This topic is locked from further discussion.
Take if from my boy Rush but the news is out on a few other websites.
They all get a special 75% off subsidy. They dont even have to follow the rules they write, they are all too special and important.
"Now, if a Republican president had given Congress a way around his signature legislation, it would be the biggest story since soldiers put panties on the heads of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and made 'em do a pyramid."
[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"][QUOTE="lamprey263"]"And there was a story -- I don't have it at my fingertips here, but I remember it like this was yesterday." oh great, a source without a sourcelamprey263http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/capitol-hill-obamacare-crisis-solved-95100.html?hp=t1 its not like hes making anything up dude.there, i got a source saying this is hokum media matters? a media matters blog? yeah right. Anyway thats old, this is CURRENT NEWS that obama just announced for congress
edit- befroe you cry that i posted Rush, I posted rushs commentary on the current news issue. you posted some old soucre trying to deny the current news of congress getting obamacare discount
there, i got a source saying this is hokum media matters? a media matters blog? yeah right. Anyway thats old, this is CURRENT NEWS that obama just announced for congress[QUOTE="lamprey263"][QUOTE="AdamPA1006"] http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/capitol-hill-obamacare-crisis-solved-95100.html?hp=t1 its not like hes making anything up dude.AdamPA1006
edit- befroe you cry that i posted Rush, I posted rushs commentary on the current news issue. you posted some old soucre trying to deny the current news of congress getting obamacare discount
See, Rush refers to an article but doesn't get the least of its meaning or the truth from it, he just refers to the article and hopes his drones don't try to look over the sources or what the issue was really about. Rush makes it sound like the solution reached subsidized 75% of the costs to for medical coverage to employees under Obamacare, truth is the Office of Personnel Management already shouldered 75% of the premium cost for employee coverage. Nothing has changed in that regard changed. The new law requires that Congress and staffers have to get their insurance from the government exchange, rather than picking from the plans that were available to choose from previously; this by the way was a Republican imposed measure. The problem with the law was a problem for a couple reasons. One reason that has two parts has to do with the healthcare law requiring Congress and Congressional staffers to get on the government exchange. however this was an issue because the insurance exchange would not be set up for large employer enrollment until 2017 (therefor, the government employees would be required to be a part of an exchange they were no eligible to join for another few years. Secondly, the Office of Personnel Management was set up to pay 75% of employee healthcare plans, which they had multiple options of choosing from, and that 75% premium coverage was prior to this purposefully inflated issue, however the issue was whether the Office of Personnel Management could legally make the premium payments on for the government exchange under the current law. So yes, changes were made to the healthcare law so that they could comply with it, but it wasn't to exempt employees of the government from participating in it, it was clearly a fix because the law had a few problems in it that made government employees unable to participate in it. Republicans like Rush and yourself try to make it sound like it was so expensive that it'd end up hurting employees and the solution was the government needed to subsidize additional cost, and that's complete and utter hokum. The fix came to allowing for government employees to enroll in the exchange rather than waiting until 2017, and for the Office of Personnel management to make the 75% premium payments for coverage that it has always made. Nothing more.
Well, considering they're getting FREE HEALTHCARE right now, I'd say it's good they're finally paying SOMETHING.
Jumping to conclusion before getting the full story. Sounds like it's the new Republican standard.
"It's a huge scandal that is going to finally take down the Obama administration!"
"Oh, I guess not's not much a scandal."
Me nor rush said anything like that. Its obvious not that no scandal short of obama killing someone would get him impeachedJumping to conclusion before getting the full story. Sounds like it's the new Republican standard.
"It's a huge scandal that is going to finally take down the Obama administration!"
"Oh, I guess not's not much a scandal."
jimkabrhel
[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"]media matters? a media matters blog? yeah right. Anyway thats old, this is CURRENT NEWS that obama just announced for congress[QUOTE="lamprey263"] there, i got a source saying this is hokumlamprey263
edit- befroe you cry that i posted Rush, I posted rushs commentary on the current news issue. you posted some old soucre trying to deny the current news of congress getting obamacare discount
See, Rush refers to an article but doesn't get the least of its meaning or the truth from it, he just refers to the article and hopes his drones don't try to look over the sources or what the issue was really about. Rush makes it sound like the solution reached subsidized 75% of the costs to for medical coverage to employees under Obamacare, truth is the Office of Personnel Management already shouldered 75% of the premium cost for employee coverage. Nothing has changed in that regard changed. The new law requires that Congress and staffers have to get their insurance from the government exchange, rather than picking from the plans that were available to choose from previously; this by the way was a Republican imposed measure. The problem with the law was a problem for a couple reasons. One reason that has two parts has to do with the healthcare law requiring Congress and Congressional staffers to get on the government exchange. however this was an issue because the insurance exchange would not be set up for large employer enrollment until 2017 (therefor, the government employees would be required to be a part of an exchange they were no eligible to join for another few years. Secondly, the Office of Personnel Management was set up to pay 75% of employee healthcare plans, which they had multiple options of choosing from, and that 75% premium coverage was prior to this purposefully inflated issue, however the issue was whether the Office of Personnel Management could legally make the premium payments on for the government exchange under the current law. So yes, changes were made to the healthcare law so that they could comply with it, but it wasn't to exempt employees of the government from participating in it, it was clearly a fix because the law had a few problems in it that made government employees unable to participate in it. Republicans like Rush and yourself try to make it sound like it was so expensive that it'd end up hurting employees and the solution was the government needed to subsidize additional cost, and that's complete and utter hokum. The fix came to allowing for government employees to enroll in the exchange rather than waiting until 2017, and for the Office of Personnel management to make the 75% premium payments for coverage that it has always made. Nothing more. that was very long winded for the same fact, WHY do they get 75% of healthcare? This isnt even democrat or republican I dont think anyone in congress or their staff deserves this. If the law is so great and helpful to eevryone they should be able to pay with ease
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]Me nor rush said anything like that. Its obvious not that no scandal short of obama killing someone would get him impeached I'm curious as to what, if anything, you view as being a "high crime and misdemeanor" here. That members of Congress get a better deal than the average person and that Obama is to blame? WHICH FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE IS NOT THE CASE! [quote="AdamPA1006 Politico source"] The problem was rooted in the original text of the Affordable Care Act. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) inserted a provision which said members of Congress and their aides must be covered by plans created by the law or offered through an exchange. Until now, OPM had not said if the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program could contribute premium payments toward plans on the exchange. If payments stopped, lawmakers and aides would have faced thousands of dollars in additional premium payments each year. Under the old system, the government contributed nearly 75 percent of premium payments. Obamas involvement in solving this impasse was unusual, to say the least. But it came after serious griping from both sides of the aisle about the potential of a brain drain. The fear, as told by sources in both parties, was that aides would head for more lucrative jobs, spooked by the potential for spiking health premiums. There was a certain sense of urgency, too, since enrollment in the exchanges was set to begin Oct. 1. There were discussions of a legislative fix attaching language to a must-pass bill to fix the problem. But that wouldve been too difficult in todays paralyzed Washington. White House officials acknowledged that a fix was needed. But they knew that once they dealt with it through a regulation, some Republicans would use it against them even though most of their party was privately obsessing over it. I mean, did you even bother reading your own source before using it? A Republican Senator inserted the provision. The old program and the new program subsidize Congressional healthcare the exact same amount. Both sides of the aisle were pushing for this. This is, like EVERY other "scandal" that Obama has been accused of, something that falls apart with even a passing glance at it. Obama hasn't been a perfect president, but he's done nothing even remotely close to qualifying for impeachment. Which, I might point out, is why you never see any GOP party leaders talking seriously about doing it. They know it would backfire in a huge way because once you get outside of the conservative media circle jerk there's just nothing there that would hold up under close examination.Jumping to conclusion before getting the full story. Sounds like it's the new Republican standard.
"It's a huge scandal that is going to finally take down the Obama administration!"
"Oh, I guess not's not much a scandal."
AdamPA1006
jim, politicians exempting them selves from their own programs rates high on the stink/sham-o-metersurrealnumber5But that isn't happening here. [quote="Politico source again"] The problem was rooted in the original text of the Affordable Care Act. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) inserted a provision which said members of Congress and their aides must be covered by plans created by the law or offered through an exchange. They're specifically REQUIRED to participate in this program, which Senator Grassley put in place to try and keep the program from passing. Once it DID pass there was butthurt that they weren't getting as big of a subsidy on their healthcare than they used to, so now they're getting the same amount as there was before. But even if that weren't the case, it STILL would not be an impeachable offense or a scandal. Perhaps not the greatest thing in the world, but being in public office has always carried perks that ordinary citizens don't get. I mean, does this strike you as "treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors"?
Oh well this bill will further crush our wage slave economy.
there are around a million better reasons to impeach OB and try him and bush for war crimes. if the original bill required " inserted a provision which said members of Congress and their aides must be covered by plans created by the law or offered through an exchange." so should it be. they should have no out of their harmful plan. surrealnumber5Agree that there are many better arguments for impeaching Obama and before him Bush. Off the top of my head, Bush setting up a torture regime in flagrant violation of both U.S. and international law works for him and Obama declining to prosecute and aggressively go after the offenders makes him complicit. If you want to talk impeachable scandals, making us a country that condones torture rates a little higher on my outrage radar than members of Congress and their staffs getting goodies that I don't. I also agree that, as a general principle, there should be one law for everyone. Having said that, there's no crime for Obama here. There may be members of Congress of both parties voting themselves extra perks, but that's hardly anything new and certainly nothing that rises to the level of even a scandal let alone an impeachable offense.
People get job perks in high ranking positions.
This is not new. You posting this is tribute to both how stupid you are and how desperate you are to attack liberals.
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]there are around a million better reasons to impeach OB and try him and bush for war crimes. if the original bill required " inserted a provision which said members of Congress and their aides must be covered by plans created by the law or offered through an exchange." so should it be. they should have no out of their harmful plan. nocoolnamejimAgree that there are many better arguments for impeaching Obama and before him Bush. Off the top of my head, Bush setting up a torture regime in flagrant violation of both U.S. and international law works for him and Obama declining to prosecute and aggressively go after the offenders makes him complicit. If you want to talk impeachable scandals, making us a country that condones torture rates a little higher on my outrage radar than members of Congress and their staffs getting goodies that I don't. I also agree that, as a general principle, there should be one law for everyone. Having said that, there's no crime for Obama here. There may be members of Congress of both parties voting themselves extra perks, but that's hardly anything new and certainly nothing that rises to the level of even a scandal let alone an impeachable offense. numero zwei would be the use of "depleted" uranium that shit poisons land longer than our earth will be around. that is a crime against life especially when Iridium is better for war in every metric other than transport of nuclear waste.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]there are around a million better reasons to impeach OB and try him and bush for war crimes. if the original bill required " inserted a provision which said members of Congress and their aides must be covered by plans created by the law or offered through an exchange." so should it be. they should have no out of their harmful plan. surrealnumber5Agree that there are many better arguments for impeaching Obama and before him Bush. Off the top of my head, Bush setting up a torture regime in flagrant violation of both U.S. and international law works for him and Obama declining to prosecute and aggressively go after the offenders makes him complicit. If you want to talk impeachable scandals, making us a country that condones torture rates a little higher on my outrage radar than members of Congress and their staffs getting goodies that I don't. I also agree that, as a general principle, there should be one law for everyone. Having said that, there's no crime for Obama here. There may be members of Congress of both parties voting themselves extra perks, but that's hardly anything new and certainly nothing that rises to the level of even a scandal let alone an impeachable offense. numero zwei would be the use of "depleted" uranium that shit poisons land longer than our earth will be around. that is a crime against life especially when Iridium is better for war in every metric other than transport of nuclear waste. I'm not up to speed on that one, but that sounds like far more of a moral issue than a legal one. Presumably the armed forces use what they buy with the budget that they are given and therefore that wouldn't exactly be something that could be pinned on Obama either. But your general point remains solid: there are other, better things to be giving attention to. What has just had me rolling my eyes for years now is one idiotic nothingburger of a scandal after another that the rightwing media chooses to obsess over when there are REAL, LEGIT issues that they could be reporting and driving tough conversations on. Things like Benghazi, Black Panthers, "Obamaphones", Acorn, IRS targeting etc. are not legit issues.
Real people dieing in benghazi= fake scandal lmao
[QUOTE="lamprey263"][QUOTE="AdamPA1006"] media matters? a media matters blog? yeah right. Anyway thats old, this is CURRENT NEWS that obama just announced for congressSee, Rush refers to an article but doesn't get the least of its meaning or the truth from it, he just refers to the article and hopes his drones don't try to look over the sources or what the issue was really about. Rush makes it sound like the solution reached subsidized 75% of the costs to for medical coverage to employees under Obamacare, truth is the Office of Personnel Management already shouldered 75% of the premium cost for employee coverage. Nothing has changed in that regard changed. The new law requires that Congress and staffers have to get their insurance from the government exchange, rather than picking from the plans that were available to choose from previously; this by the way was a Republican imposed measure. The problem with the law was a problem for a couple reasons. One reason that has two parts has to do with the healthcare law requiring Congress and Congressional staffers to get on the government exchange. however this was an issue because the insurance exchange would not be set up for large employer enrollment until 2017 (therefor, the government employees would be required to be a part of an exchange they were no eligible to join for another few years. Secondly, the Office of Personnel Management was set up to pay 75% of employee healthcare plans, which they had multiple options of choosing from, and that 75% premium coverage was prior to this purposefully inflated issue, however the issue was whether the Office of Personnel Management could legally make the premium payments on for the government exchange under the current law. So yes, changes were made to the healthcare law so that they could comply with it, but it wasn't to exempt employees of the government from participating in it, it was clearly a fix because the law had a few problems in it that made government employees unable to participate in it. Republicans like Rush and yourself try to make it sound like it was so expensive that it'd end up hurting employees and the solution was the government needed to subsidize additional cost, and that's complete and utter hokum. The fix came to allowing for government employees to enroll in the exchange rather than waiting until 2017, and for the Office of Personnel management to make the 75% premium payments for coverage that it has always made. Nothing more. that was very long winded for the same fact, WHY do they get 75% of healthcare? This isnt even democrat or republican I dont think anyone in congress or their staff deserves this. If the law is so great and helpful to eevryone they should be able to pay with ease no, it was a very long winded argument because the claim from right wing automatons like yourself regurgitating Rush's diatribe is that Obamacare is so expensive the government needs to subsidize the premium costs, not that government is wasteful for providing employees government benefits anyhow, since you're moving the goal post, - why should anybody be shocked the government pays for 75% of the premiums for their employees? you should know it's not anything new that employers pay for employee medical benefits (and sometimes they cover 100% of the premiums), for much of the country that's the only way they can get healthcare, if anything I'm pretty shocked that members of congress and government staffers make way more than a living wage yet still have to pay part of their healthcare premiums anyhow, the claim was from rush and yourself that healthcare premiums under Obamacare were so high that the government had to subsidize them to make them affordable, and that was complete bull, so don't try to hide that now also, since the concept of employee benefits somehow seem completely alien from you, it makes me really wonder - have you actually had a job in your life? are you like 15 or something?
edit- befroe you cry that i posted Rush, I posted rushs commentary on the current news issue. you posted some old soucre trying to deny the current news of congress getting obamacare discount
AdamPA1006
Real people dieing in benghazi= fake scandal lmao
AdamPA1006
You do yourself and your cause absolutely no favors, you are one of the reasons why many of the people here are liberals.
On topic: After reading the politico article it sounds like you have no fvcking clue what you are talking about.
[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"]
Real people dieing in benghazi= fake scandal lmao
Bane_09
You do yourself and your cause absolutely no favors, you are one of the reasons why many of the people here are liberals.
On topic: After reading the politico article it sounds like you have no fvcking clue what you are talking about.
Me right. Its all my fault. Tell me how real people dieing was a fake scandal? I dont even consider it THAT big a deal, but what bothered me was the completely obvious lieing the week after that it was "spontaneous" demonstrations or whatever. Why couldnt they just admit it was a terror attack sooner? Or not admit ANYTHING, till they had all the facts, but they were telling everyone the next day it wasnt a terror attack the next day[QUOTE="Bane_09"][QUOTE="AdamPA1006"]
Real people dieing in benghazi= fake scandal lmao
AdamPA1006
You do yourself and your cause absolutely no favors, you are one of the reasons why many of the people here are liberals.
On topic: After reading the politico article it sounds like you have no fvcking clue what you are talking about.
Me right. Its all my fault. Tell me how real people dieing was a fake scandal? I dont even consider it THAT big a deal, but what bothered me was the completely obvious lieing the week after that it was "spontaneous" demonstrations or whatever. Why couldnt they just admit it was a terror attack sooner? Or not admit ANYTHING, till they had all the facts, but they were telling everyone the next day it wasnt a terror attack the next day It's a dangerous world. People die. Basically, **** happens. For this to be a scandal you need to show some form of negligence and/or coverup.jim, uniform liability is my goal, and when you do harm to an area in perpetuity forever, you are liable. sadly some, maybe you, idunno, would call for you and i to pay for the political decisions of those elected. i wish for those elected to be held accountable for their actions be it at home of in foreign lands. i see the lack of liability as the ultimate cause of all of the ills of the world on any meaningful scale. what i mean is that politicians have zero liability for their actions. you cant know the harm until action and at that point people tend to blame the next guy or something else. surrealnumber5An issue we won't resolve tonight and one that likely needs the following things to happen: 1. Elimination of gerrymandered safe districts that create disincentives for compromise or effective governing 2. Elimination or severe reduction of the amount of money in politics through effective campaign finance reform that the Supreme Court doesn't toss out etc. Anyway, I got to run. Packing for a trip tomorrow. Nice talking with you again.
[QUOTE="Bane_09"][QUOTE="AdamPA1006"]
Real people dieing in benghazi= fake scandal lmao
AdamPA1006
You do yourself and your cause absolutely no favors, you are one of the reasons why many of the people here are liberals.
On topic: After reading the politico article it sounds like you have no fvcking clue what you are talking about.
Me right. Its all my fault. Tell me how real people dieing was a fake scandal? I dont even consider it THAT big a deal, but what bothered me was the completely obvious lieing the week after that it was "spontaneous" demonstrations or whatever. Why couldnt they just admit it was a terror attack sooner? Or not admit ANYTHING, till they had all the facts, but they were telling everyone the next day it wasnt a terror attack the next dayThis has nothing to do with your topic first of all
I never said real people dying was a fake scandal, those were your words
"Why couldnt they just admit it was a terror attack sooner? Or not admit ANYTHING, till they had all the facts, but they were telling everyone the next day it wasnt a terror attack the next day"
Something tells me you would be on a witch hunt no matter what they said. Benghazi wasn't anyone's fault, to try and somehow say it is Obama's fault because he did or did not call it a terrorist attack after it happened is insane. Whethere they lied or just didn't have all the facts, I have no idea so I am not going to start assuming I do know
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment