Thread: ROUND 3: HOUSE TO STRIP CONGRESS'S OBAMACARE EXEMPTION

ROUND 3: HOUSE TO STRIP CONGRESS'S OBAMACARE EXEMPTION



by MIKE FLYNN 30 Sep 2013, 1:34 PM PDT 183 POST A COMMENT
On Monday, the House announced that it would pass a third Continuing Resolution to keep government open past Monday's midnight deadline. The announcement came soon after the Senate rejected the House CR that would delay ObamaCare for one year. The latest House CR will remove the special exemption from ObamaCare the Obama Administration gave to members of Congress and their staffs.

When ObamaCare passed in 2010, Sen. Chuck Grassley won approval for an amendment that would require members of Congress and congressional staff to enroll for health insurance through the ObamaCare exchanges. Because of this provision, the federal government would no longer by able to pay the 70+% of premiums it covered for members' and staff's health insurance. The Obama Administration issued a waiver to this rule early this year.
The narrowly drafted CR set to be voted on by the House Monday afternoon would block this waiver. If approved, members and their staff would have to enroll for health insurance through the exchanges, which are set to open on Tuesday.
The Senate is likely to reject this latest CR, as Harry Reid has vowed not to compromise on any language to keep the government open. Still, voting to maintain a special exemption for themselves raises political risks for Senate Democrats.
Shutting down the government to preserve their special treatment is a reason why Senate Democrats may accrue more blame over the shutdown than conventional wisdom assumes.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...n-for-Congress

Will The Federal Government ‘Shut Down’ At Midnight? And If It Does, Will It Affect You?

September 30, 2013 by Ben Bullard

The answer to the first question is looking more and more like a “yes” with each hour that passes. President Barack Obama said nothing new (and took no questions) at a press conference today, reiterating the harm a shutdown would do to the U.S. economy and to “our neighbors” who work for the Federal government – the Nation’s largest employer – who’d be furloughed.
Obama also repeated his rhetorical device Monday of marginalizing recalcitrant House Republicans (despite their representative majority), claiming that “one faction of one part in one house of Congress in one branch of government doesn’t get to shut down the government just to re-fight results of the last election.”
The House GOP spent Monday criticizing the Senate for taking Sunday off in the face of a government shutdown, as well as to repurpose a continuing resolution to temporarily fund the government with a proviso that would require a one-year delay in Obamacare’s individual-coverage mandate. That bill also seeks to strip members of Congress, White House officials and political appointees of any Obamacare subsidies, effectively forcing lawmakers to live with the same legislation they’ve passed on to the public.
Democratic leaders from Obama to Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) uniformly vowed any bill that attempts to attach Obamacare restrictions to the Federal budget would get no traction.
In short: last-minute deals can always happen, but there’s been nothing in the rhetoric to indicate either side of the argument is approaching a compromise that will avert a shutdown with only hours left on the deadline clock.
As for the second question? Well, if you aren’t a Federal employee in a “nonessential” role (more on that in a moment), history would indicate that a shutdown is more likely either to help you a little, or to have no effect on you at all, than to cause you financial harm – despite Obama’s dire talk of an imploding economy.
Russell Price of Ameriprise Financial wrote Monday:

The most notable government shutdown of recent memory was the closure of government offices during the budget battle of 1995. Similar to the current circumstances, then-President Clinton battled with the Republican-led House of Representatives over the fiscal 1996 federal budget.
… How did the economy and markets react? Quite well, actually. Stock prices moved steadily higher throughout the period, likely on the perceived prospect of deficit reduction. The S&P 500 was 5.4 percent higher on a price-only basis from the end of October through the end of January.
Meanwhile, consumer spending was also fairly unaffected through the period, although consumer confidence did drop significantly. Confidence levels had improved in early November with the Conference Board’s index rising to 101.6 from 96.3 in October. But by the time of the January reading, the index had dropped more than 13 points to 88.4.
Ultimately, the U.S. economy surged in 1996 with Real GDP growing by 3.7% versus 2.5% in 1995.

In addition, Democrats’ claims that a shutdown will harm soldiers, mailmen, people on Social Security, unemployment and people who eat meat that someone from the FDA hasn’t inspected – to name only a few nightmare scenarios – are either exaggerated or completely false. National Review sets the record straight here.
A separate NR article also points out what many small-government conservatives have maintained all along: that a “shutdown” as defined by Congress isn’t really a shutdown at all. Rather, it’s a paring back of government bloat that leaves intact, in some form, those functions of Federal government that crucially serve the interests of all Americans, as opposed to specialized entitlements and regulations that benefit (or harm) only the few.
NR’s Hans A. von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, writes:

The truth from the experience of prior shutdowns, applicable federal laws, Justice Department legal opinions, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directives, is that crucial government services and benefits would continue without interruption even if Congress fails to agree on a continuing resolution (CR) or President Obama vetoes it. That includes all services essential for national security and public safety — such as the military and law enforcement — as well as mandatory government payments such as Social Security and veterans’ benefits.
In fact, as the Justice Department said in a legal opinion in 1995, “the federal government will not be truly ‘shut down’ . . . because Congress has itself provided that some activities of Government should continue.” Any claim that not passing a CR would result in a “shutting down” of the government “is an entirely inaccurate description,” according to the Justice Department.
Such a lapse in funding would be neither catastrophic nor unprecedented. There have been 17 funding gaps just since 1977, ranging in duration from one to 21 days. Under applicable federal law, operations and services would continue for those essential for “the safety of human life or the protection of property” as well as those programs funded through multiyear or permanent appropriations such as Social Security.

Even furloughed employees are likely to receive their back pay, and some are already using the union apparatus to clamor for it. That kind of collateral expense points out the self-perpetuating fallacy of big government. Democrats’ urgent criticisms that a shutdown will ultimately be costly to the government are true – from Democrats’ point of view. That’s because Obama and his followers invoke the lost opportunity cost of unpaid wages and unspent Federal funds as a harbinger of economic loss for average Americans.
But that’s a very progressive way to approach the “problem” of paring back Federal spending. As Reason’s Scott Shackford writes:

To my perpetual annoyance, the president – like any government official defending employee spending – invoked the concept of economic multipliers, the notion that wages generate and grow a local economy as the money is spent in the community, thereby creating wealth. It’s frustrating when government officials invoke economic multipliers because the money they spend is forcibly taken from the community in the first place. These are not voluntary exchanges where the consumer receives something of value in exchange for the producer receiving more than the cost to create that thing (in fact, ithe exact opposite often happens given the lack of incentives for efficiency). When a government official invokes economic multipliers, he or she inevitably doesn’t consider what might have been done with that money if the government never collected it in the first place.

So here’s an idea: stop calling it a “shutdown” and make it permanent. Let dollars stay in the hands of people who earn them instead of being handed over to the Federal government to propagate a never-ending bait-and-switch game of “taxpayer-funded” entitlements that are actually funded on wave after wave of limitless, currency-debasing money printing.
Of course that won’t happen anytime soon. But if the government does “shut down” after midnight, it will be interesting to see whether the private sector responds as it did during the Clinton years.

Filed Under: Liberty News, Staff Reports


http://personalliberty.com/2013/09/3...it-affect-you/

GOVERNMENT

HOW OBAMACARE HAS CHANGED ONE FAMILY’S SITUATION TO ‘IT’S EITHER EAT OR BUY HEALTH INSURANCE’

Oct. 1, 2013 4:00pm Erica Ritz
Several Videos at the Page Link:

With the new “Obamacare” health insurance exchanges officially open for business, Glenn Beck and his radio co-hosts Pat Gray and Stu Burguiere went to www.healthcare.gov on Tuesday only to find what countless others were greeted with: glitches, errors, and messages asking you to hold.
Before long, they also spoke with a caller whose life is being turned upside down by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
“We appreciate your patience,” Gray said in the voice of a telephone operator. “You are Number 477,326 in line. Please continue to wait, as you will be taken in the order in which you arrived. Thank you for your patience.”
“Hope you don’t have anything really wrong with you,” Beck added.
Soon it started to look like Burguiere’s monitor was making progress, but the message merely changed to: “???ff.ee.shared.header.getinsurance???”

COMPLIMENTARY CLIP FROM THEBLAZE TV

After the break, Beck took a call from Bryan in Florida, who says his costs have already skyrocketed in the wake of the Affordable Care Act.
“Our insurance for the family plan…our current cost is $127 a week through United Healthcare which, you know, we have a really good plan,” Bryan began. “Well, my wife went in early this morning, they went over all the different options. The same plan for my family — nothing in our life has changed, everything is the same — is now $237.10 a week.”
But the jump from $127 a week to $237 a week isn’t even the worst of it, he said. Even if they opt for a plan that’s not as good as what they currently have, they’ll still be paying more than they were before.

“The cheapest plan — which is way higher deductible than what we have now, less coverage — is still $178 a week,” Bryan remarked. “Now, mind you, my wife makes $35,000 a year. So if we kept with the same plan, that means 1/3 of her total income would go just to have the same insurance that we’ve had for the last four years at $6,000 a year.”
Beck sarcastically responded that those “damn insurance companies” are “gouging” him — predicting that many will blame the insurance companies, not the government for the changes.
A reeling Bryan said that’s not even “the kicker.”
Lower income families under the Affordable Care Act are told they will get subsidies from the government to help cover the cost of insurance under the exchanges. But because Bryan’s employer offers a healthcare plan, they were told that they are not eligible for any of the subsidies because they will be “refusing” the insurance they’re provided — even if it’s because they can’t afford it.
“And I put a big ‘question mark question mark’ on that,” Bryan said, mocking the “???ff.ee.shared.header.getinsurance???” message Burguiere received from healthcare.gov.
Bryan said he was shocked by how many people are going to be affected — unable to pay for the insurance they had (though technically, if they like it, they can keep it), and forced onto the government programs without the promised subsidies.
“I’m like, okay…It’s either eat or buy health insurance,” he said. “And if you don’t, you’re going to be penalized.”
“You want to eat and have health insurance?” Burguiere asked mockingly. “Greedy bastard,” Gray added.
Bryan said that in the end, they’re “going to take the lesser option,” but that amount is roughly equivalent to their electric bill. They don’t want to be dependent on government assistance, he said, “but there again, that’s going to be another $1,000, you know, another $3,000, $4,000 a year.”
“I want you to look at the bright side,” Beck concluded sarcastically. “You say that this is now what your electricity bill is — but under his plan, electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket. So that won’t last for very long.”
COMPLIMENTARY CLIP FROM THEBLAZE TV

Reflecting on the call later in the program, Beck said Bryan’s story is indicative of what is coming in America.
People won’t be able to afford the private insurance, and will be forced onto the government exchanges. And if they’re not eligible for the subsidies, many will be clamoring for them.
“And so everyone is going to be on government subsidies,” Beck said. “I’m telling you by the time the next presidential election happens, 100 million people will be getting food stamps.”
“We are headed towards Venezuela,” Beck concluded. “By the way — Venezuela just posted guards this last weekend at the toilet paper factory. Why is it that it always ends…standing in line for toilet paper? Do you remember that in Russia, the Soviet Union? You had to stand in line for toilet paper. I mean, can we just admire the capitalist system here just a little bit longer before it slips into darkness?”
“I swear to you the day that we’re standing in line for toilet paper — you do not want to be in line with me because I’m going to be bitching at everybody else in line,” he said. “‘How many of you people voted for this crap?’ Excuse the pun. ‘How many???!’”
The full episode of The Glenn Beck Program, along with many other live streaming shows and thousands of hours of on-demand content, is available on just about any digital device. Get it all with a FREE TRIAL.
–

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...lth-insurance/