Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

If 900,000 federal workers can be furloughed as 'non-essential,' why employ them?


Recommended Posts

Essential services are generally defined as the interruption of such would threaten life, health and safety. ... so in other words, health, safety and security. There are of course a lot of services we expect that are not within these three categories. However I am thrilled to pieces that the IRS will not be doing audits during this period as that is not considered essential.... :D

Edited by Rayzur
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having friends and family who are employed by the government - this is NOT funny!

 

I especially do not like the Congressman/woman who are all millionaires saying that they will give up their salary during the shutdown. If you were sincere then why do you vote yourselves such a large increase in your salaries EVERY year? Why is your health & dental plan so much better than everyone elses? Why are you NOT subject to the same laws and rules as the rest of America? Etc, etc.......................

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having friends and family who are employed by the government - this is NOT funny!

 

I especially do not like the Congressman/woman who are all millionaires saying that they will give up their salary during the shutdown. If you were sincere then why do you vote yourselves such a large increase in your salaries EVERY year? Why is your health & dental plan so much better than everyone elses? Why are you NOT subject to the same laws and rules as the rest of America? Etc, etc.......................

mm...not supporting what congress does - just doing the fact checker thing. I have this propensity to do that.

 

The ACA (Obamacare) actually DOES require that congress use the Health Care Exchange for their insurance. They just get special treatment....

 

Here's the history: During the 2010 debate over the Affordable Care Act, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, proposed an amendment requiring members of Congress and their staffs to purchase health insurance though state exchanges. Democrats, viewing the amendment as a political stunt, co-opted the idea as their own and inserted it into the bill.

 

But the provision was silent about who would pay for that insurance, or how those payments would be treated. The exchanges were intended for uninsured people who couldn't get health insurance through their employer or qualify for Medicaid. Those who had access to health benefits meeting minimum coverage levels could still purchase insurance on the exchanges — but without a subsidy and using after-tax income.

 

Holding members of Congress and their staffs to that standard would have the effect of stripping them of the employer-paid health coverage they currently get, which is the same as any other federal employee. So the Office of Personnel Management issued a proposed rule in August making clear that the government would continue to pay the employer contribution for congressional health benefits at the same rate as if members were still on the federal plan.

 

http://www.usatoday....macare/2883635/

Just as a note - I'm a civilian technician for the National Guard - thus a Federal Employee.  I actually have the same health insurance that many of those in Congress had.  All Federal employees - including Congress and their staff - have to pick from set list of plans. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.