Prophetess Pelosi
14/4/10 09:16![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
verytwistedmind.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics
But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,
-Nancy Pelosi March 2010
It is often said that the new health care law will affect almost every American in some way. And, perhaps fittingly if unintentionally, no one may be more affected than members of Congress themselves.
In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.
For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available
The law promises that people can keep coverage they like, largely unchanged. For members of Congress and their aides, the federal employees health program offers much to like. But, the report says, the men and women who wrote the law may find that the guarantee of stability does not apply to them.
“It is unclear whether members of Congress and Congressional staff who are currently participating in F.E.H.B.P. may be able to retain this coverage,” the research service said in an 8,100-word memorandum.
And even if current members of Congress can stay in the popular program for federal employees, that option will probably not be available to newly elected lawmakers, the report says.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/us/politics/13health.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Okay, so this may be a bit of Schadenfreude but I am glad to see this. The only thing that would have been better is if their insurance was taxed.
I wonder what else we will find in the bill….
Things like Children with Pre-existing conditions not being covered.I am confident in Speaker Pelosi's ability to fix these minor issues. Just like they already plan the Doc Fix.
(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 14:43 (UTC)Now if you could sell that to the people as "They'll see how the other 1/2 live" you're surely on to a winner?
I'd suggest that all on health plans like that have a "Personal interest" and should be declared (Should that have come up in the UK HOP anyway, don't your congress peeps have to declare interests?
(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 19:18 (UTC)What you mean when you say it 'out loud' and comprehend the realities of the situation? Hell, as "The people" you pay for the decision-makers lifestyle, surely if all knew and ere able to comprehend the full story, "The people" should be in an equal (or better) position than those they pay to make such decisions?
As it stands it seems to me that instead of governance of the people, for the people, we have a body of "Better educated people" feathering nests of family and friends, certainly governments of the UK, nor the USA can really be considerred "the average", if they are, it sure as hell aint the Mode, nor the Mean Average! The Median, however I see as a real possibility, though if this is a reality I sure hope the redistribution of wealth ideal comes sometime soon.
(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 19:31 (UTC)oh Pffffftoooeeee, My bad, not used to "Debates" on such bigoted forums ;)
(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 06:43 (UTC)But isn't it pretty obvious?
(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 18:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 19:27 (UTC)was called "Statistics" when I was at school.
3 Kinds of lies, Lies, Damned Lies and Government statistics ;)
It can't be that hard, Our Fuckwits will employ anyone with 4 GCSE's, and hell our uneployment rate which in reality must be in the order of 25million, the ONS presently have at well under 5Mill. but then again, when guvmint can choose ad hoc who to count, and those who aint been there for X months, those who will leave ranks in y months, these figures are realy easily manipulated ;) but as I'm sure we've shown you, Stop educating the kids in Math/English and you can sell them whatever you want them to believe ;)
(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 19:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 01:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 19:33 (UTC)It is required and was intended to be. The unintended consequence was they forgot to specify when it went into effect, so there's a confusing technicality where Congress is required to buy their insurance through state exchanges but the states aren't required to create the exchanges yet. It's really not so much an unintended consequence as a blatant drafting error.
(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 17:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 18:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 19:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 19:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 19:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 19:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 19:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 20:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 20:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 23:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 20:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 20:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 20:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 20:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 21:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 12:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 05:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 19:57 (UTC)And yes, the section under question here is in the analysis, plain as day, Section 1312:
The problem isn't the section itself, but the fact that when the section goes into effect isn't properly defined, and could be interpreted to go into effect before the exchanges are available. Which makes no sense, but technically it's an error.
Also notable is the "pre-existing condition for children" issue is also in the 66-page analysis, Sec 1255:
The problem here is people getting confused as to what "exclusions" meant.
If you can't read a 2500+ page legal document, there's no reason you can't read a less than 100-page, more plainly written summary of it. I would encourage everyone on both sides of the issue to do so if you wish to actually have a reasonable informed discussion of these topics.
(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 20:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 21:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 12:23 (UTC)