Skip to main content

View Diary: GOP staff: Our bosses 'threw staff under the bus' (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Definition? Explanation? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Be Skeptical

    Literarally, what does this mean?  What "subsidy"?

    My first guess was that Vitter was trying to drop the "employer" part of the premium payment, that being the federal government's contribution to the employees' health insurance premium.

    But there is a reference in the post to

    the subsidy for congressional staff covered by Obamacare
    ...which mystifies me. There is as yet no such thing as subsidies. That comes once the exchanges are set up and applies only to insurance from the exchyanges. Which leads to yet another question: Are staffers expected to leave their federal health insurance and go to exchanges?  I know one can leave one's employer-supplied insurance and go the exchanges, but it is expected that most won't do that because employer-supplied insurance is likely a better deal than what one could get independently on the exhchanges.

    Can someone explain this? What, precisely, do staffers get now for insurance, and what, precisely, is Vitter proposing?

    •  Nothing to do with (0+ / 0-)

      OK, my first guess was correct. This is simply about the standard employer contribution to the cost of insurance premium. It has nothing to do with "subsidies" or Obamacare.

      Here's the money quote:

      The issue of whether lawmakers and staff will continue to receive the employer contribution from the federal government — estimated at between $5,000 to $12,000 annually — has become political kryptonite on Capitol Hill
      This is another example of where the left mistakenly adopts the language framed by the right and either adds to the confusion or advances their agenda, unwittingly.  The GOP is trying to tie it to Obamacare.  

      False analogy. False equivalence. Non sequitar. Resist the impulse to argue on their grounds.

    •  Staffers moved to the exchanges (0+ / 0-)

      Here's the way I understand it: Currently staffers get an employer contribution to health care. It covers over 70% of the premiums. Grassley inserted a provision into the ACA dropping staffers health coverage and moving them to the exchanges. That also meant staffers would lose their employer contribution. This would be a big pay cut for staffers.  The problem was fixed by (the administration?) ruling that staffers would still get the employer contribution even though they'd be covered by the ACA.  I think its the employer contribution that is being referred to as 'subsidies'. Congressional staffers are the only employees forced out of their employer health coverage via the ACA.

      •  Thanks! (0+ / 0-)

        Wow, that really is appalling.  I just didn't see how staffers had anything to do with the exchanges.

        ..the only employees forced out of their employer health coverage via the ACA.
        That Grassley is such a worm...  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site