Some people boast of the strangest things. My point was your acting childish does nothing for anybody. If you think it accomplishes something, go for it.
. On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > What's the point. I spent weeks trying to reason with you before > concluding that ya, I could try to talk to you or I could ignore you, that > both had the same effect, but ignoring you allowed me to get actual stuff > done. I didn't leave, by the way. I just send your emails and Larry's > emails straight to the trash. Unfortunately the Android app doesn't seem to > be aware of that. Anyway...I am not too bothered by the notion that I am > not your favorite person. Might even be proud of it, actually. > On Sep 26, 2013 11:21 AM, "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I see your timeout didn't help. > > > > Why don't you try actual discussion or silence? Blathering out like Larry > > does nothing for your image. > > > > . > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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:367411 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
