@heckofajobbrownie said:

Members of Congress are not exempt from the reforms. They're not excluded from paying for it, and they have to follow the same rules as everyone else, and they're not excluded from participating in the exchanges. In fact, they're forced to participate in the exchanges. When T posts something that describes the "health care gulags" that should probably tip you off that you should find your information elsewhere.

Republicans, with agreement from Democrats, put a measure into the bill that says that members of Congress and their staffs have to get their health care through plans created/amended by the bill, or the exchanges created by the bill. So they're actually the only people in this country who are forced to get their health care from this plan. Most of them will continue on with their existing coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which was amended by the bill. They're not allowed to buy private insurance outside of the exchanges. And again, this was a Republican amendment, and it didn't apply to the White House.

This is why I'm guessing the nuts are screaming about how the White House and committee staff are exempt from the reforms. They're not. They're simply not covered by the provision in the bill that the Republicans put in that specifically applied to members of Congress and Congressional staff. If you want to be upset that Leadership staff and Committee staff aren't forced into the plan, and simply have to abide by the reforms in the same way any other American would, be my guest. Let your fake outrage power your day.

So maybe you shouldn't get information from T. Just a suggestion.

Beating back the misinformation in here could be my full time job. There's something new every day, sometimes on the hour. And once it's proven false, no one ever says, "You're right. My bad." They just throw something else out there, because being wrong 20 times in a row never gives them any pause.

So what's next? Can't wait.

Don't forget politicians are great at exploiting loopholes, and that's exactly what the legislation has in it pertaining to Congressmen and Senators.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...ressional-staf/

A report issued by the Congressional Research Service, on Dec. 2, 2009, at Grassley's request provides this insight: "It appears possible to argue that the definition of 'congressional staff' used . . . excludes any staff not directly affiliated with a Member’s individual or personal office," the independent research office concluded. "Should this interpretation be adopted by an implementing body or a court, it would appear that it would exclude professional committee staff, joint committee staff, some shared staff, as well as potentially those staff employed by leadership offices including, but not limited to, the Speaker of the House, Majority Leader of the Senate, Minority Leader of the House, Minority Leader of the Senate, as well as the Whip offices in both the House and Senate. Moreover, this interpretation would arguably exclude other congressional employees, for example, those employed by the Office of the House Clerk, House Parliamentarian, House Historian, Secretary of the Senate, Senate Legal Counsel, House and Senate Legislative Counsel offices."

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Well, you need to read the 28th amendment then.

But dont let pride or arrogance stop you, go ahead and read the whole constitution.

I placed a link below where you can read the US Constitution, the full text.

So before you start rambling about something you know nothing about you may want to refer to it.

US Constitution, the FULL Text HERE

@pumpkin-eater said:

What do you have to say about that?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

How is congress being excluded UNIFORM?

How about this - you're just wrong. Does that work? Assuming I can tell what you're talking about.

Members of Congress are not exempt from the reforms. They're not excluded from paying for it, and they have to follow the same rules as everyone else, and they're not excluded from participating in the exchanges. In fact, they're forced to participate in the exchanges. When T posts something that describes the "health care gulags" that should probably tip you off that you should find your information elsewhere.

Republicans, with agreement from Democrats, put a measure into the bill that says that members of Congress and their staffs have to get their health care through plans created/amended by the bill, or the exchanges created by the bill. So they're actually the only people in this country who are forced to get their health care from this plan. Most of them will continue on with their existing coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which was amended by the bill. They're not allowed to buy private insurance outside of the exchanges. And again, this was a Republican amendment, and it didn't apply to the White House.

This is why I'm guessing the nuts are screaming about how the White House and committee staff are exempt from the reforms. They're not. They're simply not covered by the provision in the bill that the Republicans put in that specifically applied to members of Congress and Congressional staff. If you want to be upset that Leadership staff and Committee staff aren't forced into the plan, and simply have to abide by the reforms in the same way any other American would, be my guest. Let your fake outrage power your day.

So maybe you shouldn't get information from T. Just a suggestion.

Beating back the misinformation in here could be my full time job. There's something new every day, sometimes on the hour. And once it's proven false, no one ever says, "You're right. My bad." They just throw something else out there, because being wrong 20 times in a row never gives them any pause.

So what's next? Can't wait.

But 5% of the mil should net 50 K yearly as income and no loss of principle.

Add another 225$ and you have 100K for the mansion.

OK it'll be a modest mansion.

(But that supposes you rent all your life)

I'll take it.

WSS

@heckofajobbrownie said:

That wasn't addressed to you, but to everyone. I was just anticipating the arguments/posts that would follow what I wrote to you. I don't imagine that you deny that a bunch of other people in here are making that argument, and have made it routinely for the last few months.

Fair enough.

And the "retired in a mansion" thing is a fantasy. But I think you also miss the point of SS. It's retirement insurance. It's not a 401K, or an IRA, and it's not designed to be. It's base level of benefits that no working American can fall under.

Fantasy? I guess you'd need to crunch the numbers and show me.

And it's also not a "giveaway", but that's okay.

OK?

Actually if an "insurance" pays out more than it takes in it's a giveaway.

Real insurance companies are on the hook to make a profit to pay off claims.

As for repairing the demographic/funding problems with it, yes, it's politically difficult to do that. That has more to do with who gets the benefits than the fact that it's a "government giveaway." After all, the defense budget is really tough to cut too. So is the education budget.

We're going to have to have some combination of tax hikes and benefit cuts. There's no other way around it but fantasy.

Yep.

Cut the benefits but expand the number who get them.

Raise the taxes and stifle the growth.

Then expand the benefits base.

Then cut the benefite.

Then raise the taxes again.

Pass the Victory gin.

WSS

What do you have to say about that?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

How is congress being excluded UNIFORM?

And the "retired in a mansion" thing is a fantasy. But I think you also miss the point of SS. It's retirement insurance. It's not a 401K, or an IRA, and it's not designed to be. It's base level of benefits that no working American can fall under.

And it's also not a "giveaway", but that's okay.

As for repairing the demographic/funding problems with it, yes, it's politically difficult to do that. That has more to do with who gets the benefits than the fact that it's a "government giveaway." After all, the defense budget is really tough to cut too. So is the education budget.

We're going to have to have some combination of tax hikes and benefit cuts. There's no other way around it but fantasy.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

There's nothing wrong with the efficiency of Social Security.

Right.

Tell ya what, if I coulda put my SS tax in the shittiest passbook savings account the bank offered from the start of my working life I'd be retired in a mansion today.

But no shit the demographics have changed.

Good luck putting it back in line with the original plan.

You may have noticed government giveaways are hard to adjust.

That'd make retirement age what, 80?

But no, we're talking about something else entirely, namely that the government takes money to pay for both insurance programs out of your paycheck, and you can't opt-out.

Workmen's Comp? There's a well oiled machine. SSI disability? Another doozy.

But if you think I'm wrong, go ahead and bet me. Should be easy money for the charity of your choice.

Have I sid I think any of this shit will be declared uncinstitutional?

No.

So why harp on it?

If it makes you feel like you won an argument we aren't having go ahead.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

WSS

There's nothing wrong with the efficiency of Social Security. Taking in tax money and cutting checks to retirees isn't a hard thing to do. There's a long-term funding problem with SS because of demographic changes. And Medicare has far lower overhead costs than private insurance does. It too has a funding issue, and also a fraud issue.

But no, we're talking about something else entirely, namely that the government takes money to pay for both insurance programs out of your paycheck, and you can't opt-out.

That's more compulsory than the health care bill will be, and yet no one is suggesting that SS and Medicare aren't Constitutional.

Now, you can make the public/private argument if you want, and that auto insurance is different because it's a state thing, but I'm telling you that the chances that a federal court is going to rule that this falls out of the purview of the commerce clause and the taxing and spending provisions of the Constitution is extremely slim. Even with a conservative court that has been very "activist" lately.

But if you think I'm wrong, go ahead and bet me. Should be easy money for the charity of your choice.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

We have seen you flip flop back and forth on this for weeks.

Maybe you need to cut back on the self medication.

As you know a nice government doctor will help you.

Just take a number and they will call you in a few months

@heckofajobbrownie said:

We aren't using SS and Medicare as examples of how government programs run efficently are we?

WSS

@heckofajobbrownie said:

You're reading the text of the Constitution, and disregarding years of legal precedent. These things are not as simple as looking at the original document as it was written in 1789 and saying, "Hey, that's not in there!"

It's just a conservative fantasy.

Wanna bet?

So which way will you have it?

Was or is Obama a Constitutional lawyer?

You are contradicting yourself from earlier posts saying that Obama studied the Constitution. Just like a crook studies a building so as to find an easy and undetectable way of entering.

The other is a forced procurement of a service, and a penality for not procuring it,

while setting up the abolishment of any competition.

egad.

You're reading the text of the Constitution, and disregarding years of legal precedent. These things are not as simple as looking at the original document as it was written in 1789 and saying, "Hey, that's not in there!"

It's just a conservative fantasy.

Wanna bet?

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Sorry, that is just weak. Requiring someone to buy something is not a tax. It doesn't matter what it involves or does not involve. Making someone buy healthcare is NOT any part of:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

If Congress wanted to tax everyone and then buy them insurance, yes that would be constitutional. But they cannot make someone buy something, it's not in the constitution. They cannot do it.

The only examples congress has ever used a tax other than to raise revenue:

To regulate industry

to discourage industry

tariffs for protectionism

weak argument #3

@osusev said:

All they want to do is post op-ed pieces and parrot what their party politics are pushing toward the sheep.

I once thought you could actually reason and have a real discussion on the merits of each respective position........ but that is not possible.

No, of course not. Believe me, after five years, I know this. But I'm not here for reasoned discussion.

And no, this isn't going to be run as a traditional for-profit business, and non-profit lenders can also compete for these loans.

Any other questions?

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Show me the money? It is like show me the llink to that statement. The gripe over this is that the profits which are enormous will be earned by Big Brother. Will they be taxed on profits since they are now the largest business in America?

It was a nice gig for the lenders - loan out some money, mess with the rates, and if the student defaults, the government pays you back anyway. Who wouldn't want to keep that gravy train running?

Some people wanted to continue this charade, including some Democrats who, oddly enough, come from states where these lenders reside. Imagine that!

Thankfully they, and the Republicans, have lost this one. And we just saved $60 billion dollars, which will be mostly given back to students in the form of more Pell Grants.

But hey, some people won't be able to run around mumbling about free markets anymore. Even though this wasn't a free market to begin with. And that makes them sad.

Oh, well.