Why oh why do we have to follow a law when the lawmakers don't?

[Contumacious]

Why oh why do we have to follow a law when the lawmakers don't?.

"What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson

.

 

[Redfish]

If you want to reduce the employer contribution to the employees health care, do you plan on increasing their wages in compensation?

why would you do that for congress but no one else? No one has advocated REDUCING the employer contribution, congress voted to INCREASE it so that they would not be affected by the ACA premium increase.

If you are offered a generous benefits package In lieu of pay and then decide to reduce or eliminate that package, pay needs to be increased to compensate.

Federal employees got their insurance through their employer like most Americans. It was Chuck Grassley (rhymes with assley) that fucked over his own staff just to be a dick and make them purchase on the individual market.

you just don't get it seabiscuit, congress increased the amount of taxpayer subsidy to themselves and their staffs so that they are not financially impacted by ACA.

its not an employer/employee issue. they have voted themselves exempt from the impacts of ACA that all other americans are having to deal with------and WE are paying for their exemption.

 

[Jackson]

Why oh why do we have to follow a law when the lawmakers don't?.

"What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson

.

IOW, It's going to be natural, that there will be rebellion and the leaders should be warned the when leaders turn into tyrants the people will reserve the right to resist and some lives will be lost. The finding will be in favor of the people, according to the law.

 

[Seawytch]

why would you do that for congress but no one else? No one has advocated REDUCING the employer contribution, congress voted to INCREASE it so that they would not be affected by the ACA premium increase.

If you are offered a generous benefits package In lieu of pay and then decide to reduce or eliminate that package, pay needs to be increased to compensate.

Federal employees got their insurance through their employer like most Americans. It was Chuck Grassley (rhymes with assley) that fucked over his own staff just to be a dick and make them purchase on the individual market.

you just don't get it seabiscuit, congress increased the amount of taxpayer subsidy to themselves and their staffs so that they are not financially impacted by ACA.

its not an employer/employee issue. they have voted themselves exempt from the impacts of ACA that all other americans are having to deal with------and WE are paying for their exemption.

Why should they be? Because Grassley is a dick? They get their insurance through their very large employer. They shouldn't have to go on the individual market since that's not how their insurance was delivered before,

 

[RDD_1210]

why would you do that for congress but no one else? No one has advocated REDUCING the employer contribution, congress voted to INCREASE it so that they would not be affected by the ACA premium increase.

Still waiting for your link to support this. Thanks.

see post #98

LOL, Republican idiots insisted on taking away their employer subsidized healthcare by forcing them on to the exchanges. This would actually lower their take home pay since it was out of pocket. To make it even again, they raised their pay to account for the difference. So they were back at square one, only now that were getting the health insurance off of the exchange rather than through their employer.

And this somehow bothers you?

 

[RDD_1210]

why would you do that for congress but no one else? No one has advocated REDUCING the employer contribution, congress voted to INCREASE it so that they would not be affected by the ACA premium increase.

If you are offered a generous benefits package In lieu of pay and then decide to reduce or eliminate that package, pay needs to be increased to compensate.

Federal employees got their insurance through their employer like most Americans. It was Chuck Grassley (rhymes with assley) that fucked over his own staff just to be a dick and make them purchase on the individual market.

you just don't get it seabiscuit, congress increased the amount of taxpayer subsidy to themselves and their staffs so that they are not financially impacted by ACA.

its not an employer/employee issue. they have voted themselves exempt from the impacts of ACA that all other americans are having to deal with------and WE are paying for their exemption.

Wrong.

You may not be aware of this but when someone has a job and they receive medical benefits through that job, that is considered to be a part of their overall compensation package. Well, when government workers had their health insurance coverage dropped, they were losing part of their agreed upon compensation package. Those benefits cost money, and now they would cost their employer (the fed government) nothing, since they no longer would offer them insurance coverage. Still following?

Instead of pocketing the money, which you would have complained about as well, the government decided to up their salary to offset what they were losing in terms of health benefits. This increased salary would allow them to purchase health insurance on the exchanges just like you idiots wanted them to.

So they didn't gain anything and are being compensated for their work just as they were before.

 

[Redfish]

If you are offered a generous benefits package In lieu of pay and then decide to reduce or eliminate that package, pay needs to be increased to compensate.

Federal employees got their insurance through their employer like most Americans. It was Chuck Grassley (rhymes with assley) that fucked over his own staff just to be a dick and make them purchase on the individual market.

you just don't get it seabiscuit, congress increased the amount of taxpayer subsidy to themselves and their staffs so that they are not financially impacted by ACA.

its not an employer/employee issue. they have voted themselves exempt from the impacts of ACA that all other americans are having to deal with------and WE are paying for their exemption.

Why should they be? Because Grassley is a dick? They get their insurance through their very large employer. They shouldn't have to go on the individual market since that's not how their insurance was delivered before,

How would having them pay a larger amount (less taxpayer subsidy) force them into the individual market?

lets say the premium was $300 before ACA and the govt picked up $200 of it leaving $100 for the employee to pay.

Now, after ACA the premium is $600 and the govt voted to pick up $500 leaving the same $100 for the employee to pay.

Effectively congress has voted themselves and their staffers exempt from the IMPACTS of ACA---at the expense of the taxpayers.

Who else in the country can do that? And why aren't you pissed off about it? Would you be pissed if Bush had done it? Of course you would, and so would I.

But you libtardians refuse to deal in the real world. Gotta be that defective gene.

 

[Redfish]

If you are offered a generous benefits package In lieu of pay and then decide to reduce or eliminate that package, pay needs to be increased to compensate.

Federal employees got their insurance through their employer like most Americans. It was Chuck Grassley (rhymes with assley) that fucked over his own staff just to be a dick and make them purchase on the individual market.

you just don't get it seabiscuit, congress increased the amount of taxpayer subsidy to themselves and their staffs so that they are not financially impacted by ACA.

its not an employer/employee issue. they have voted themselves exempt from the impacts of ACA that all other americans are having to deal with------and WE are paying for their exemption.

Wrong.

You may not be aware of this but when someone has a job and they receive medical benefits through that job, that is considered to be a part of their overall compensation package. Well, when government workers had their health insurance coverage dropped, they were losing part of their agreed upon compensation package. Those benefits cost money, and now they would cost their employer (the fed government) nothing, since they no longer would offer them insurance coverage. Still following?

Instead of pocketing the money, which you would have complained about as well, the government decided to up their salary to offset what they were losing in terms of health benefits. This increased salary would allow them to purchase health insurance on the exchanges just like you idiots wanted them to.

So they didn't gain anything and are being compensated for their work just as they were before.

What gives them the right to do that at our expense? Why are you OK with congress being exempt from the financial affects of a law that they forced on the rest of us?

 

[RDD_1210]

why would you do that for congress but no one else? No one has advocated REDUCING the employer contribution, congress voted to INCREASE it so that they would not be affected by the ACA premium increase.

Still waiting for your link to support this. Thanks.

see post #98

Link doesn't work. How about another?

 

[Redfish]

Still waiting for your link to support this. Thanks.

see post #98

Link doesn't work. How about another?

works for me, I am not your computer geek.

 

[RDD_1210]

you just don't get it seabiscuit, congress increased the amount of taxpayer subsidy to themselves and their staffs so that they are not financially impacted by ACA.

its not an employer/employee issue. they have voted themselves exempt from the impacts of ACA that all other americans are having to deal with------and WE are paying for their exemption.

Wrong.

You may not be aware of this but when someone has a job and they receive medical benefits through that job, that is considered to be a part of their overall compensation package. Well, when government workers had their health insurance coverage dropped, they were losing part of their agreed upon compensation package. Those benefits cost money, and now they would cost their employer (the fed government) nothing, since they no longer would offer them insurance coverage. Still following?

Instead of pocketing the money, which you would have complained about as well, the government decided to up their salary to offset what they were losing in terms of health benefits. This increased salary would allow them to purchase health insurance on the exchanges just like you idiots wanted them to.

So they didn't gain anything and are being compensated for their work just as they were before.

What gives them the right to do that at our expense? Why are you OK with congress being exempt from the financial affects of a law that they forced on the rest of us?

Their compensation isn't changing. This is where you're confused. Let's use round numbers to highlight this.

Let's say before they were making $80k in salary and received and additional $20k in healthcare benefits through their employer for a $100k compensation package.

Now, republicans want them to get their healthcare on the exchange, so they have that $20k healthcare benefit deleted from their compensation. But these people still need to buy health insurance. So they use their own money (the $80k) to purchase insurance on the exchange.

This is actually now a pay cut for all of these people so to even it out, their salaries are being adjusted to make it so instead of $80k salary and $20k health benefits, they are now getting $100k salary and $0 in health benefits.

So, as you can see, the total $ amount hasn't changed and nothing is changing for us the tax payer who pays their salary. Why should these people have to take a pay cut for some ridiculous grand standing by politicians?

Get it now?

 

[Claudette]

you just don't get it seabiscuit, congress increased the amount of taxpayer subsidy to themselves and their staffs so that they are not financially impacted by ACA.

its not an employer/employee issue. they have voted themselves exempt from the impacts of ACA that all other americans are having to deal with------and WE are paying for their exemption.

Wrong.

You may not be aware of this but when someone has a job and they receive medical benefits through that job, that is considered to be a part of their overall compensation package. Well, when government workers had their health insurance coverage dropped, they were losing part of their agreed upon compensation package. Those benefits cost money, and now they would cost their employer (the fed government) nothing, since they no longer would offer them insurance coverage. Still following?

Instead of pocketing the money, which you would have complained about as well, the government decided to up their salary to offset what they were losing in terms of health benefits. This increased salary would allow them to purchase health insurance on the exchanges just like you idiots wanted them to.

So they didn't gain anything and are being compensated for their work just as they were before.

What gives them the right to do that at our expense? Why are you OK with congress being exempt from the financial affects of a law that they forced on the rest of us?

You must realize that Congress uses our taxdollars any way they wish. They fucked up when they voted in Grassly's little deal. Didn't want a "brain drain." Good Gawd who couldn't be a staffer in DC?? You or I could probably do the job with our eyes closed.

Of course the ACA is gonna collapse. One has to wonder what those brainiacs will do then??

Oh yeah and in 2015 all that benefit money will be considered income and be taxed. Wonder if they will have another "brain drain." Of course they can always appeal to Barry and get the taxpayers to fund that as well.

 

[RDD_1210]

see post #98

Link doesn't work. How about another?

works for me, I am not your computer geek.

Well then, either you have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal (unlikely) or you're a liar (likely).

Can you cut and paste the first paragraph of the article for me please. We'll see which of the options above is the correct one.

 

[Redfish]

Wrong.

You may not be aware of this but when someone has a job and they receive medical benefits through that job, that is considered to be a part of their overall compensation package. Well, when government workers had their health insurance coverage dropped, they were losing part of their agreed upon compensation package. Those benefits cost money, and now they would cost their employer (the fed government) nothing, since they no longer would offer them insurance coverage. Still following?

Instead of pocketing the money, which you would have complained about as well, the government decided to up their salary to offset what they were losing in terms of health benefits. This increased salary would allow them to purchase health insurance on the exchanges just like you idiots wanted them to.

So they didn't gain anything and are being compensated for their work just as they were before.

What gives them the right to do that at our expense? Why are you OK with congress being exempt from the financial affects of a law that they forced on the rest of us?

Their compensation isn't changing. This is where you're confused. Let's use round numbers to highlight this.

Let's say before they were making $80k in salary and received and additional $20k in healthcare benefits through their employer for a $100k compensation package.

Now, republicans want them to get their healthcare on the exchange, so they have that $20k healthcare benefit deleted from their compensation. But these people still need to buy health insurance. So they use their own money (the $80k) to purchase insurance on the exchange.

This is actually now a pay cut for all of these people so to even it out, their salaries are being adjusted to make it so instead of $80k salary and $20k health benefits, they are now getting $100k salary and $0 in health benefits.

So, as you can see, the total $ amount hasn't changed and nothing is changing for us the tax payer who pays their salary. Why should these people have to take a pay cut for some ridiculous grand standing by politicians?

Get it now?

you are the one who does not get it. I gave you a very simple example, here it is again:

How would having them pay a larger amount (less taxpayer subsidy) force them into the individual market?

lets say the premium was $300 before ACA and the govt picked up $200 of it leaving $100 for the employee to pay.

Now, after ACA the premium is $600 and the govt voted to pick up $500 leaving the same $100 for the employee to pay.

Effectively congress has voted themselves and their staffers exempt from the IMPACTS of ACA---at the expense of the taxpayers.



why should federal employees get a salary increase to offset the cost of ACA--as you claim they have? Who in private industry can do that?

 

[RDD_1210]

What gives them the right to do that at our expense? Why are you OK with congress being exempt from the financial affects of a law that they forced on the rest of us?

Their compensation isn't changing. This is where you're confused. Let's use round numbers to highlight this.

Let's say before they were making $80k in salary and received and additional $20k in healthcare benefits through their employer for a $100k compensation package.

Now, republicans want them to get their healthcare on the exchange, so they have that $20k healthcare benefit deleted from their compensation. But these people still need to buy health insurance. So they use their own money (the $80k) to purchase insurance on the exchange.

This is actually now a pay cut for all of these people so to even it out, their salaries are being adjusted to make it so instead of $80k salary and $20k health benefits, they are now getting $100k salary and $0 in health benefits.

So, as you can see, the total $ amount hasn't changed and nothing is changing for us the tax payer who pays their salary. Why should these people have to take a pay cut for some ridiculous grand standing by politicians?

Get it now?

you are the one who does not get it. I gave you a very simple example, here it is again:

How would having them pay a larger amount (less taxpayer subsidy) force them into the individual market?

lets say the premium was $300 before ACA and the govt picked up $200 of it leaving $100 for the employee to pay.

Now, after ACA the premium is $600 and the govt voted to pick up $500 leaving the same $100 for the employee to pay.

Effectively congress has voted themselves and their staffers exempt from the IMPACTS of ACA---at the expense of the taxpayers.



why should federal employees get a salary increase to offset the cost of ACA--as you claim they have? Who in private industry can do that?

I've already explained. They're not getting an increase. Which part is confusing you?

 

[Redfish]

Their compensation isn't changing. This is where you're confused. Let's use round numbers to highlight this.

Let's say before they were making $80k in salary and received and additional $20k in healthcare benefits through their employer for a $100k compensation package.

Now, republicans want them to get their healthcare on the exchange, so they have that $20k healthcare benefit deleted from their compensation. But these people still need to buy health insurance. So they use their own money (the $80k) to purchase insurance on the exchange.

This is actually now a pay cut for all of these people so to even it out, their salaries are being adjusted to make it so instead of $80k salary and $20k health benefits, they are now getting $100k salary and $0 in health benefits.

So, as you can see, the total $ amount hasn't changed and nothing is changing for us the tax payer who pays their salary. Why should these people have to take a pay cut for some ridiculous grand standing by politicians?

Get it now?

you are the one who does not get it. I gave you a very simple example, here it is again:

How would having them pay a larger amount (less taxpayer subsidy) force them into the individual market?

lets say the premium was $300 before ACA and the govt picked up $200 of it leaving $100 for the employee to pay.

Now, after ACA the premium is $600 and the govt voted to pick up $500 leaving the same $100 for the employee to pay.

Effectively congress has voted themselves and their staffers exempt from the IMPACTS of ACA---at the expense of the taxpayers.



why should federal employees get a salary increase to offset the cost of ACA--as you claim they have? Who in private industry can do that?

I've already explained. They're not getting an increase. Which part is confusing you?

no increase in TAKE HOME pay, but an increase in gross pay. why is that so hard for you to comprehend.

the rest of the country is dealing with a decrease in take home pay due to ACA, why should congress and staffers not be treated like every other american?

 

[RDD_1210]

Link doesn't work. How about another?

works for me, I am not your computer geek.

Well then, either you have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal (unlikely) or you're a liar (likely).

Can you cut and paste the first paragraph of the article for me please. We'll see which of the options above is the correct one.

I guess your lack of a response to this proves that you are in fact a liar.

Not surprising in the least. Why would you lie about this? Too lazy to support the shit you say so you'd rather lie and pretend you read something that you clearly didn't.

 

[Redfish]

works for me, I am not your computer geek.

Well then, either you have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal (unlikely) or you're a liar (likely).

Can you cut and paste the first paragraph of the article for me please. We'll see which of the options above is the correct one.

I guess your lack of a response to this proves that you are in fact a liar.

Not surprising in the least. Why would you lie about this? Too lazy to support the shit you say so you'd rather lie and pretend you read something that you clearly didn't.

the link opened for me. if your computer won't open it, google it. I am not going to do your work for you.

 

[RDD_1210]

you are the one who does not get it. I gave you a very simple example, here it is again:

How would having them pay a larger amount (less taxpayer subsidy) force them into the individual market?

lets say the premium was $300 before ACA and the govt picked up $200 of it leaving $100 for the employee to pay.

Now, after ACA the premium is $600 and the govt voted to pick up $500 leaving the same $100 for the employee to pay.

Effectively congress has voted themselves and their staffers exempt from the IMPACTS of ACA---at the expense of the taxpayers.



why should federal employees get a salary increase to offset the cost of ACA--as you claim they have? Who in private industry can do that?

I've already explained. They're not getting an increase. Which part is confusing you?

no increase in TAKE HOME pay, but an increase in gross pay. why is that so hard for you to comprehend.

the rest of the country is dealing with a decrease in take home pay due to ACA, why should congress and staffers not be treated like every other american?

Their compensation remains exactly the same. Why do you insist on punishing these people? They are already being forced to purchased health insurance on the exchanges when they didn't need to, but were forced to because a half-wit republican decided it would make a good talking point.

 

[RDD_1210]

Well then, either you have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal (unlikely) or you're a liar (likely).

Can you cut and paste the first paragraph of the article for me please. We'll see which of the options above is the correct one.

I guess your lack of a response to this proves that you are in fact a liar.

Not surprising in the least. Why would you lie about this? Too lazy to support the shit you say so you'd rather lie and pretend you read something that you clearly didn't.

the link opened for me. if your computer won't open it, google it. I am not going to do your work for you.

Then paste the first paragraph if you read the article.

Liar, prove me wrong.