Scott. You're bringing facts to a stupid fight. He is not going to change his mind, because he is sure that Rush is right.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > I just found this - http://1.usa.gov/190vfBM - as well. Seems to be > discussing the same thing as the Federal Register article you linked to. > > If I am reading that correctly, it seems that congressional 'staffers' will > be treated differently than others. Not sure I agree it is an 'exemption' > since they still need to purchase their healthcare through the exchanges. I > do not think it is fair, for sure, but I do not think this qualifies as > being 'exempt'. > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Sorry, I posted the wrong link before. >> >> Prior to the passage of the ACA, there was no need for OPM to clarify that >> the term health benefits plan under this chapter as used in section >> 8905(b) and 8906 included plans other than those health benefits plans for >> which OPM contracted or which OPM approved, pursuant to its authority >> under 5 >> U.S.C. 8902< >> http://api.fdsys.gov/link?collection=uscode&title=5&year=mostrecent§ion=8902&type=usc&link-type=html >> >, >> 8903 and 8903a. Because there are now employees covered by chapter 89 who >> will be purchasing health benefits plans on Exchanges, we believe that it >> is appropriate to clarify that the provisions that authorize an employer >> contribution for health benefits plans under this chapter, and authorize >> the continuation of such coverage into retirement, includes all health >> benefits plans fitting within the definition set forth in 8901(6). The >> revisions adopted here have no impact on the availability to Members of >> Congress and Congressional Staff Members of the contribution established >> in 5 >> U.S.C. 8906< >> http://api.fdsys.gov/link?collection=uscode&title=5&year=mostrecent§ion=8906&type=usc&link-type=html >> >. >> Health benefit plans, as defined at 5 U.S.C. >> 8901< >> http://api.fdsys.gov/link?collection=uscode&title=5&year=mostrecent§ion=8901&type=usc&link-type=html >> >(6), >> will encompass health benefit plans offered through an Exchange. >> >> >> https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/08/08/2013-19222/federal-employees-health-benefits-program-members-of-congress-and-congressional-staff#h-9 >> . >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> > Correction....initially, employers will NOT be able to compensate >> employees >> > for health insurance purchased through an exchange in the beginning of >> > 2014. >> > >> > Cannot locate anything that says the government will be compensating >> > employees anyway, though. I would agree that would be an exemption, but >> it >> > does not seem that is the case. >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > I found the full item: >> > > >> > > "if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the >> Exchange, >> > > the employee will lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health >> > > benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such >> > > contribution may be excludable from income for Federal income tax >> > purposes." >> > > >> > > All that says is that if employees buy insurance from an Exchange they >> > > will lose reimbursement from employer plans. In other words, the >> employee >> > > will not get reimbursed for a plan of which they no longer are part. >> > > >> > > There are provisions where employers can compensate employees for plans >> > > purchased through the exchanges, which is what the government is doing >> > for >> > > Congress & staffers. >> > > >> > > So, again, not an exemption. >> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > >> > >> The text 'The employee will lose the employer contribution' does not >> > >> exist in the page you linked to - >> > >> >> > >> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title5/html/USCODE-2012-title5-partIII-subpartG-chap89-sec8906.htm >> > >> >> > >> I would love to know what comes after the ellipsis in your quote. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >>> Did you read section 1512 (3) of the ACA? >> > >>> "The employee will lose the employer contribution..." >> > >>> >> > >>> . >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>> > >> > >>> > Congressional staffers need to buy their healthcare from the ACA >> > >>> exchanges. >> > >>> > The government is exercising a provision that allows them to >> > compensate >> > >>> > staffers for the some of the cost of the insurance - something >> every >> > >>> other >> > >>> > company can choose to do as well. >> > >>> > >> > >>> > That is not an 'exemption'. >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >> > >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:367377 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
