Laws Congress exempted themselves from

[usmbguest5318]

Congress passes the laws, and they think that quite a few of them are good for others to follow, except themselves.

• Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
  
  
  • The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA - 29 U.S. Code 651-78) requires each covered employer to provide a place of employment free from recognized hazards that may cause serious physical harm or death, and to comply with the Act's occupational safety and health standards. The Act is intended to protect employees from personal injuries and illnesses resulting from work situations. Both the Secretary of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission perform duties related to the enforcement of the Act.47 The Secretary may inspect work premises, investigate, and issue citations to employers for statutory violations.
    
• Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act
  
  • The FOIA (U.S. Code 552) provides a statutory right of access to a wide range of government information to allow citizens to be informed of government affairs. Even though not covered by the Act, Congress makes available to the public an extensive amount of information about congressional activities, including the Congressional Record, committee reports and hearings, etc. But not all documents relating to legislation are generally accessible; certain administrative records of the House and Senate are not publicly available; and certain other congressional correspondence and documents are not routinely disclosed.
    
    (See: "Application of the Freedom of Information Act to Congress: A Legal Analysis")
    
• Gift Limitations
  • In the House and Senate the rules respectively adopted by each body broadly limit gifts, from all sources except relatives, regardless of whether the donor has an interest in official matters. There is a $250 yearly aggregate limit for gifts from a single source. However, only gifts which have a value in excess of $100 will be counted in the $250 yearly aggregation. Exemptions to the gift rule are gifts of local meals (unless they are in connection with an overnight stay), the expenses of a reception honoring the Member, and ``necessary expenses'' of travel and transportation for the Member's participation in a conference or the like sponsored by the party providing such expenses, for a limited time period.
    
• Activities as an Agent or Attorney
  • Section 205 of 18 U.S. Code prohibits outside, non-official activities of acting as an ``agent or attorney,'' with or without compensation, for private parties when this service is given more importance than service to the United States Government and prohibits such activities in court when the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. The law applies to officers and employees of the Federal Government, but does not apply to Members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, or to Federal judges
    
• Personal Gain
  • The principal financial conflict of interest law for Federal employees, 18 U.S. Code 208, prohibits officers and employees of the executive branch from taking official governmental action on any matter in which they have any personal financial interest. Government officials are barred from participating in any matters in which they have any personal financial interest. The statute does not apply to any elected officials of the Federal Government, so Members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, and Federal judges are exempt.
    
• Honoraria and Outside Compensation
  • Section 209 of 18 U.S. Code prohibits employees of the executive branch of government from receiving private compensation or salary supplementation for their government work or as payment for activities within the scope of their official governmental duties. The statute does not apply to Members of Congress, legislative branch employees, the President, Vice President, or Federal judges.
    
    It is noted that rank-and-file Federal employees in the executive branch are not and have never been flatly barred from accepting all transportation expenses and expenses of travel for private ``honoraria'' events, that is, for providing private, non-governmental services to private parties or organizations on their own time, even during the period when executive branch employees were barred from accepting the honorarium itself by the 1989 legislation. Such employees may accept that transportation (and now the honorarium as well), for private, non-governmental services, as long as the acceptance from the particular payor, donor, or sponsor does not create a conflict of interest; the activities do not involve the use of government resources, supplies or non-public information; the expenses or payment is not offered merely because of the individual's status as a government official; and the subject matter does not focus specifically on a particular matter on which the employee is currently assigned to work or has been assigned to work on within the last year, or if the subject focuses on a particular policy of the employee's agency. A Federal employee is expressly allowed to receive honoraria and travel payments, however, for speaking on issues and public policy matters, even those which are within the employee's scope of official expertise because of his or her education, training, and employment and even though the employee's agency may deal with the subject matter.
    
    
• Labor and Employment Laws
  • Many statutes concerning labor and employment have no application to Congress primarily because the subject matter of the law has no relation to the activities of Congress. Other Federal laws do not apply to Congress, such as Title VI of the 1964 Act prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in ``any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.'' Similarly, the 1975 Age Discrimination Act bans all arbitrary age distinctions in the operation of Federally assisted programs aid.
    
    The procedures and remedies under the House Office of Fair Employment Practices (OFEP) are exclusive except to the extent that other procedures and remedies might be available under other rules of the House or under the rules of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The ``rights and protections'' of the Fair Labor Standards Act (including the Equal Pay Act), and the employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Civil Rights Act of 1991, and Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 have now been extended by statute to the House. However, the House OFEP is the enforcement mechanism for these laws in the House of Representatives. Thus, there is no involvement of an executive agency or the courts in the case of House employees.
    
    The Civil Rights Act of 1991 also established a Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices and provided a four-step internal Senate enforcement procedure consisting of: (a) counseling, (b) mediation; (c) formal complaint and hearing by a board composed of three independent hearing officers, who are not Senators, officers, or employees of the Senate; and (d) review of the hearing board decision by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. Senate employees have the right to appeal employment discrimination complaints to the U.S. Court of Appeals. While this is not de novo review, which is extended to the private sector and Presidential appointees, it is judicial review.
    
    
    • The National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor Relations Act of 1947, guarantees the right of employees to form, join, and assist the collective bargaining of labor organizations and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. The Act also protects the right to strike. It applies to all private employers whose work involves interstate commerce. The Act's definition expressly provides that the term employer ``shall not include the United States or any wholly owned Government corporation''
    • The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 prohibits employers from utilizing lie detectors except as expressly permitted by the Act. The Act does not apply to the United States Government, therefore it does not apply to employees of the Congress.
    • The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 governs all aspects of employee benefit plans established or maintained by employers, labor organizations, or both. It does not apply to any plan established or maintained by the U.S. Government. Therefore, it has no application to Congress or the executive branch.
    • The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act requires any employer with 100 or more employees to provide at least 60 days notice of any plant closing or mass layoff involving 50 or more employees. Employees of the Congress and of the Executive Office of the President are exempt.

Is it appropriate that Congress should exempt itself and other elected officials from the legislation noted above? Why or why not, on what legal or procedural basis do you justify your answer? If your answer is not legally or government procedure based, it must be philosophically based, in which case, please identify the philosophical doctrine underpinning your way of seeing the matter.

 

[P@triot]

Is it appropriate that Congress should exempt itself and other elected officials from the legislation noted above? Why or why not, on what legal or procedural basis do you justify your answer? If your answer is not legally or government procedure based, it must be philosophically based, in which case, please identify the philosophical doctrine underpinning your way of seeing the matter.

You forgot to add Obamacare to that list. And no - it is not appropriate. At all. Congress is a representative of the people. Not only should they be subjected to every single law they pass - they should actually be "dog fooding" like Microsoft does (forcing themselves to experience the results of their actions first before anyone else does).

When Congress passes legislation (say Obamacare for example) they should be forced to live under it for a full year before it goes into effect for their fellow citizens.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You forgot to add Obamacare to that list.

The reason I didn't add the ACA to the list is because Congress didn't exempt itself from it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Congress passes the laws, and they think that quite a few of them are good for others to follow, except themselves.

• Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
  
  • The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA - 29 U.S. Code 651-78) requires each covered employer to provide a place of employment free from recognized hazards that may cause serious physical harm or death, and to comply with the Act's occupational safety and health standards. The Act is intended to protect employees from personal injuries and illnesses resulting from work situations. Both the Secretary of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission perform duties related to the enforcement of the Act.47 The Secretary may inspect work premises, investigate, and issue citations to employers for statutory violations.
• Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act
  • The FOIA (U.S. Code 552) provides a statutory right of access to a wide range of government information to allow citizens to be informed of government affairs. Even though not covered by the Act, Congress makes available to the public an extensive amount of information about congressional activities, including the Congressional Record, committee reports and hearings, etc. But not all documents relating to legislation are generally accessible; certain administrative records of the House and Senate are not publicly available; and certain other congressional correspondence and documents are not routinely disclosed.
    
    (See: "Application of the Freedom of Information Act to Congress: A Legal Analysis")
• Gift Limitations
  • In the House and Senate the rules respectively adopted by each body broadly limit gifts, from all sources except relatives, regardless of whether the donor has an interest in official matters. There is a $250 yearly aggregate limit for gifts from a single source. However, only gifts which have a value in excess of $100 will be counted in the $250 yearly aggregation. Exemptions to the gift rule are gifts of local meals (unless they are in connection with an overnight stay), the expenses of a reception honoring the Member, and ``necessary expenses'' of travel and transportation for the Member's participation in a conference or the like sponsored by the party providing such expenses, for a limited time period.
• Activities as an Agent or Attorney
  • Section 205 of 18 U.S. Code prohibits outside, non-official activities of acting as an ``agent or attorney,'' with or without compensation, for private parties when this service is given more importance than service to the United States Government and prohibits such activities in court when the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. The law applies to officers and employees of the Federal Government, but does not apply to Members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, or to Federal judges
• Personal Gain
  • The principal financial conflict of interest law for Federal employees, 18 U.S. Code 208, prohibits officers and employees of the executive branch from taking official governmental action on any matter in which they have any personal financial interest. Government officials are barred from participating in any matters in which they have any personal financial interest. The statute does not apply to any elected officials of the Federal Government, so Members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, and Federal judges are exempt.
• Honoraria and Outside Compensation
  • Section 209 of 18 U.S. Code prohibits employees of the executive branch of government from receiving private compensation or salary supplementation for their government work or as payment for activities within the scope of their official governmental duties. The statute does not apply to Members of Congress, legislative branch employees, the President, Vice President, or Federal judges.
    
    It is noted that rank-and-file Federal employees in the executive branch are not and have never been flatly barred from accepting all transportation expenses and expenses of travel for private ``honoraria'' events, that is, for providing private, non-governmental services to private parties or organizations on their own time, even during the period when executive branch employees were barred from accepting the honorarium itself by the 1989 legislation. Such employees may accept that transportation (and now the honorarium as well), for private, non-governmental services, as long as the acceptance from the particular payor, donor, or sponsor does not create a conflict of interest; the activities do not involve the use of government resources, supplies or non-public information; the expenses or payment is not offered merely because of the individual's status as a government official; and the subject matter does not focus specifically on a particular matter on which the employee is currently assigned to work or has been assigned to work on within the last year, or if the subject focuses on a particular policy of the employee's agency. A Federal employee is expressly allowed to receive honoraria and travel payments, however, for speaking on issues and public policy matters, even those which are within the employee's scope of official expertise because of his or her education, training, and employment and even though the employee's agency may deal with the subject matter.
    
• Labor and Employment Laws
  • Many statutes concerning labor and employment have no application to Congress primarily because the subject matter of the law has no relation to the activities of Congress. Other Federal laws do not apply to Congress, such as Title VI of the 1964 Act prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in ``any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.'' Similarly, the 1975 Age Discrimination Act bans all arbitrary age distinctions in the operation of Federally assisted programs aid.
    
    The procedures and remedies under the House Office of Fair Employment Practices (OFEP) are exclusive except to the extent that other procedures and remedies might be available under other rules of the House or under the rules of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The ``rights and protections'' of the Fair Labor Standards Act (including the Equal Pay Act), and the employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Civil Rights Act of 1991, and Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 have now been extended by statute to the House. However, the House OFEP is the enforcement mechanism for these laws in the House of Representatives. Thus, there is no involvement of an executive agency or the courts in the case of House employees.
    
    The Civil Rights Act of 1991 also established a Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices and provided a four-step internal Senate enforcement procedure consisting of: (a) counseling, (b) mediation; (c) formal complaint and hearing by a board composed of three independent hearing officers, who are not Senators, officers, or employees of the Senate; and (d) review of the hearing board decision by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. Senate employees have the right to appeal employment discrimination complaints to the U.S. Court of Appeals. While this is not de novo review, which is extended to the private sector and Presidential appointees, it is judicial review.
    
    • The National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor Relations Act of 1947, guarantees the right of employees to form, join, and assist the collective bargaining of labor organizations and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. The Act also protects the right to strike. It applies to all private employers whose work involves interstate commerce. The Act's definition expressly provides that the term employer ``shall not include the United States or any wholly owned Government corporation''
    • The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 prohibits employers from utilizing lie detectors except as expressly permitted by the Act. The Act does not apply to the United States Government, therefore it does not apply to employees of the Congress.
    • The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 governs all aspects of employee benefit plans established or maintained by employers, labor organizations, or both. It does not apply to any plan established or maintained by the U.S. Government. Therefore, it has no application to Congress or the executive branch.
    • The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act requires any employer with 100 or more employees to provide at least 60 days notice of any plant closing or mass layoff involving 50 or more employees. Employees of the Congress and of the Executive Office of the President are exempt.

Is it appropriate that Congress should exempt itself and other elected officials from the legislation noted above? Why or why not, on what legal or procedural basis do you justify your answer? If your answer is not legally or government procedure based, it must be philosophically based, in which case, please identify the philosophical doctrine underpinning your way of seeing the matter.

Don't you just love the hacks ruling you life?

 

[P@triot]

You forgot to add Obamacare to that list.

The reason I didn't add the ACA to the list is because Congress didn't exempt itself from it.

Yes they did...

Congress’s Obamacare exemption of itself OK, judge rules

Just wrong: Congress quietly takes ObamaCare waiver

Congress Is Getting a Special Exemption from ObamaCare--and No, It's Not Legal

I can post about two hundred more of these if you'd like.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You forgot to add Obamacare to that list.

The reason I didn't add the ACA to the list is because Congress didn't exempt itself from it.

Yes they did...

Congress’s Obamacare exemption of itself OK, judge rules

Just wrong: Congress quietly takes ObamaCare waiver

Congress Is Getting a Special Exemption from ObamaCare--and No, It's Not Legal

I can post about two hundred more of these if you'd like.

No, they did not. I don't care what you can post. You do not know what you are talking about, but I can tell you think you do.

I know how the headlines read. That "exemption" that Congress has is not at all what you think it is. The Congressional ACA exemption is one that lets them use the ACA's exchange. It is not an exemption that lets them not use them.

You, I and nobody would think that's actually what their exemption does were we to read only the headlines about Congress exempting itself. However, anyone who takes the time to read the fully story, even one of the ones to which you linked, they'd find out. I just posted a brief story about it here, although if you read the content in your own Hill article, you'd know roughly the same thing although with slightly less detail. Feel free to ask a staffer; it's the same for them as for Congress members.

Those members who took the time to read either the linked FactCheck.org artile must surely see that a significant part of why Congress is so hot to repeal O-care is that right now, they are operating under a very visible exemption that allows them to use O-care and receive $10K subsidies - ones nobody else gets - while doing so, and that makes them look bad. That is why their exemption has been "spun" so it seems to support the rhetoric that O-care is so bad Congress exempted itself from it.

Nothing could be farther from the truth; Congress is exempted into O-care. It's not a legislative exemption, but rather an executive branch refusal to enforce a portion of the ACA provisions and making the subsidy exemption so Congress and its staff retained the one they had under their old plan. So, really, it's not even Congress that provides either form of exemption.

You don't have to believe me. Call your favorite Congressional representative's office in D.C. and ask whether they get healthcare via the ACA. Ask them what exchange they use. You'll find they use the D.C. SHOP exchange. Ask them about whether they still get the subsidy they used to get under the old Federal healthcare plan and they will probably terminate the call at that point because that's where the issue is. Feel free to ask a staffer; it's the same for them as for Congress members.

 

[P@triot]

You forgot to add Obamacare to that list.

The reason I didn't add the ACA to the list is because Congress didn't exempt itself from it.

Yes they did...

Congress’s Obamacare exemption of itself OK, judge rules

Just wrong: Congress quietly takes ObamaCare waiver

Congress Is Getting a Special Exemption from ObamaCare--and No, It's Not Legal

I can post about two hundred more of these if you'd like.

No, they did not. I don't care what you can post. You do not know what you are talking about, but I can tell you think you do.

I know how the headlines read. That "exemption" that Congress has is not at all what you think it is. The Congressional ACA exemption is one that lets them use the ACA's exchange. It is not an exemption that lets them not use them.

You can't make this stuff up folks. I can't imagine saying "they do not have an exemption" and in the very next sentence talk about their exemption.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You forgot to add Obamacare to that list.

The reason I didn't add the ACA to the list is because Congress didn't exempt itself from it.

Yes they did...

Congress’s Obamacare exemption of itself OK, judge rules

Just wrong: Congress quietly takes ObamaCare waiver

Congress Is Getting a Special Exemption from ObamaCare--and No, It's Not Legal

I can post about two hundred more of these if you'd like.

No, they did not. I don't care what you can post. You do not know what you are talking about, but I can tell you think you do.

I know how the headlines read. That "exemption" that Congress has is not at all what you think it is. The Congressional ACA exemption is one that lets them use the ACA's exchange. It is not an exemption that lets them not use them.

You can't make this stuff up folks. I can't imagine saying "they do not have an exemption" and in the very next sentence talk about their exemption.

Be funny if you want . Maybe that makes you feel better. You know damn well that the context of "exempt from" and "exempt into" are different. You how it's different and you know that difference is what makes the following statement misrpresentative if the state of what Congress and the Administration did with regard to Congress' use of the ACA..

When Congress passes legislation (say Obamacare for example) they should be forced to live under it for a full year before it goes into effect for their fellow citizens.

 

[imawhosure]

You forgot to add Obamacare to that list.

The reason I didn't add the ACA to the list is because Congress didn't exempt itself from it.

Yes they did...

Congress’s Obamacare exemption of itself OK, judge rules

Just wrong: Congress quietly takes ObamaCare waiver

Congress Is Getting a Special Exemption from ObamaCare--and No, It's Not Legal

I can post about two hundred more of these if you'd like.

No, they did not. I don't care what you can post. You do not know what you are talking about, but I can tell you think you do.

I know how the headlines read. That "exemption" that Congress has is not at all what you think it is. The Congressional ACA exemption is one that lets them use the ACA's exchange. It is not an exemption that lets them not use them.

You can't make this stuff up folks. I can't imagine saying "they do not have an exemption" and in the very next sentence talk about their exemption.

Be funny if you want . Maybe that makes you feel better. You know damn well that the context of "exempt from" and "exempt into" are different. You how it's different and you know that difference is what makes the following statement misrpresentative if the state of what Congress and the Administration did with regard to Congress' use of the ACA..

When Congress passes legislation (say Obamacare for example) they should be forced to live under it for a full year before it goes into effect for their fellow citizens.

I am just pointing out Xelor, that you are using semantics to make your point accurate.

 

[owebo]

You forgot to add Obamacare to that list.

The reason I didn't add the ACA to the list is because Congress didn't exempt itself from it.

Yes they did...

Congress’s Obamacare exemption of itself OK, judge rules

Just wrong: Congress quietly takes ObamaCare waiver

Congress Is Getting a Special Exemption from ObamaCare--and No, It's Not Legal

I can post about two hundred more of these if you'd like.

No, they did not. I don't care what you can post. You do not know what you are talking about, but I can tell you think you do.

I know how the headlines read. That "exemption" that Congress has is not at all what you think it is. The Congressional ACA exemption is one that lets them use the ACA's exchange. It is not an exemption that lets them not use them.

You, I and nobody would think that's actually what their exemption does were we to read only the headlines about Congress exempting itself. However, anyone who takes the time to read the fully story, even one of the ones to which you linked, they'd find out. I just posted a brief story about it here, although if you read the content in your own Hill article, you'd know roughly the same thing although with slightly less detail. Feel free to ask a staffer; it's the same for them as for Congress members.

Those members who took the time to read either the linked FactCheck.org artile must surely see that a significant part of why Congress is so hot to repeal O-care is that right now, they are operating under a very visible exemption that allows them to use O-care and receive $10K subsidies - ones nobody else gets - while doing so, and that makes them look bad. That is why their exemption has been "spun" so it seems to support the rhetoric that O-care is so bad Congress exempted itself from it.

Nothing could be farther from the truth; Congress is exempted into O-care. It's not a legislative exemption, but rather an executive branch refusal to enforce a portion of the ACA provisions and making the subsidy exemption so Congress and its staff retained the one they had under their old plan. So, really, it's not even Congress that provides either form of exemption.

You don't have to believe me. Call your favorite Congressional representative's office in D.C. and ask whether they get healthcare via the ACA. Ask them what exchange they use. You'll find they use the D.C. SHOP exchange. Ask them about whether they still get the subsidy they used to get under the old Federal healthcare plan and they will probably terminate the call at that point because that's where the issue is. Feel free to ask a staffer; it's the same for them as for Congress members.

FactCheck.org is a fake news site.....so....

 

[usmbguest5318]

You forgot to add Obamacare to that list.

The reason I didn't add the ACA to the list is because Congress didn't exempt itself from it.

Yes they did...

Congress’s Obamacare exemption of itself OK, judge rules

Just wrong: Congress quietly takes ObamaCare waiver

Congress Is Getting a Special Exemption from ObamaCare--and No, It's Not Legal

I can post about two hundred more of these if you'd like.

No, they did not. I don't care what you can post. You do not know what you are talking about, but I can tell you think you do.

I know how the headlines read. That "exemption" that Congress has is not at all what you think it is. The Congressional ACA exemption is one that lets them use the ACA's exchange. It is not an exemption that lets them not use them.

You, I and nobody would think that's actually what their exemption does were we to read only the headlines about Congress exempting itself. However, anyone who takes the time to read the fully story, even one of the ones to which you linked, they'd find out. I just posted a brief story about it here, although if you read the content in your own Hill article, you'd know roughly the same thing although with slightly less detail. Feel free to ask a staffer; it's the same for them as for Congress members.

Those members who took the time to read either the linked FactCheck.org artile must surely see that a significant part of why Congress is so hot to repeal O-care is that right now, they are operating under a very visible exemption that allows them to use O-care and receive $10K subsidies - ones nobody else gets - while doing so, and that makes them look bad. That is why their exemption has been "spun" so it seems to support the rhetoric that O-care is so bad Congress exempted itself from it.

Nothing could be farther from the truth; Congress is exempted into O-care. It's not a legislative exemption, but rather an executive branch refusal to enforce a portion of the ACA provisions and making the subsidy exemption so Congress and its staff retained the one they had under their old plan. So, really, it's not even Congress that provides either form of exemption.

You don't have to believe me. Call your favorite Congressional representative's office in D.C. and ask whether they get healthcare via the ACA. Ask them what exchange they use. You'll find they use the D.C. SHOP exchange. Ask them about whether they still get the subsidy they used to get under the old Federal healthcare plan and they will probably terminate the call at that point because that's where the issue is. Feel free to ask a staffer; it's the same for them as for Congress members.

FactCheck.org is a fake news site.....so....

"Shoot the messenger" is such a pathetically lame tactic. Go play with the other children or directly address the central point of the OP or just don't say anything.

 

[rightwinger]

Is it appropriate that Congress should exempt itself and other elected officials from the legislation noted above? Why or why not, on what legal or procedural basis do you justify your answer? If your answer is not legally or government procedure based, it must be philosophically based, in which case, please identify the philosophical doctrine underpinning your way of seeing the matter.

You forgot to add Obamacare to that list. And no - it is not appropriate. At all. Congress is a representative of the people. Not only should they be subjected to every single law they pass - they should actually be "dog fooding" like Microsoft does (forcing themselves to experience the results of their actions first before anyone else does).

When Congress passes legislation (say Obamacare for example) they should be forced to live under it for a full year before it goes into effect for their fellow citizens.

Congress is required to have Obamacare

 

[owebo]

Fake news is not a message.....

 

[P@triot]

Be funny if you want . Maybe that makes you feel better. You know damn well that the context of "exempt from" and "exempt into" are different. You how it's different and you know that difference is what makes the following statement misrpresentative if the state of what Congress and the Administration did with regard to Congress' use of the ACA.

Perhaps the problem is you don't understand what the term "exempt" means?

ex·empt (iɡˈzem(p)t/)
adjective
1. free from an obligation or liability imposed on others.

How could one be "exempt into"? You've gone completely absurd with that one. It's like saying "consenting rape". They are polar opposites. One cannot consent if they were forced against their will and one cannot be "exempt" into something.

Let me know when you're ready to admit you were wrong.

 

[P@triot]

Is it appropriate that Congress should exempt itself and other elected officials from the legislation noted above? Why or why not, on what legal or procedural basis do you justify your answer? If your answer is not legally or government procedure based, it must be philosophically based, in which case, please identify the philosophical doctrine underpinning your way of seeing the matter.

You forgot to add Obamacare to that list. And no - it is not appropriate. At all. Congress is a representative of the people. Not only should they be subjected to every single law they pass - they should actually be "dog fooding" like Microsoft does (forcing themselves to experience the results of their actions first before anyone else does).

When Congress passes legislation (say Obamacare for example) they should be forced to live under it for a full year before it goes into effect for their fellow citizens.

Congress is required to have Obamacare

I already proved you wrong on this one. One of many reasons why you have earned the moniker "wrongwinger".

 

[rightwinger]

Is it appropriate that Congress should exempt itself and other elected officials from the legislation noted above? Why or why not, on what legal or procedural basis do you justify your answer? If your answer is not legally or government procedure based, it must be philosophically based, in which case, please identify the philosophical doctrine underpinning your way of seeing the matter.

You forgot to add Obamacare to that list. And no - it is not appropriate. At all. Congress is a representative of the people. Not only should they be subjected to every single law they pass - they should actually be "dog fooding" like Microsoft does (forcing themselves to experience the results of their actions first before anyone else does).

When Congress passes legislation (say Obamacare for example) they should be forced to live under it for a full year before it goes into effect for their fellow citizens.

Congress is required to have Obamacare

I already proved you wrong on this one. One of many reasons why you have earned the moniker "wrongwinger".

No you didn't prove anyone wrong

When Obamacare passed, Republicans insisted that Congress and their staff abandon the Federal Healthcare System and take Obamacare policies. That is what happened

The only difference is that Congressional members and staff continued to receive the employer paid portion of heathcare that they received under FEHB

 

[P@triot]

Is it appropriate that Congress should exempt itself and other elected officials from the legislation noted above? Why or why not, on what legal or procedural basis do you justify your answer? If your answer is not legally or government procedure based, it must be philosophically based, in which case, please identify the philosophical doctrine underpinning your way of seeing the matter.

You forgot to add Obamacare to that list. And no - it is not appropriate. At all. Congress is a representative of the people. Not only should they be subjected to every single law they pass - they should actually be "dog fooding" like Microsoft does (forcing themselves to experience the results of their actions first before anyone else does).

When Congress passes legislation (say Obamacare for example) they should be forced to live under it for a full year before it goes into effect for their fellow citizens.

Congress is required to have Obamacare

I already proved you wrong on this one. One of many reasons why you have earned the moniker "wrongwinger".

No you didn't prove anyone wrong

When Obamacare passed, Republicans insisted that Congress and their staff abandon the Federal Healthcare System and take Obamacare policies. That is what happened

The only difference is that Congressional members and staff continued to receive the employer paid portion of heathcare that they received under FEHB

They gave themselves an exemption. Read the links above. Republicans were in no position to "insist" anything. The House and the Senate were completely controlled by the Dumbocrats.

 

[usmbguest5318]

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE ACA! MOVE ON!

THERE ARE CURRENT THREADS FOR THE ACA DISCUSSION AND ONE OF THEM IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE SO-CALLED CONGRESSIONAL EXEMPTION RE: THE ACA.

THE THREAD IS ABOUT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF CONGRESS EXEMPTING ITSELF FROM LAWS TO WHICH IT SUBJECTS OTHERS.

 

[P@triot]

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE ACA! MOVE ON!

THERE ARE CURRENT THREADS FOR THE ACA DISCUSSION AND ONE OF THEM IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE SO-CALLED CONGRESSIONAL EXEMPTION RE: THE ACA.

THE THREAD IS ABOUT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF CONGRESS EXEMPTING ITSELF FROM LAWS TO WHICH IT SUBJECTS OTHERS.

Yeah - and one of the laws that Congress exempted themselves from was the ACA.

 

[rightwinger]

Is it appropriate that Congress should exempt itself and other elected officials from the legislation noted above? Why or why not, on what legal or procedural basis do you justify your answer? If your answer is not legally or government procedure based, it must be philosophically based, in which case, please identify the philosophical doctrine underpinning your way of seeing the matter.

You forgot to add Obamacare to that list. And no - it is not appropriate. At all. Congress is a representative of the people. Not only should they be subjected to every single law they pass - they should actually be "dog fooding" like Microsoft does (forcing themselves to experience the results of their actions first before anyone else does).

When Congress passes legislation (say Obamacare for example) they should be forced to live under it for a full year before it goes into effect for their fellow citizens.

Congress is required to have Obamacare

So, why is the false “exempt” claim making the Facebook rounds? There is reportedly concern on Capitol Hill that the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, won’t be able to smoothly transition members and their staffs into an exchange. The concern, as a Roll Call story explained, was that the government wouldn’t be able to make contributions toward the federal employees’ premiums, at least at the beginning of 2014. That would mean employees would pick up the whole tab for their insurance policies. Right now, the government pays 72 percent of premiums on average
I already proved you wrong on this one. One of many reasons why you have earned the moniker "wrongwinger".

No you didn't prove anyone wrong

When Obamacare passed, Republicans insisted that Congress and their staff abandon the Federal Healthcare System and take Obamacare policies. That is what happened

The only difference is that Congressional members and staff continued to receive the employer paid portion of heathcare that they received under FEHB

They gave themselves an exemption. Read the links above. Republicans were in no position to "insist" anything. The House and the Senate were completely controlled by the Dumbocrats.

You lose again buck-o

Congress and an Exemption from 'Obamacare'? - FactCheck.org

So, why is the false “exempt” claim making the Facebook rounds? There is reportedly concern on Capitol Hill that the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, won’t be able to smoothly transition members and their staffs into an exchange. The concern, as a Roll Call story explained, was that the government wouldn’t be able to make contributions toward the federal employees’ premiums, at least at the beginning of 2014. That would mean employees would pick up the whole tab for their insurance policies. Right now, the government pays 72 percent of premiums on average


.It was the Grassley’s amendment to ACA that forced Congress out of FEHB and into Obamacare coverage. Grassley is a REPUBLICAN from Iowa