ex-khobar Andy wrote:The irony of all this of course is that the 'repeal and replace' vote is not taking place because one elderly senator is being treated under the finest insurance that money (our money, not his) can buy. I wish McCain a full recovery; but I have to wonder how many constituents of his would have had that little clot discovered during a routine physical? Is it possible that his extraordinary confusion during the Comey hearings led to a checkup? That's government provided health care for you.
True enough - but I can't agree with "our money - not his". I doubt that he has in his lifetime contributed less in taxes than I do.
I'm on Medicare and wonder if folks might say that I'm getting coverage on "their money" and not mine, using the same logic?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Really? I thought he was the anti-Medicaid savage?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
I'm on Medicare and wonder if folks might say that I'm getting coverage on "their money" and not mine, using the same logic?
I don't know the details, but he's getting far better coverage than medicare provides--he has at least a medigap or other supplemental policy which provides full coverage for what medicare does not cover. It's a great policy and, unless things have changed, he gets it for life without any premium payments (nor do I think those in Congress pay any premiums for their and their family's health coverage--few others can boast the same. I've paid taxes for a long time--both federal income tax and medicare/social security, but have not received a penny back to cover my health insurance--my mother and father worked well into their 70s (well my father did, my mother died before she was 70) to pay for their prescriptions.
Where I see the disconnect is that the legislators are willing to accept this platinum plan, and then begrudge those at the edge even minimal coverage, telling them to get stripped down policies that cover little. There's something very wrong with that IMHO.
Not to belabor the (I thought) rather simple point, Big RR... McCain is getting government-paid health care. He has paid taxes all his life to the government. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that he gets health care that we have paid for and he has not. He's contributed more in taxes than many of us, I'd bet. That is all.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Yes, he did pay taxes, but then we all did (and I have no idea how much he has paid in taxes or what his financial position is)--but taxes are paid into a common fund for the benefit of all (our money) and he is getting a benefit many of us who pay taxes have to pay for separately (out of our own money). Sure, the taxes he paid went to paying for some of that benefit, but then so did the taxes each of us paid. I did not read Andy's comment as saying some of his taxes didn't help pay for that benefit. However, if that is the way you read it, then I agree with your comments that some of his taxes have contributed to paying the premiums for the health insurance he has.
Belaboring. I don't know any other way to understand that his health insurance is paid for by "(our money, not his)". But thanks for telling me that we all (or most of us) pay taxes... always learning something new.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
What a liar McCain is! Obamacare was put to vote after many, many public hearings and much opportunity for Republican input, which they stonewalled of their own choosing. His description of the process is sickeningly cynical.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
I take your point MGM - of course McCain has paid more in taxes than I have, because I don't think he is a graduate of Trump U. But all the time I was employed I paid health care premiums which were heavily subsidized by my employer - note heavily, not totally. Except for one year 2007-8 when I worked for a small business with 20 or so employees who did not provide healthcare - luckily I could use COBRA from my prior employer but of course then I had to pay the entire premium myself. McCain AFAIK (and please correct me) has an entirely taxpayer paid healthcare with no contribution from himself and I am guessing no high deductible. During that year I was paying over $1000 per month with as I recall around $8000 in deductibles for an annual cost of $21000. I have the resources to do that but many do not.
MajGenl.Meade wrote:Really? I thought he was the anti-Medicaid savage?
When he was Budget Committee chair, Paul Ryan's big plan was to turn Medicare into a voucher system that basically gave you coupons to see your doctor or go to the hospital. Ryan hates Medicare because it is 1) socialized medicine, b) an entitlement, and iii) costs money that could otherwise be used to fund a tax cut for the wealthy:
Apparently, House Republicans believe that the reason Trumpcare just died without a Senate vote — after becoming the least popular piece of major legislation in living memory — was that it didn’t condemn nearly enough of their own voters to preventable deaths for the sake of padding the passive income of the one percent.
On Tuesday morning, Paul Ryan’s caucus unveiled a blueprint for a social calamity, which they’re calling “the 2018 federal budget.” The legislation cuts nearly $500 billion from Medicare and $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and Obamacare, according to the Associated Press. It trims Social Security; guts food assistance and earned-income tax credits for the working poor; rolls back regulations on Wall Street by stripping $14 billion from enforcement; and slashes non-defense discretionary spending by 23 percent over 10 years.
It then uses the consequent savings — plus rosy assumptions about economic growth — to finance a buildup in military spending and massive tax breaks for the rich. That last bit is the primary purpose of the resolution, as the budget lays out the reconciliation instructions that would allow the Senate to pass tax reform without Democratic votes.
I don't believe it is true anymore (if it ever was) that members of Congress do not contribute to the premiums for their health care plans. I think I remember reading that their share is around 25%. I don't know how that compares to what other government or private sector employees contribute towards their employer-sponsored plans.
But I am pretty sure that the coverage is superior to most employer-sponsored plans. One example, if I got it right, is that most employees would not be permitted to access Medicare benefits while they are covered under a plan like the one used to provide Congressional health care benefits. But members of Congress are exempted from that restriction, so they would be able to submit claims under both their plan and Medicare, thus reducing, if not completely eliminating, the deductibles and co-pays assessed in each plan.
Congress might be persuaded to deliver a health care reform that worked well for ordinary people, if they and their families were required to enrol in Medicaid upon assuming office, and were prohibited from enrolling in any other plan which might supplement or replace their Medicaid benefits. Being forced to access health care as a Medicaid patient would provide them with completely different insights as to what constitutes "reasonable and affordable"coverage.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
Prior to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as ACA, or Obamacare), members of Congress received the same healthcare insurance benefits as any other federal employee through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, or FEHBP.
During the mark-up of the ACA bill, however, lawmakers inserted a provision (Section 1312(d)(3)(D)) that requires members of Congress and designated congressional staff members to obtain their health insurance through ACA exchanges rather than continue to receive their healthcare coverage through the FEHBP.
As of 1 January 2014, Members of Congress (MOC) and Congressional staff purchase their insurance through the District of Columbia’s small business health options program (SHOP) exchange, also known as DC Health Link. Contrary to popular belief, Congressional members do not receive free health care. As it does for other federal employees who purchase their insurance through the FEHBP, the federal government provides a subsidy equivalent to 72 percent of the weighted average of all FEHBP premiums.
Therefore, MOC and staff pay approximately 28 percent of their annual healthcare premiums through pre-tax payroll deductions.
Although DC’s SHOP offers a total of 57 different ACA insurance plans at the bronze, silver, gold and platinum levels, the Office of Personnel Management has ruled that MOC and staff may only receive the employer contribution if they purchase insurance at the gold tier. If we look solely at the District of Columbia’s SHOP health plans and federal employer contributions, Members of Congress receive benefits very similar to those enjoyed by any employee of a large company.
The bottom line is this: Members of Congress and their staff members are required by law to purchase their health insurance through the exchanges offered by the Affordable Care Act. However, the federal government subsidizes approximately 72 percent of the premium cost.
Like those late-night Ginzu knife commercials on late-night TV, however: “but wait, there’s more!”
MOC and their staff are also eligible to set salary aside in Flex 125 savings plans, which help the employee pay for healthcare and childcare expenses with pre-tax dollars. If they enroll in high-deductible health plans (which is unlikely, since only the gold plans offer an employer contribution), they can also enroll in health savings accounts. If Members of Congress or staff purchase dental and vision or long-term care insurance, they pay 100 percent of their premiums through pre-tax dollars.
Again, these benefits are similar to those offered by many large employers. However, there are two areas where Members of Congress (not staff or family members) can receive free or low-cost health care that the average citizen cannot access. The first is having access to the Office of the Attending Physician. For an annual fee (unspecified), MOC can receive limited care for routine examinations, consultations, and certain diagnostic tests.
The second option is also only available to current Members of Congress. In the Capital region only, they may receive free medical outpatient care at military facilities. If they are outside of the Capital region or if they need inpatient care, then MOC must pay 100 percent of the full cost of that military health care.
Finally, upon separation from political life, Members of Congress may purchase FEHBP insurance if they are otherwise eligible for retirement and if they have had five years of continuous healthcare coverage under their DC SHOP plans.
If the Affordable Care Act is repealed, members of Congress have a fallback plan. They would be able to return to the FEHBP.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
Yes - what Scooter and BSG say above is true and I came here to say that my information (Congress folk get free healthcare) is outdated since ACA. So it is just not true that McCain gets entirely taxpayer funded healthcare; or rather probably not true because he is also eligible for VA and Medicare and maybe through AZ.
My basic point, however remains: they get a level of healthcare well above many of their constituents and they would do well to look to that as a model for the people.
Just to clarify, their healthcare wasn't free before ACA either - the FEHBP requires employee contribution to premiums, and presumably copays and such like any insurance plan.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
Well I will say the ability to purchase retirement healthcare coverage after 5 years service is unheard of in the employer's plans I am aware of. Even if it is not subsidized (and I'd bet it is), most employers I worked for required 10 or more years service to get any retiree healthcare benefits (if they were offered at all), and even the NJ state plan requires at least 20 years service to qualify. That is an extremely generous benefit, as is the fallback to FEHBP if they vote to terminate the ACA.
BSG--thanks for the update; I do recall hearing some of that when the ACA was being discussed, but didn't know it was law.
Thanks for the info, Sue. I see no realistic alternative to single-payer although I doubt the ability of the government to not make (a) a ClusterF out of it and (b) to avoid corruption.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Single payer although obvious will never happen. There are too many people employed in the process of determining who pays how much for any given procedure and billing. And the entrenched interests of the health insurance industry lobby group will be impossible to overcome unless there is real immediate and practical campaign finance reform.
GOP's repeal-only plan quickly collapses in Senate
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) says she will not support moving forward with a plan to repeal ObamaCare with a delayed replacement, effectively killing the latest legislative gambit from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Murkowski, who had balked at the last version of the ObamaCare bill, said she is a no on the motion to proceed to a repeal-only plan. She is the third Republican senator to take that position.
"No. I said back in January that if we're going to do a repeal there has to be a replacement. There's enough chaos and uncertainty already," she told reporters Tuesday.
With Murkowski's defection, GOP leaders do not have the votes to move forward to an ObamaCare repeal bill that passed the Senate in 2015, but was vetoed by then-President Obama.
Earlier Tuesday, Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) also said they will not support moving to the repeal-only bill. Republicans can only afford two defections if Vice President Pence breaks a tie.
