"Arguing federal workers should not get special treatment, Rand Paul says he does not want taxpayers subsidizing the personal health care plans of any federal employee — including Chief Justice John Roberts — anymore."
“My amendment says basically that everybody including Justice Roberts — who seems to be such a fan of Obamacare — gets it too,” Paul told TheDC by phone on Sunday from Mackinac Island in Michigan, where he won a straw poll of potential Republican candidates for president in 2016.
“See, right now, Justice Roberts is still continuing to have federal employee health insurance subsidized by the taxpayer,” Paul said. “And if he likes Obamacare so much, I’m going to give him an amendment that gives Obamacare to Justice Roberts.”
Roberts famously voted to uphold the constitutionality of Obama’s unpopular health care law when it went before the Supreme Court last year."
Daily Caller
26 comments:
One man's red meat is another man's poison pill.
AP Headline found in yesterday's Denver Post:
Pro-democrat bias:
"Obamacare strategy roils some in GOP .... Some fear doomed tactic will hurt party's 2014 chances"
If poll after poll shows a majority of Americans are against Obamacare, how will standing up against in in congress, hurt?
Oh yeah - that fact can be ignored. What's important is painting an impression based on the opinions of the writers at the party-loyalty protection racket - AP.
Actually, Rand Paul has the general concept backwards. Justice Roberts is still a hypocrite but more for his mendacity than his particular health plan. The unfairness is introduced and increased by the ACA, not remedied by it. FEHBP is a uniform plan, no waivers, and it already exists and has for decades.
FEHBP is a rational system, with a minimum of a dozen plus plan choices, already administered by OPM, on an existing state by state basis...e.g., to expand it to cover everyone, there would have been no need for a new immense layer of bureaucracy to administer it. FEHBP is administered by OPM, and they could handle the increased volume by hiring no one higher than a few GS-12's to oversee some GS-9's doing the added computer & paperwork. The contracting mechanism is already in place that provides choices between a dozen or two providers and plans, that are essentially portable and have no pre-existing condition exclusions. (That was a major issue, right?)
The issue of subsidy could have been established, without all this exchange crap and penalty/tax crap, by setting up a means testing process within the existing FEHBP system....e.g., employers would be required to subsidize between 50% and 70% of the costs (more if the employer chose to do so) and those *unemployed* (including principals of sole proprietorships and partnerships ...means testing, remember) would qualify for a federal subsidy in the same range. Most proprietorships/partnerships would not meet means testing thresholds if their ventures were viable otherwise.
This required payment by employers could be handled just like unemployment insurance fees, as well as taxes like Social Security. Employers would still have the option of self insurance if they met the criteria.
Further, FEHBP could be modified, within the existing system, hiring zero new people to do it, if Congress choose to implement a means testing feature within the civil service payroll structure ....thus higher earning senior management types (GS-14 through all SES ranks) would have graduated scales of federal subsidy based upon income levels.
The gross hypocrisy is that Congress voted itself in to the ACA system, then decided it wants out. Same for Justice Roberts by virtue of his semantically flawed decision.
There was and THERE IS already a working system, far less encumbering, than the ACA. That system is the FEHBP. If that had been proposed instead, the only decisions to be made in Congress would have been the degree of means test thresholds for subsidy, presuming to meet the ability of those in poverty and those unemployed.
The FEHBP is already a private sector provided fairly competed system...within EXISTING agency. No new agency or departments necessary. The fact is this idea was proposed (meekly) by none other than candidate John Kerry in 2004...possibly the only good idea he ever had.
Note: The presumption is that we agree that subsidy is fair when means tested, that states retain control of their regions, without any added burden or expense per se, and the everyone should be eligible at some level, without consideration of prior conditions.
This all could have been done without expanding H&HS one iota, nor creating any new layers anywhere, save expanding the actual workforce to meet volume. In federal service, under OPM, volume of work does not justify higher pay grades, it merely justifies increased manpower at service levels.
Sounds good to me. If Rand Paul ends up as President, it will be because he said things like this.
AprilApple said...
If poll after poll shows a majority of Americans are against Obamacare, how will standing up against in in congress, hurt?
See, that's your problem.
You keep thinking logically.
Hell, you keep thinking, period.
Make everyone, especially to pro-Obamacare lovers, eat the shit sandwich also.
Good on Paul.
AprilApple ... as I've cited previously on this topic, a Continuing Resolution (CR) does NOT prevent any funding per se, even if a particular project is not mentioned in said CR. Politicians (Cruz and Paul included) are already calling this long term CR a "budget"...which it definitely is not, it is a Resolution to continue funding at prior levels and does NOT have defined appropriative authority within it.
In short, the populace is being shucked and jived by DC, and the administration. Much bodice ripping and wailing and nothing will change when the CR passes.
If the government is shut down, that will be a executive branch decision with or without specific provision for the ACA in the CR. CR's let agencies move money around, just like was done this year with the Obama Pre-school Initiative....that theoretically had no funding in the 2013 CR's.
We are being conned now that these resolutions are budgets or the equivalent...and I will say again, that they are NOT, based on a couple decades dealing first hand with them.
Regular folks won't be forced on the government program if they are wealthy enough or have a super employer, but it seems right and just to me that those who gave it to us are forced on the government program.
Whatever laws our national or state legislative bodies pass on the people should apply to those who pass them *extra*. Or, as they say, eleventy!
AllenS said...
Make everyone, especially to pro-Obamacare lovers, eat the shit sandwich also...Good on Paul.
When Paul really calls their bluff and puts up a solid specific Joint Senate-House Bill (an Act of Congress) to eliminate the ACA, period, for everyone or apply it to everyone, including those who created exceptions for themselves (Congress) or acquired waivers otherwise, and lets see how the votes go then, with unions against, populace against, Congress-critters wanting to keep their FEHBP, Justices as well, etc.
All the rest of this CR shit is just that...pure shit.
I think Rand Paul would put such a bill up because he is not afraid to go against the establishment. Unlike Cruz or Rubio or Christie he has no hope of the establishment backing him for President. So he can fight.
I am very impressed with him.
as I've cited previously on this topic, a Continuing Resolution (CR) does NOT prevent any funding per se, even if a particular project is not mentioned in said CR.
Aridog, I think you are wrong on this. Here is the legislation to defund Obamacare. The bill doesn't just give Obama less money, that he can then strip some out of DoD and fund Obamacare. It explicity says no federal funds can be used for PPACA.
On another note, the CR that passed is only good through December 15th. However, the defund Obamcare legislation has no stated end date.
Rand Paul has to keep framing this issues in a simple populist way that can penetrate the minds of the typical low information voter.
He can reach them if he keeps it simple.
I like the idea considering CJ Roberts took his nuanced approach to fuck this country over. Nice work Rand.
Listening to a clip of harry Reid on radio news, harry Reid called everyone in the nation against Obama care a tea party anarchist
There's also the special labor union carve-out that didn't happen -- yet:
“We knew from the beginning this would be a problem,” a senior Democratic aide tells The Daily Beast. But with Republicans controlling the House, the aide said, the changes the unions want “just aren’t going to happen."
So, not a surprise, but a deal would be available down the road, and then elections 2010 happened. Still, where there's a will, there's a way:
As for a possible solution outside of Congress, [Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.)] said that he believes the door remains open for the Obama administration to step in somehow, particularly after a meeting last week between the president and top labor leaders.
“After the meeting,” Courtney said, White House officials “were given their marching orders to go and try to come up with ideas about how the Department of Labor can cushion the blow in terms of the problem that I think is now becoming increasingly apparent.”
After months of public warnings and complaints, union leaders have been silent since that meeting, a signal that a deal could be in the works and a sign of just how important changing the law is for unions and for one of the key benefits they offer current and prospective members.
The sound of silence.
Leland .... you link has timed out, and I can't find it in any documents attached to HR 933, which now has six major amendments. Show me, if you will, where it says what you say it does, with House sponsorship. The Senate can amend, but the House must then agree. The Senate cannot originate.
Please understand that even if it does say such funding is prohibited, it can still be done under the rules for CR's, because they are temporary resolutions, not Budget Appropriations. I've never seen CR's handled any other way....maybe it something new now?
Since we've given up actual appropriation budget mark ups and even Cruz and Paul are calling this abomination a "budget", I'd say the rules will get modified, post facto, however the administration feels like doing...who will stop them?
I really would like to see the text you refer to but I'm weary of searching about now. If you can convert it to a PDF, please send it to my email [it is in my profile], rather than link it with a time out.
Roberts already gets the single-payer government bill that all federal employees get, I imagine.
Is there anything that Rand Paul bothers knowing before he demagogues, or has he just become a proponent of single-payer?
On a related note, how bothered is Rand Paul by his own, government-provided, single payer service? Has he proposed getting a different provider?
It's not single payer. They purchase private health insurance (from an array of plans) offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. Single payer would mean the government was the insurance provider.
You should read Aridog upthread at 10:52 AM.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Roberts already gets the single-payer government bill that all federal employees get, I imagine.
You're right, you are imagining. Please read up on FEHBP (Federal Employees Health Benefit Program) before you call it "single payer." It is NOT. Multiple insurance companies, across all 50 states, bid annually for inclusion in the plan, meeting the criteria the plan specifies in its RFQ...and those insurance companies are the one's paying for any benefits used by an employee. The federal government is merely a criteria of coverage specifier (in bid specifications, such as no pre-existing exclusions, etc.) and single premium collection agent....for otherwise private insurance companies.
You well know that the term "single payer" refers to systems like Medicare, where government both collects premiums and pays for benefits provided, without competition.
On a related note, how bothered is Rand Paul by his own, government-provided, single payer service? Has he proposed getting a different provider?
Actually, he has the option to acquire a different provider ever year during the "open season", roughly November through mid- December. The premiums vary widely, from low to high, depending on the plan requested.
As I said earlier on this thread, the FEHBP concept is a rational one, requiring few additional employees in OPM, and no additional senior managers (GS-14 up thru SES ranks) becasue under OPM rules increased volume in an existing system does not justify more higher grades for oversight.
What FEHBP does for federal employees is no different than what large corporations do for their employees. FEHBP provides more provider choices than any corporation that I know of as well.
The difference between FEHBP and the ACA is that one already exists and works, the other is a cobbled together piece of crap that barely meets its own criteria, all of which would be met by FEHBP, if means testing were to be added to it to provide graduated subsidy.
Open competition between providers for particpation in the plan will always provide the lowest potential cost. FEHBP does that on a national scale, but still state by state, in an already functioning system for over 50 years now. As I said, using it was the sole good idea John Kerry ever had.
Leland ... I did some more browsing and found the Amendment you cited for HJ 59, the 2014 CR. My citation of HR 933 was in error, it refers to 2013, not 2014. So you are correct in the text as amended.
That said, the wording of the Amendment seems to conflict directly with the Anti-Deficiency Act regarding prior Obligations. Over-reach to put it mildly [one I have direct personal experience with ... I was charged as a fiduciary and won the case on Anti-Deficiency Act Merits].
Next, the other amendments, which amount to a pissing contest over Congressional coverage makes the entire HJ 59 ludicrous and unpassable if they are accepted. In short, the thing is designed to fail, but garner publicity for various partisans. As I have said, or at least implied, this is all Kabuki Thearter.
Otherwise, it is a CR, and CR's can be manipulated post facto...and IMO, this one will be, however it passes, with whatever wording is in the final text. The prohibition presumes that fiduciary enforcement will occur...so I have to ask, by whom? In my own case I had to resolve the issues using my own attorneys...DOJ did not defend.
I forgot to include the current source I used to find the applicable texts. It may or may not have a time out feature.
@Aridog/
Totally agree with you about extending the FEHPB. When my HS classmate Jim Edgar (R-the last sane & honest Gov of ILL) was Governor his then Head of his Health Agency--a guy I've known since kindergarten--a brilliant but supremely lazy guy--decided not to reinvent the wheel and instead simply took the Federal plan en toto and every place it said "Feds" he substituted "The State of Illinois" and used it as an off-the-shelf plan for all State of Illinois employees and retirees. My Dad, who was then retired from teaching at EIU loved it--as did/does most everyone else.
Virgil Xenophon said ...
... a brilliant but supremely lazy guy--decided not to reinvent the wheel ...
Actually, "lazy" can be the driver of invention, or the realization that the invention already exists and just proceed to utilize & popularize it.
If the accepted position is to meet all the criteria postulated for the PPACA, I will never understand why it was written at all, rather than just adapting the FEHBP widely...and adding means testing.
The whole thing had to be about personal aggrandizement (look at me, see what I did!!), "turf," and creating a new power center between H&HS and the IRS.
Another thing that irks me in all of this: if the object is to end "Obamacare" ...aka the PPACA, then it will require a specific Act of Congress rescinding to PPACA in its entirety. Then write a new bill to expand the FEHBP, with appropriate means testing, under the current administrators of it...OPM.
This game playing with funding, in a temporary measure like a CR, is just bullshit. Proof of that is the extension, by executive order IIRC, of the means testing requirements of the PPACA....equivalent to dragging a $20 bill through a trailer park of prostitutes. A bribe, no less...but you can't send the ACA whore home later.
@Aridog/
Yes, I was in fact alluding (obscurely, admittedly) to the WWII Gen, Von Manstein archetype of the most preferred type of officer--clever but lazy, because he will inevitably always find the quickest way to accomplish anything with the least amount of effort. FWIW my Father's 1942 Army OCS "Officer's Guide" text quoted Mainstein and his four archetypes also, lol.
Post a Comment