay on their company health plans, the people working on Capitol Hill would get to stay on theirs.

Grassley insisted he wanted only to promote good public policy. If members of Congress were dependent on the exchanges, he suggested, theyíd have a direct stake in their success. But Grassley was also the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee. And, by that point in the debate, heíd all but committed himself to opposing legislation. He almost certainly figured the Democrats would vote down his amendment, rather than relinquish federal employee coverage. And that would give Republicans a chance to pounce. If Obamacare coverage is good enough for you, the Republicans could then tell voters, why isnít it good enough for them?

As it turns out, Grassley was wrong. Democrats didnít reject the amendment. They accepted it, and now itís part of the law. But that created a very weird situation. The federal government, like most large employers, not only provides the opportunity for its workers to get insurance. It also pays a large portion of the premium. Now that lawmakers and their advisers were going into the exchanges, what would happen to that contribution? Would they just lose the money?

The answer, the administration decided last week, is no. Lawmakers and their staffs could keep their employer contributions, and apply that money towards the cost of whatever insurance they buy in the exchanges. It's actually true to Grassley's ostensible purpose, which was making sure members of lawmakers and their advisers have a stake in the success of the exchanges.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#25378 Sep 24, 2013
govern wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you start a campaign to make it hard for Congress to give themselves a raise, create special insurance crafted just for them and hefty retirement plans. NONE of this is new, its been this way for a long time. Don't make it right but is sure not Obama's fault. Please, concentrate on defunding Obama care, concentrate on shutting down the government if you don't get your way, please. The American people will be so impressed they won't vote for a Republican for 3 or 4 years.
That's the history, please repeat it. Then we can get these Tea Party nuts out of Congress and Congress can get back to what its supposed to do, govern.
Okay! Got it!

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#25379 Sep 24, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see,
how do this work,
pot meet kettle,
the innumerable cries of "you got your butt kicked",
and now you project
"You have that "I'm going to be right no matter what" complex."
Hey, Bill in Dunceville where's your irony meter.
STILL no answer. Just MORE duck and dodge. Not surprised.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#25380 Sep 24, 2013
put up wrote:
<quoted text>
Spoken like a government employee, part of the new aristocracy that looks down on the rest of us as nothing more than chattel. So tell me, how does that advanced degree in aromatherapy translate into something useful in public service?
Ummmm......what?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#25381 Sep 24, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, just like prive sector employers subsidize, I mean "exempt", their employees...
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114284/con...
..lawmakers and the people who work in their offices get insurance via the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, or FEHBP. Itís the same health insurance option that other federal employees use. When the architects of the Affordable Care Act drew up legislation, they had no plans to meddle with this arrangement. Just like the people working for Intel or JCPenney would get to stay on their company health plans, the people working on Capitol Hill would get to stay on theirs.
Grassley insisted he wanted only to promote good public policy. If members of Congress were dependent on the exchanges, he suggested, theyíd have a direct stake in their success. But Grassley was also the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee. And, by that point in the debate, heíd all but committed himself to opposing legislation. He almost certainly figured the Democrats would vote down his amendment, rather than relinquish federal employee coverage. And that would give Republicans a chance to pounce. If Obamacare coverage is good enough for you, the Republicans could then tell voters, why isnít it good enough for them?
As it turns out, Grassley was wrong. Democrats didnít reject the amendment. They accepted it, and now itís part of the law. But that created a very weird situation. The federal government, like most large employers, not only provides the opportunity for its workers to get insurance. It also pays a large portion of the premium. Now that lawmakers and their advisers were going into the exchanges, what would happen to that contribution? Would they just lose the money?
The answer, the administration decided last week, is no. Lawmakers and their staffs could keep their employer contributions, and apply that money towards the cost of whatever insurance they buy in the exchanges. It's actually true to Grassley's ostensible purpose, which was making sure members of lawmakers and their advisers have a stake in the success of the exchanges.
Did you even read what you posted? Those whose private sector employers provide healthcare WILL NOT be on the exchanges. The exchanges are ONLY for those with no insurance or those who self insure. The whole point of Grassley's amendment was to force Congress and their staffers on the exchanges and out of the FEHBP and thus have to deal with the exchanges just like all the other Americans who no longer have employer sponsored health care. As a consequence of the "exemption", Congress and their staffers will receive a subsidy (paid for by taxpayers) regardless of their income - unlike every other American on the exchanges.
Do you understand now? If you just keep reposting the same thing, we will realize you don't.
Now

Toccoa, GA

#25382 Sep 24, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not, they were just all founded by Henry J Kaiser - what a coincidence. And there is still at least on family member on the Kaiser Family Foundation Board.

You are correct. Oh my also thinks the Ford Foundation shows no partiality to Ford Motor co. Also thinks the Rockafella Foundation shows no partiality to the Rockafella. Etc., etc., etc.

He most likely thinks the National Demo party shows no partiality to local socialists.

Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#25383 Sep 24, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
When an employer chooses to offer health care benefits to their employees, the cost comes out of the business' revenues. When Congress passes legislation that allows they and their staffers to receive a subsidy available to no other American, they certainly don't pay for it - we the TAXPAYERS do. It is still hypocrisy that we get to pay for.
Course under different circumstances you'd be arguing that Congress Critters need to attract the best and brightest to their staff, so of course their salaries and benefits should be competitive with the private sector.

Once again, nothing more than the Ring Wing Whacko Outrage de Jour.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#25384 Sep 24, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
What you are either missing or ignoring is that the Obamacare supporters in Congress claimed that they and their staffers would -for a change - be subject to the same laws they are imposing upon the American public. Therefore, their participation in the Federal Healthcare Program would end and they would all go on the exchanges - just like every American who does not have employer offered healthcare.
Obamacare offers tax credits (subsidies) to all those who income is up to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level - for 2013 those figures are $45,960 for individuals and $94,200 for a family of four.
But that isn't good enough for Congress and their staffers - they will receive the subsidies in the exemption passed REGARDLESS of their income. That could mean they will receive these subsidies IN ADDITION TO the federal govt subsidies open to everyone if they happen to be among the few staffers whose salaries fall below the 400% level. Do you really think that your Congressman - who has an average salary of $174,000 - needs that subsidy that for everyone else in this country is unavailable if your salary is over $45,960 for an individual?
Bottomline - if you don't like the term "exemption", fine (it is accurate, but for the sake of argument we'll not use it)- but Congress and their staffers are still receiving a benefit that no one else in this country receives. So once again, they are not subject to the same rules they impost on the rest of us.
I tried my best to break it down to first grade level comprehension and she STILL didn't get it. I don't think she'll be able to understand your higher level thinking skills explanation. Just thought I'd warn ya.:)))

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#25385 Sep 24, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
When an employer chooses to offer health care benefits to their employees, the cost comes out of the business' revenues. When Congress passes legislation that allows they and their staffers to receive a subsidy available to no other American, they certainly don't pay for it - we the TAXPAYERS do. It is still hypocrisy that we get to pay for.
I asked her whom she thought was going to pay for their financial "help" and, of course, I received no reply. She is too busy playing with cow pies or some such.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#25386 Sep 24, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Course under different circumstances you'd be arguing that Congress Critters need to attract the best and brightest to their staff, so of course their salaries and benefits should be competitive with the private sector.
Once again, nothing more than the Ring Wing Whacko Outrage de Jour.
That isn't even a good try at deflecting the argument. How about addressing the point that Congress and their staffers are receiving a taxpayer paid benefit available to no other American.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#25387 Sep 24, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummmm......what?
I had the same reaction.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#25388 Sep 24, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
I tried my best to break it down to first grade level comprehension and she STILL didn't get it. I don't think she'll be able to understand your higher level thinking skills explanation. Just thought I'd warn ya.:)))
And there I was thinking that her invoking of stars and unicorns was so profound........ ;)
Now

Toccoa, GA

#25389 Sep 24, 2013
"Need to attract the best and brightest."

Yep, those best and brightest dummies are one of the reasons America is in a s**t can today.
Course the beat an brightest are in the conservative party except for the rinos, and they fall under demos who tell lies.
Now

Toccoa, GA

#25390 Sep 24, 2013
Oh my thinks it's ok for staffers and elected jerks to get 2 subsidies while the rest of America only gets one.
Typical libroid, ever hopeful of being elected Bean Counter.
Now

Toccoa, GA

#25392 Sep 24, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
I tried my best to break it down to first grade level comprehension and she STILL didn't get it. I don't think she'll be able to understand your higher level thinking skills explanation. Just thought I'd warn ya.:)))

Ask her what 2 plus 2 is.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Blairsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gas Cheaper in Blue Ridge 40 min trail90 4
Mafia BRMEMC (Sep '13) 48 min Thanks 90
County Govt. 6 hr city boy 16
Dogs riding in Walmart GROCERY Shopping Carts (Jul '14) 13 hr Cletus in Union C... 71
School Taxes (Nov '13) Sun Local too 42
Community Center Funding Jul 24 Local 2 7
Union County Sole Commissioners Lamar Paris "S... Jul 24 My Opinion 91
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Blairsville Mortgages