Chain email says Nancy Pelosi will earn “$803,700 Dollars a year for LIFE including FREE medical” 17OKT13

THERE is a lot about the US Congress to be disgusted about, and there is a lot of anger about the latest federal government shutdown, but really, how can anyone be so stupid to believe something like this? From PolitiFact......

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

Congressional lawmakers earn their salaries "FOR LIFE," which for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi would add up to "$803,700 Dollars a year for LIFE including FREE medical."

Chain email on Tuesday, October 15th, 2013 in an email and social media posts

Chain email says Nancy Pelosi will earn “$803,700 Dollars a year for LIFE including FREE medical”

Share this story:

Okay, people, let’s chat from the heart for a second.
Congressional approval ratings nearing single digits and government shutdowns do not make viral rants about lawmakers’ pay any more true.
If your in-box claims to share shocking truths in ALL-CAPS underlined exclamations!! — take your hand off the mouse button. Do not click Forward. Unless, of course, it’s to your favorite fact-checkers.
Take this recent example sent by one of you to truthometer@politifact.com:

Subject: Obscene Salaries - Pass this on if you believe this is all wrong

Salary of retired US Presidents .$180,000 FOR LIFE

Salary of House/Senate....$174,000 FOR LIFE   This  is  stupid

Salary of Speaker of the House ....$223,500 FOR  LIFE!  This is  really stupid

Salary of Majority/Minority Leader $193,400 FOR   LIFE        Ditto last  line

Average Salary of a teacher .. $40,065

Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN  AFGHANISTAN .. $38,000 Think about  this.

Nancy Pelosi will retire as a Congress Person at $174,000 Dollars a year  for LIFE.    She has retired  as SPEAKER at $223,500 a year.

PLUS she will  receive an additional $193,400 a year as Minority Leader. That's  $803,700 Dollars a  year for LIFE including FREE  medical which is  not available to us ...   the  taxpayers.

She is  just one of the hundreds of Senators and Congress that float in and  out every year!

I think we  found where the cuts should be made!

If you  agree ..... pass it on, I just did.    

In honor of Congress’ second-worst approval rating in Gallup history, let’s keep this simple: Do congressional lawmakers earn their salaries "FOR LIFE? Would House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi get "$803,700 Dollars a year for LIFE including FREE medical"?
No. And really, really, really, no.
We’ll break it down.
Do congressional lawmakers earn their salaries "FOR LIFE?
Let’s turn to the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, which explains laws so even lawmakers can understand them.
• Members of Congress earn their $174,000 salaries only during their elected terms. (Nope, not for life.)
• They’re eligible for congressional pensions only after five years of service. (For a member of the House, that would mean getting elected to office at least three times.)
Those pensions can’t be tapped until retirement age — and can’t be collected while a lawmaker still gets a federal salary. So John Kerry, for example, can’t collect his congressional pension while he serves as secretary of state, according to Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union.
• The size of the pension depends on years of service and the average of a lawmaker’s highest three years of salary. The exact formula depends on when they started. Meanwhile, every paycheck, lawmakers contribute to both their pensions and Social Security.
• Most congressional pensions are nowhere near a lawmaker’s salary. Under a pre-1984 retirement formula, it couldn’t be more than 80 percent of a lawmaker’s final salary, not counting cost-of-living adjustments. Under current rules, lawmakers could theoretically get more than 80 percent of their salary, but most would need to serve more than 66 years to get that.
Would House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi get "$803,700 Dollars a year for LIFE including FREE medical"?
The email writer gets a whole host of things wrong here.
The message claims Pelosi will retire as a member of Congress making $174,000 — and that she’ll earn it annually, for life, on top of her full speaker’s salary of $223,500 and minority leader’s salary of $193,400, for a whopping "$803,700 Dollars a year for LIFE including FREE medical."
Nope.
Congressional leaders do get paid more than other lawmakers. The speaker of the House earns $223,500. The House minority leader earns $193,400. That’s more than the $174,000 earned by the rank and file. But those are annual salaries that leaders earn while they hold their titles, not lifetime guarantees that get stacked on top of one another.
• First, even if her pension did equal all three salaries, they add up to $590,900, not $803,700. (Unless perhaps the writer’s suggesting the "free medical" is worth $212,800 a year. Talk about rising health care costs!)
• Second, that’s not how it works. See above.
• Third, lawmakers don’t get "free medical." They pay a portion of their health insurance premiums, co-pays and co-insurance and can face a deductible, just like a lot of workers with employer-based health care. In January, their employer-offered health insurance will be a choice of plans offered on Obamacare’s federal exchange.
Pelosi’s higher salary as House speaker from 2007-11 will boost her pension. But the congresswoman, who’s been in office since 1987, would have to work at least two more decades for her starting pension to match a regular lawmaker’s pay, much less $803,700.
She’s 73.
And, oh, by the way, lawmakers haven’t given themselves a pay raise since January 2009.
We’re not saying they’re earning their keep.
But perhaps it’ll make you feel slightly better that their salaries this year hit their lowest inflation-adjusted levels since December 1990. And that more than 200 of them were refusing pay while the government was closed.
Our ruling
A viral message claims congressional lawmakers earn their salaries "FOR LIFE," which for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi would add up to "$803,700 Dollars a year for LIFE including FREE medical."
Lawmakers don’t earn a salary after their terms end. They may earn pensions based on years of service, but those don’t start until retirement. They don’t get "free medical."
It might feel good to click Forward. But it wouldn’t make this claim any less Pants on Fire.

About this statement:

Published: Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 11:48 a.m.
Subjects: Congress, Congressional Rules, Federal Budget
Sources:
Congressional Research Service, "Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress," Aug. 9, 2013
Congressional Research Service, "Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables," Sept. 24, 2013
Congressional Research Service, "Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Officials: Process for Adjusting Pay and Current Salaries," Feb. 9, 2011
Congressional Research Service, "Former Presidents: Federal Pension and Retirement Benefits," March 18, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives, "What is a Representative?" accessed Oct. 16, 2013
Gallup, "Congress and the Public," accessed Oct. 16, 2013
Gallup Politics, "Congress' Job Approval Falls to 11% Amid Gov't Shutdown," Oct. 7, 2013
USA Today, "Members of Congress haven't had a raise in years," Aug. 15, 2013
Bloomberg, "Obama-Congress Paychecks Safe From Automatic Budget Cuts," Feb. 28, 2013
Washington Post's Post Politics, "Which lawmakers will refuse their pay during the shutdown?" Oct. 10, 2013
National Taxpayers Union, "Do Members of Congress Pay Social Security Taxes?" accessed Oct. 17, 2013
PolitiFact, "Pro-Democratic group says Rep. Tom Cotton voted to give lawmakers, aides taxpayer-funded health care 'for life,'" June 28, 2013 (Pants on Fire)
PolitiFact Rhode Island, "Email message says members of Congress get a full pension for serving just one term," May 29, 2011 (Pants on Fire)
PolitiFact, "Sen. Ted Cruz says Obama 'just granted all of Congress an exception' to Obamacare,"  Aug.14, 2013 (False)
Interview with Pete Sepp, executive vice president, National Taxpayers Union, Oct. 17, 2013
Written by: Becky Bowers
Researched by: Becky Bowers
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/17/chain-email/chain-email-says-lawmakers-earn-salaries-life-whic/

 

HERE'S WHAT REALLY HAS THE REPIGLICANS AND TEA-BAGGERS PISSED OFF ABOUT OBAMACARE & GOP Staffer on Vitter Amendment: "Congress Literally Threw Staff Under The Bus"1OKT&30SEP13

IT isn't concern about access to afforable health care for the American people, it is that THEY have to pay for their health insurance! Consider these two statements from the article below, from PolitiFact......

"Hensarling was referring to a provision of President Barack Obama’s health care law that was originally intended as a political maneuver by critics of the law. We asked his office for evidence to support his statement, but we didn't hear back.

When the health care law was being written in 2009 and 2010, Republicans proposed requiring that lawmakers and their staffers obtain insurance through the exchanges, arguing that if the law was good enough for ordinary Americans, then it was good enough for Congress.

Presumably fearing a public backlash if they refused, Democrats accepted the language, and it became part of the law."

"Will Members of Congress even get "subsidies"? Not really. All lawmakers and many staffers won’t qualify for the subsidies we discussed above because their income is too high. Instead, what lawmakers and staff will qualify for is better described as employer cost-sharing -- an allotment of money that works exactly the same way as it does for the majority of Americans who get employer-based health care, and that long predated the beginning of the Obamacare exchanges. For Americans who have employer-sponsored health insurance, the employer pays a share of the premiums. In this case, that "employer" is the federal government."

HERE'S the entire article from PolitiFact...

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

In a "sweetheart deal … members of Congress, thanks to the Obama administration, are going to be the only people in America to get subsidies in the Obamacare exchanges."

Jeb Hensarling on Tuesday, October 1st, 2013 in a House floor speech

GOP Rep. Jeb Hensarling assails "sweetheart" deal for lawmakers, staff under Obamacare

Share this story:

We fact-checked a portion of a House floor speech given by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas.

In the wee hours of the morning of Oct. 1, 2013, as the House was engaged in a futile ping-pong match over averting the federal government shutdown, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, took to the floor to decry a "sweetheart deal" on health insurance for members of Congress.

"Mr. Speaker," Hensarling said, "we are debating should members of Congress get a better deal than every other American in Obamacare? House Republicans say, ‘No, that’s not fair. That’s not equal protection under the law.’ Yet, our friends on the other side of the aisle (Democrats) are now saying, ‘No, no, no.’ They’re going to protect this sweetheart deal. ...

"Now members of Congress, thanks to the Obama administration, are going to be the only people in America to get subsidies in the Obamacare exchanges. Is this fair, Mr. Speaker? I think not. Clearly, the other side of the aisle wants to preserve this special deal for Members of Congress granted by the President of the United States."

Hensarling was referring to a provision of President Barack Obama’s health care law that was originally intended as a political maneuver by critics of the law. We asked his office for evidence to support his statement, but we didn't hear back.

When the health care law was being written in 2009 and 2010, Republicans proposed requiring that lawmakers and their staffers obtain insurance through the exchanges, arguing that if the law was good enough for ordinary Americans, then it was good enough for Congress.

Presumably fearing a public backlash if they refused, Democrats accepted the language, and it became part of the law.

The problem arose in the drafting of the law. For most Americans who have employer-based insurance, the employer pays a majority of the cost of insurance. But the version of the health care bill signed into law doesn’t include an explicit mechanism to allow the federal government to pay its employer share of congressional employees’ health insurance if they use the exchanges, now called marketplaces. (Here’s a rundown of how this drafting error occurred.)

Without a fix, congressional employees would have to foot the entire cost of their health insurance when buying insurance on the exchange -- a financial hit that could go well into the thousands of dollars. To fix this problem, the Office of Personnel Management, which serves as the federal government’s human resources office, issued a ruling that allowed the same money that would have been spent on the employer’s old health insurance to instead be spent on whatever they purchased on the Obamacare marketplaces.

Obamacare critics have portrayed this as a special exemption to protect politically connected lawmakers and staff, one that was unavailable to the public at large. So some lawmakers backed an effort by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., to revoke the employer’s premium cost-sharing for members of Congress, aides and other political appointees. As the House and Senate debated how to proceed to end the shutdown, passage of a funding bill with the Vitter Amendment attached was floated as a possibility.

So that’s the background. Getting back to Hensarling’s statement, we see four claims embedded in  it:

Will members of Congress be "the only people in America to get subsidies in the Obamacare exchanges"? Hardly -- the tax credits commonly known as subsidies under Obamacare were being put into place starting Oct. 1, the same day the shutdown began. Anyone within a specified income range who purchases insurance on the Obamacare marketplace will be eligible for subsidies in the form of tax credits. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that by 2017, about 24 million Americans will be buying insurance on the Obamacare marketplaces, many of them with federal subsidies. Only time will tell how many Americans eventually sign up, but it’s almost certainly going to be more than the roughly 30,000 people who work in the legislative branch.

Will Members of Congress even get "subsidies"? Not really. All lawmakers and many staffers won’t qualify for the subsidies we discussed above because their income is too high. Instead, what lawmakers and staff will qualify for is better described as employer cost-sharing -- an allotment of money that works exactly the same way as it does for the majority of Americans who get employer-based health care, and that long predated the beginning of the Obamacare exchanges. For Americans who have employer-sponsored health insurance, the employer pays a share of the premiums. In this case, that "employer" is the federal government.

Is this a "sweetheart deal"? Quite the opposite. Under the law as enacted, lawmakers and congressional aides are actually treated more harshly than any other American.

Obama and his allies created a system in which most Americans -- at least three quarters -- who have insurance will remain on their existing plans and see few if any disruptions. The marketplaces were created for Americans who lacked insurance entirely or had to buy insurance on their own, without employer assistance.

By contrast, the law revokes the longstanding congressional health insurance arrangement and forces them into a new system, something not done for any other class of employee.

Even the National Review, the conservative magazine that is none too fond of Obamacare,recently wrote that the provision treats lawmakers and staff "particularly badly." The situation "isn’t a ‘special handout’ for congressional employees. … People who happen to be paid by the federal treasury don’t deserve to have the entire value of their existing coverage stripped away, as almost no Americans will experience."

An added irony is that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program is widely considered a key model for the exchanges themselves. Under the program, federal employees under the age of 65 can choose among a variety of health insurance offerings, just as people will be able to do under the exchanges. In 2003, the conservative Heritage Foundation published a papertouting the program as a model for market-based health care reform.

In short, the ability for congressional employees to keep their employer cost-share merely returns them to the already harsh provision that severs them from their existing health care plan. All the fix does is stop that provision from making even more trouble by forcing them to pay thousands of dollars more. We don’t think this qualifies as a "sweetheart deal."

Is this "thanks to the Obama administration"? The Obama administration isn’t entirely blameless -- in the rush to sign Obamacare into law, the president overlooked or ignored the problem looming in the legislative language, and his administration did approve the "fix."

Still, this controversy has been kept alive largely by Republicans, from the original Republican proposal to the Vitter amendment. So it’s at best a stretch to blame Obama.

Our ruling

Hensarling said that in a "sweetheart deal … members of Congress, thanks to the Obama administration, are going to be the only people in America to get subsidies in the Obamacare exchanges."

This statement is wrong in almost every regard. Millions of ordinary Americans who currently lack health coverage are expected to get Obamacare subsidies in the years ahead. Congressional employees who purchase insurance on the marketplaces won’t be getting subsidies so much as they will be benefiting from a traditional employer cost-share, as many other Americans do. Far from getting a "sweetheart deal," congressional employees would otherwise find themselves forced off their existing insurance plan, something the law itself does to no other employment group. And the issue has been largely driven by Republicans, not by the Obama administration.

That’s a lot to get wrong in the space of a sentence or two. We rate Hensarling’s comment Pants on Fire.

About this statement:

Published: Tuesday, October 1st, 2013 at 5:45 p.m.

Subjects: Health Care

Sources:

Jeb Hensarling, comments on the House floor, Oct. 1, 2013

Congressional Research Service, "The Federal Workforce: Characteristics and Trends," April 19, 2011

Heritage Foundation, "The FEHBP as a Model for Medicare Reform: Separating Fact from Fiction," Aug. 7, 2003

USA Today, "Why Congress is (or isn't) exempt from Obamacare," Sept. 27, 2013

National Review, "The Obamacare Non-Exemption," Sept. 27, 2013

Roll Call, "Grassley Frustrated by Fight Over His Health Care Amendment," Sept. 26, 2013

Roll Call, "Vitter’s Push to Nix Benefits Roils Senate," Sept. 17, 2013

PolitiFact, "Obama says people with health insurance ‘don’t have to worry’ about Obamacare rollout," May 2, 2013

PolitiFact, "Marco Rubio says union for IRS workers is 'begging' to be let out of Obamacare," Aug. 1, 2013

Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/01/jeb-hensarling/gop-rep-jeb-hensarling-assails-sweetheart-deal-law/

GOP Staffer on Vitter Amendment: "Congress Literally Threw Staff Under The Bus"

The latest Republican assault on Obamacare involves jacking up health insurance costs for members of Congress and their staffers. That has some GOP aides upset.

Denis Belyaevskiy /Shutterstock

There's a new front in the battle over Obamacare: Republican congressional staffers are angry at their bosses for trying to deprive them of affordable insurance.

Like many Americans, most Congressional staffers receive health insurance through their employer, the federal government. And like most employers, the government covers a big portion of the cost: 75 percent. The Affordable Care Act changed this, requiring members of Congress and their staff to obtain coverage via the the health insurance exchanges created by the law. But the language in the law was unclear as to whether lawmakers and their aides would be able to keep using government money to purchase heath insurance. To clear this up, the Obama administration issued a proposed rule in August stating that the government would continue to cover 75 percent of congressional health benefits. The GOP latched onto this new regulation as an "outrageous exemption for Congress" and a "big fat taxpayer funded subsidy." Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), introduced bills that would strip out those employer contributions.

Yanking taxpayer subsidies for lawmakers makes sense politically for GOPers; it would be dangerous for Democratic lawmakers to reject a spending bill that slashes their benefits. But the proposed move has Congressional staffers—including Republicans—indignant.

"I understand it politically, and as a talking point," one rank-and-file Republican staffer says of the Vitter and McCaul measures. "But Congress literally threw staff under the bus on this…You're hurting staff assistants who are sorting your mail."

Staffers don't make as much money as you may think, he adds. "When I started on the Hill answering phone calls, I'd hear people saying, 'You're a rich congressional staffer,' and I'm like, 'you must be out of your mind.'" Some low-level congressional employees make as little as about $28,000 a year; House staff salaries are the lowest they've been since 2007. "We have folks in our office who don't make a lot of money," the GOP aide says, "and losing an employer contribution will make it hard on them."

Some Republican lawmakers agree: Rep. Peter King (R-NY), said Monday that junior staff members were being "sacrificed" for a political game. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told ABC that bumping up health care costs for staffers was "probably not a good idea," adding that low-paid staffers will "suffer."

Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, thinks the GOP has picked a losing strategy. "You never want your staffers unhappy," he says.

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Florida), is of the same mind: "If you're going to stick pins in a voodoo doll, the doll shouldn't be people who work for you."  

Vitter's office did not respond to a request for comment. Nor did McCaul's.

Jacking up health care costs for low-paid aides is not only mean; it could cause brain drain on the Hill. Staffers "are not living large," Zelizer says. "If you take away essentials and make basic things like health care much harder for them, it will lead them to go into the private sector."

The GOP staffer agrees. "You need to make X number of dollars," he says. A recent survey found that 63 percent of Hill staffers want to leave their jobs because of the low pay and long hours. And that's before losing health insurance benefits.

The GOP, in its all-out-effort to undermine Obamacare, could end up harming its own people. "I'm a perfectly healthy guy," the staffer says, "but there are people [in my office] who use [insurance] and need it and depend on it."

Reporting Fellow

Erika Eichelberger is a reporting fellow in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She has also written for The Nation, The Brooklyn Rail, and TomDispatch. Email her at eeichelberger [at] motherjones [dot] com. RSS | TWITTER

• How Republicans Blocked a Key Obamacare Benefit—Without the Shutdown

  By rejecting Medicaid expansion, 22 states are leaving millions of Americans—mostly people of color—out in the cold.

• GOP Staffer on Vitter Amendment: "Congress Literally Threw Staff Under The Bus"

  The latest Republican assault on Obamacare involves jacking up health insurance costs for members of Congress and their staffers. That has some GOP aides upset.

• Jennifer Hudson Promotes Obamacare, Impersonates Olivia Pope in New Funny or Die Video

  The comedy website has planned a series of pro-Obamacare videos.

• 8 Reasons Defunding Obamacare Would Be More Dangerous Than You Think

  Stripping funds from the health law wouldn't just end subsidies and coverage mandates. It would also hurt a range of existing health programs.

• Sen. Ted Cruz Compares Conservative #DefundObamacare Skeptics to Nazi Appeasers Because Why Not?

  Affordable health care has yet to annex parts of Czechoslovakia.
  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/obamacare-employer-contribution-exemption-vitter-amendment%2
  0

Paul Ryan vs. the Truth 27APR11

HERE'S the truth about rep paul ryan's r WI claim that his budgets Medicare plan is the same as the plan members of Congress have (sans the taxpayer subsidy of approximately $7500 a year). This from MOJO shows just how much more members of Congress would pay if that were true...and what the rest of us WILL pay if this budget is adopted....

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). Gage Skidmore/Flickr

There's a lot of annoying mendacity in Paul Ryan's budget proposal, but the most annoying by far is his repeated insistence that under his plan seniors would get "the same kind of health-care program that members of Congress enjoy." Aside from the fact that he's offered no details about how or why private insurers would magically decide to provide the same kind of benefits to the elderly that they do to members of Congress, he's just flatly lying about the most important part of his proposal: namely that it will force seniors to pay far, far more for Medicare than they do now — and far, far more than members of Congress pay for their health insurance. If you're a millionaire, maybe this counts as the "same kind" anyway, but for the rest of us it doesn't.
Here's the difference: under Ryan's plan, the government pays a set amount for Medicare and you pay for the rest. So far, that's pretty similar to the congressional plan. But that set amount goes up very slowly under Ryan's plan — much more slowly than the actual rise in the cost of health insurance — which means that seniors have to pay a bigger and bigger share of the total premium cost as the years go by. CAP's Tony Carrk and Nicole Cafarella ran the numbers to see how that would have worked out if Ryan's formula had applied to Congress over the past decade, and the dismal results are on the right, below.
Under the actual congressional plan, family premiums have gone up from $2,500 to $5,000. Under Ryan's plan, premiums would have gone up to about $8,300. That's a difference of $3,300 in only ten years. Over the course of 30 years, the difference would be more like $10-15,000.
That's a pretty whopping difference, and it would be even bigger for Medicare beneficiaries since Medicare starts from a bigger base. The result is that lots of seniors just flatly wouldn't be able to afford to buy Medicare. They wouldn't have enough money to pay their share of the premium, and that means they'd be uninsured and uncovered. Ryan has, of course, offered up a bunch of handwaving about how indigent seniors would get bigger subsidies, but unsurprisingly has been pretty sparing with any details. If he explained things, after all, everyone would immediately figure out (a) just how miserly his plan is, and (b) how much it would actually cost to support all those seniors who couldn't afford the astronomical premiums his plan forces on them.
The end result of all this is debatable. What's not debatable, however, is whether his plan is "the same kind of health-care program that members of Congress enjoy." It's not. It's not even close.

After Voting To Repeal Health Care, GOP Members Without Coverage Fear Cost To Family Members 10FEB11

BLINDED by their own hypocrisy and greed all but 16 gop representatives still feel they are entitled to their taxpayer subsidized government health care because they feel they and their staffs are entitled to it. THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT ANYONE ELSE, ESPECIALLY THOSE WITH NO HEALTH CARE OR WHO FACE LIMITS ON THEIR COVERAGE OR WHO WILL BE DENIED INSURANCE BECAUSE OF PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS. I wonder how the right-wing fanatics and tea baggers who elected these hypocrites will feel when someone in their family or a friend suffers a health crisis without insurance. Here's my advise for them...BOHICA, and call your senators and representative in the morning....
House Republicans have pledged to repeal and/or defund the health care law. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) even adopted the effort as her sole “motivation in life.” But, for at least 16 GOP lawmakers, the reality of the party’s position is coming home to roost. These Republicans, “many of whom were swept into office fueled by tea party anger over the health care law,” are now facing the same expensive, unforgiving health insurance market as middle-class Americans the GOP wantonly abandoned:

“I have a niece who has pre-existing conditions, and I worry about her if she was ever to lose her job,” said Florida Rep. Richard Nugent, one of the freshman lawmakers who declined federal health insurance benefits.
Every single House Republican voted to repeal the health care law last month.
“I can simply, honestly say that this is going to impact my wife and I to a fairly serious degree, like it would any average American out there,” said first-time Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois.
Walsh’s wife has a pre-existing condition and will need a procedure in the coming months, but because he declined federal benefits, they’re paying for it out of pocket. Meanwhile, Walsh is contributing to a health savings account to cover his expenses.
“It’s a cost we will feel, a cost I will have to pick up. I won’t turn down benefits because I have something to fall back on or because I’m independently wealthy,” he said.

But while recognizing that “there are 14 some million Americans and growing who are out there in the individual market who have a much tougher battle” than him, Walsh voted with every GOP House member to repeal the law that helps. And while they willingly deny millions of Americans, none see any reason to deny their staffs the taxpayer-funded benefit.
GOP lawmakers have struggled to explain why they deserve government-subsidized health care while ordinary Americans don’t. Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) said he accepted federal health care because he was “actually lowering” premiums for older lawmakers. When asked whether he’d turn down taxpayer benefits, Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) actually said, “I don’t know. Am I a federal employee?” And Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) offered a more blunt — and revealing — response: “What am I not supposed to have health care?…God forbid I get into an accident and can’t afford the operation. That can happen to anyone.”

HEALTH CARE AD CAMPAIGN ON REPUBLICAN & TEA-BAGGER HYPOCRISY 20JAN11

AD CAMPAIGN CALLING OUT THE REPUBLICANS AND TEA-BAGGERS ON TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THEM BUT NOT FOR THE REST OF US

BOHICA! House Votes For Repeal Of Health Care Law from NPR & WASHINGTON POST 19JAN11

THE mainstream media, NPR & Washington Post included, is missing a major point in this story, the glaring hypocrisy of the representatives who voted to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act while keeping their insurance that is subsidized by the taxpayers at a cost of approximately $700 a month per policy. They feel they are entitled to government subsidized health care but nobody else is. They have the same lack of morality as the executives of the banks, financial institutions and companies who feel they are entitled to obscene bonuses after their companies were bailed out by the taxpayers. The gop/tea-bagger controlled House will make sure America does get one medical procedure, though it will be with greater frequency than recommended by the AMA......know what it is? Here's a hint....BOHICA!!!! BYOL (bring your own lube).....

The new Republican-controlled House voted Wednesday 245-189 to repeal the historic health care overhaul legislation signed last March by President Obama, but the measure appears destined to prove largely symbolic.
Top Democrats in the Senate, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, who characterized the House action as "partisan grandstanding," say they will block efforts to take up the bill.
And Obama, while signaling a willingness to work on aspects of the sweeping bill where compromise may be possible, has pledged to veto any effort to repeal the centerpiece of his domestic agenda.
Republicans lack the votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto.

Related NPR Stories

GOP Launches Bid To Repeal Health Care Law Jan. 19, 2011

Some House Members In Health Care Hotseat Jan. 19, 2011

House Health Care Debate: Tamer Rehashing Of Talking Points Jan. 18, 2011

Democrats Seek Right Message To Boost Health Law Jan. 17, 2011

The Many Lives Of The 'Death Panel' Jan. 5, 2011

But the up-or-down repeal vote fulfills a campaign promise many Republican candidates made last fall, and sets into motion a larger GOP strategy to use the power levers they control to chip away at aspects of the bill over the next two years.
During repeal debate that began Tuesday, and wound down late Wednesday afternoon, Republican Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon said that his party will come up with a "replacement bill."
Other House GOP leaders on the issue, including Rep. Steve King of Iowa, say the party will also use its muscle in the appropriations process to pull funding that would implement aspects of the bill, including enforcing the legislation's requirement that citizens have private or employer-provided health insurance.
Republican leaders say they don't have a deadline for producing new health care legislation — the "replace" part of their campaign promise of "repeal and replace."
But four House committees will be charged tomorrow with coming up with proposed changes to the existing bill. And more than two dozen states have joined a Florida lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health care law.
Largely Respectful Debate, Except …
The seven hours of floor debate struck a largely respectful tone, with one glaring detour: Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee late Tuesday compared Republican arguments to Nazi propaganda and "blood libel." The term was recently invoked, to much criticism, by former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in a statement critical of the media's coverage of her in the wake of the recent shootings in Arizona that critically injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and killed six people.
The health care measure, a hot-button political issue for more than 18 months and the first bill considered under House Republican control in the new Congress, is officially titled the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act."
Before the Tucson massacre, the impending repeal debate appeared likely to be stridently partisan — a replay, perhaps, of last year's debate, when terms like "death panels" were casually employed. But, as was the case Tuesday when the bill came to the floor, the language remained - with an exception or two - largely focused on well-worn talking points Wednesday.
House Speaker John Boehner, noting that Obama has indicated that the health care bill needs work, said:  "If we agree that this law needs improving, why would we keep it on the books?"
Obama in a statement this week said that while "we can't go backward," he is "willing and eager" to work with members of both parties to "improve the Affordable Care Act."
Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi, who was House Speaker when the bill passed, defended popular aspects of the bill that have already gone into effect, including barring insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, to allowing adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' policies.
"Repeal would be devastating to so many Americans," Pelosi said.
House Republicans have already indicated that they are unlikely to strip the pre-existing condition rule from any plan going forward.
But they also warned opponents not to underestimate their determination or their willingness to use parliamentary maneuvers to deny the Obama administration funds needed to carry out the law.
"Repeal doesn't mean we aren't for health care reform, quite the contrary," said Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN), an obstetrician-gynecologist. "This bill does increase the number of people who are insured. But it does nothing to decrease the costs."
That, he predicted, will make Obama's expansion of coverage unsustainable.
Both Parties Seize Opportunity To Make Case
Many Democrats were defiant during the debate. "We are not interested in taking down, repealing and destroying," said Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA).
They also held an informal hearing Tuesday featuring actual people who are benefiting from some of the parts of the law that have already taken effect.
Republicans are "re-litigating, regurgitating and re-arguing" a debate that was settled last year, said Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ). Repeal is "the wrong bill at the wrong time," he added.
Republicans argued that the law gives the federal government too much power, particularly the requirement that nearly every American either have health insurance or else pay a penalty.
"If this law is constitutional, if Congress has such broad power, our limited federal government will have become limitless," said Michigan freshman Republican Rep. Justin Amash.
The GOP's Health Care Priorities
The House is scheduled to vote Thursday to instruct several major committees to draft health care legislation that reflects Republican priorities, including limits on medical malpractice awards and stricter language barring taxpayer funding for abortions. But an earlier GOP bill that offered a competing vision to the Democrats' only covered a fraction of the people reached by Obama's law.
No matter, Republicans say. A modest, step-by-step approach may turn out to be more sustainable in the long run than a major new government program whose costs and consequences are still unclear.
The fate of the repeal-and-replace effort hinges on the quality of the replacement legislation and the care that Republicans put into drafting it, said Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY), a freshman. If it meets the needs and concerns of the public, Gibson said, he believes Democrats in the Senate may be persuaded to give it serious consideration.
Easier said than done, Democrats say. For example, Republicans say they also want to help people with pre-existing medical conditions find affordable coverage. But many experts say that won't be possible unless there is some kind of requirement that healthy people get into the insurance pool as well, thereby helping to keep premiums down.
"They're going to have to deal with that," said Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat.
But while the legislative battle is likely to end in a draw, at least for now, the battle for public opinion rages on. A new CNN poll provides more ammunition for both sides. For Republicans, it finds that half of those polled think the law should be repealed. But Democrats will take heart in the fact that nearly 80 percent of Americans favor at least some aspect of the health law.
Contributing: Julie Rovner; Liz Halloran; The Associated Press
House votes to repeal health-care law

By Felicia Sonmez and David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 19, 2011; 6:33 PM


The House on Wednesday evening passed a bill that would repeal the national health care overhaul, approving the measure on a largely party-line vote.
The repeal bill passed 245 to 189, with three Democrats - Reps. Mike Ross (Ark.), Dan Boren (Okla.) and Mike McIntyre (N.C.) - joining Republicans in backing the measure. The three were among the four Democrats who voted earlier this month to advance the measure. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who remains in serious condition following this month's mass shooting in Tucson, was the only lawmaker not voting.
The bill's passage came after Democrats unsuccessfully staged an eleventh-hour vote in an effort to derail the Republican-sponsored measure.
The Democratic move, which would have made the repeal effort ineffective unless a majority of lawmakers gave up their federal health care benefits within 30 days of the bill's passage, fell short in the GOP-led House.
While the repeal passed the House, ultimately, it is expected to fail.
To actually repeal the law, Republicans would need the approval of the Democrat-controlled Senate and President Obama, unless they have enough votes to override his veto. They are not likely to get that approval.
That made Wednesday's debate look like a dress rehearsal for an entirely different discussion: not whether the bill should be repealed, but how it might be changed.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in his remarks on the House floor that repeal would prevent more than $770 billion in tax hikes, reduce spending by $540 billion and protect more than 7 million seniors from losing or being denied coverage through Medicare Advantage.
"Repeal means paving the way for better solutions that will lower the cost without destroying jobs or bankrupting our government, and repeal means keeping a promise," Boehner said. "This is what we said what we'd do. We listened to the people; we made a commitment to them, a pledge to make their priorities, our priorities."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defended the law by citing some of the stories of seven Americans who gave testimony on Tuesday at a hearing called by House Democrats. "Nothing speaks more eloquently to the success of health care reform than the success of their own personal stories," she said.
"We don't want them to think that in order for them to have the same kind of access to health care that we do, we should say to them, 'Run for Congress,'" Pelosi said.
Throughout Wednesday's debate, some Republicans said that elements of the current law - such as a ban on denying coverage for for pre-existing conditions, or the ability for parents to keep young adult children on their insurance - might be included in a replacement bill they want to write.
"We will address, with a replacement bill, pre-existing conditions," said Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.). But Walden said Republicans wanted to to keep out of the replacement bill other elements of the overhaul law, which he said included an increase in the overall cost of healthcare.
"We can do better than this, given a chance," Walden said.
Democrats also said they would be willing to change elements of the law.
"This is political theater. It's a charade," Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) said of the repeal proposal. He continued: "I'm willing to change the bill. But repealing it is the absolutely wrong way of doing it."
The two sides still seemed a long way from actual compromise. Republicans have not said exactly how they would replace the current bill with one that provided these benefits with lower costs. And Democrats seem unwilling to budge on some elements most unpopular with Republicans, like the requirement that all individuals buy health insurance.
The tone of Wednesday's debate was far more muted than the first debate over the healthcare overhaul--there were fewer mentions of "job-killing," or comparisons of the bill to socialism.
But, as the day went on, both sides slipped in bitter jabs at the other. Freshman Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), compared his state's fight against the health-care overhaul to the American Revolution.
"We did not accept the chains of George III, nor will we accept the chains of Obamacare," Griffith said.
After him, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said Republicans were telling untruths about the healthcare legislation. He said that, if anyone watching on television was playing a drinking game that required them to drink when a Republican bent the truth, they needed to get a designated driver.
Weiner said the Republicans' tactics should be called the "'We don't really mean it' strategy."
The night before, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) had compared the Republican tactics on this issue to ones used by the Nazis.
"They say it's a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels," Cohen said. "You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That's the same kind of thing.
"The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it--believed it and you have the Holocaust," Cohen said.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) on Wednesday called the health care overhaul "the crown jewel of socialism." And a handful of members of both parties used heated rhetoric in charging that the health care overhaul would "kill jobs" -- or that its repeal would result in "killing Americans."
Wednesday's floor debate was a chance for both sides to try out the arguments they are likely to use in this year's longer debate, as Congress considers changing or eliminating the healthcare legislation one piece at a time.
Republicans largely used their floor remarks to tie the health care law to the economy, arguing that the health care overhaul will do away with fiscal discipline through increased spending and higher taxes, cost the country jobs and create economic uncertainty.
Some lawmakers went further, arguing that the law itself is unconstitutional, would overextend the reach of government and would allow for taxpayer-funded abortions, even though Democrats say that is not the case.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a prominent conservative who is mulling a bid for president or governor, said that with Wednesday's vote, House Republicans "are going to stand with the American people and vote to repeal their government takeover of health care lock, stock and barrel."
"Now I know the other side and some liberals in the media don't like us using that term -- government takeover of health care -- but let me break it down for you: When you mandate that every American purchase health insurance whether they want it or need it or not ... and you throw in public funding of abortion against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the American people, that's a government takeover of health care and the American people know it," Pence said in his floor remarks.
In the battle of constituent anecdotes, Republicans told stories about small businessmen worried about the bill's costs. Democrats, on the other hand, talked about patients: people who would get help paying for pre-natal care, or the treatment of cancer or other diseases.
At one point, Reps. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) sparred over how women would be affected by a repeal of the health care law.
"Thanks to the new law, women do not have to worry anymore about being treated as second-class citizens or about being discriminated against for being a woman," Slaughter said, arguing that the health care law made it illegal for insurance companies to charge women higher premiums and would require that insurers provide coverage for victims of domestic violence.
Blackburn shot back that the health care overhaul would make it "more difficult for women under the age of 50 and over the age of 75 to get mammograms."
"One of our primary concerns with this legislation was the way in which women would be adversely impacted," Blackburn said, adding that "we need this bill off the books."

Ron Paul: GOP ‘Could Be’ Hypocrites For Using Gov Health Care For Themselves, Repealing It For Public 18JAN11

SHOWING THEMSELVES FOR WHAT THEY ARE, HYPOCRITICAL, GREEDY, SELF-SERVING AND CONTROLLED BY CORPORATE INTEREST AND THE WEALTHY THAT PAID FOR THEIR CONGRESSIONAL SEATS, THESE REPUBLICORP MINIONS WILL DO THEIR BEST TO DESTROY HEALTH CARE REFORM (THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT), THROWING THE REST OF US TO SUFFER FROM THE WHIMS OF THE PROFIT DRIVEN INSURANCE COMPANIES AS LONG AS CONGRESS GETS TO KEEP THEIR TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED HEALTH INSURANCE. WHY? BECAUSE, JUST LIKE THE EXECUTIVES OF TARP RESCUED BANKS, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND CORPORATIONS WHO ARE STILL GETTING HUGE BONUSES WHILE THE NATION WALLOWS IN RECESSION, THEY FEEL THEY ARE ENTITLED TO IT.  THIS FROM THINK PROGRESS....
Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), who campaigned on a pledge to repeal health reform, gained notoriety shortly after being elected when he complained about a delay in receiving his government-sponsored health care benefits as a member of Congress. While repeal efforts have unified most Republicans, Harris’ comments sparked a debate within the GOP caucus over charges of hypocrisy. Several new Republican lawmakers have turned down their government-sponsored plans, but the vast majority have chosen to accept taxpayer money to help pay for their own health benefits and coverage for their staff.
Speaking to ThinkProgress shortly after the swearing-in ceremony for Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) explained to us that — although he supports repealing health reform — he hasn’t evaluated his own package of taxpayer-subsidized health benefits for himself and his staff. At first, Paul said he wasn’t sure of the size of the taxpayer subsidy. Asked if he thought it was hypocritical for members of Congress to accept government subsidized and regulated health plans while repealing similar benefits for everyone else, Paul replied blithely, “[c]ould be”:

KEYES: Do you think you’ll be voting for it when it comes up, voting for repeal?
PAUL: I would.
KEYES: Do you think you’ll also be giving up government-sponsored health care for yourself?
PAUL: I would hope so. [...] Well, I will be voting against all of this stuff, but whether I’m going to be changing my policies or not, I have Blue Cross Blue Shield. I pay a fee every month for it.
KEYES: But the government, the members of Congress and their staff are all subsidized by taxpayers, government subsidies.
PAUL: I don’t know how much the subsidy is — [...]
FANG: Do you think it’s hypocritical to take government subsidized and regulated health care as a member of Congress but repeal it for everyone else?
PAUL: Could be.

Watch it:




Members of Congress on average receive a $700 a month taxpayer subsidy for their health insurance plan, which they can choose through a highly regulated exchange offered by the government. The federal exchange establishes a minimum benefit plan, which bars discrimination based on preexisting conditions and other insurance industry abuses, and provides a menu of private sector plans to choose from. Congressional staff members receive the same plan as members. The federal system mirrors the reforms enacted by Democrats and President Obama, which end health insurance abuses by regulating coverage through an exchange, while offering subsidies to individuals and small businesses to make coverage more affordable.
Few Republicans have been as candid as Paul. For instance, Rep. Robert Hurt (R-VA) tried to tell ThinkProgress that his congressional health benefits don’t qualify as any special privilege. “It’s a policy that’s issued by Anthem and it’s a policy that any — it’s open to the public,” Hurt claimed. However, millions of Americans, unlike Hurt and other members of Congress, can be denied health coverage because of what insurance companies deem as “preexisting conditions.” And other than government employees and veterans, few Americans enjoy the type of taxpayer subsidies given to members of Congress like Hurt and Paul.

Related Posts:

• WONK ROOM: Do As I Say, Not As I Do: 97% Of House GOP Still Holding On To Their Congressional Health Plans
• THINKPROGRESS: King Won't Give Up His Government Health Care, But Applauds Those Who Do 'For Standing On Principle'