Pushing them into the exchanges in the first place was a straight up political ploy, as I mentioned. I remember it well.
Chuck Grassley offered an amendment during the original debate, back in 2009, to force congressional staff into the exchange. He did it as a "if you like it so much, why don't you marry it!" sort of ploy. Never mind the rationale, it was trying to set up a "Democrats think this is good enough for you, but not good enough for them" dynamic. Democrats, instead of trying to push back on the merits, simply said, "Sure! Let's do it!". So that's how it ended up in the bill. Unfortunately, there was no further thought about the switch over process, because it was a political stunt to start with. So there has had to be further refining as the process has gone on because of the way it came about. Cheers, Judah On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:05 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I personally find it weird that Congressional employees would be involved > > in the exchanges at all. The exchanges are designed for people who are > not > > generally covered by employer-sponsored insurance programs. The point of > a > > large individual exchange is to create a coverage pool that evens out > risk. > > That pool size is why employers get divided into small group and large > > group plans. Congress could certainly qualify as a decent pool size and > > negotiate plans with insurers accordingly. > > > > My guess is that they're being pushed into the exchanges specifically to > increase participation in them. It's not an exemption or exception, it's > padding the system from the beginning. > > Then again, there are other aspects of this that don't, "pass the smell > test." The fact that the Federal government is going to be running the > exchanges in 1/2 the states is the biggest one of those for me. There's > also the "navigator" concept, which I'll freely admit I need to spend more > time looking into. > > I think the one that concerns me the most is the subsidy for individuals... > I keep hearing it referred to as a "tax credit." If that's the case, how > are those that can't afford health insurance going to pay for it for the > first year? The IRS isn't going to be cutting monthly checks to people > that participate in the exchanges, so the money is either going to go > directly to the insurance companies or they're going to be calculated in as > a part of the individual's tax refunds. That leaves a bit of wiggle-room > for fraud in my estimation... which I thought was supposed to be reigned in > by the ACA. > > There's more that doesn't pass my personal smell test but we've been > through them before... and it's time to go home. > > Happy pre-Friday folks! > > Until Later! > C. Hatton Humphrey > http://www.eastcoastconservative.com > > Every cloud does have a silver lining. Sometimes you just have to do some > smelting to find it. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:367384 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
