TexasCHLforum.com

President Trump threatens to end a government subsidy (also known as our tax dollars) that pays part of the ObamaCare premiums for Congress. Without it, Congress would be required to select from and pay for the same types of plans the average citizen has available to them. Given how reluctant they are to make any changes to ObamaCare, they shouldn't have a problem with that, right? Wrong. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy described it this way

"This is a clear threat to Congress: pass my health bill or as punishment I will end health care for you, your staff, & your constituents.”

So Sen. Murphy equates having the same healthcare options as the rest of us as a "punishment" and "ending health care" for them.

Typical liberal hypocrisy - it's good for you, but I want something better. Oh, and you get to pay for it, too.

mloamiller wrote:President Trump threatens to end a government subsidy (also known as our tax dollars) that pays part of the ObamaCare premiums for Congress. Without it, Congress would be required to select from and pay for the same types of plans the average citizen has available to them. Given how reluctant they are to make any changes to ObamaCare, they shouldn't have a problem with that, right? Wrong. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy described it this way

"This is a clear threat to Congress: pass my health bill or as punishment I will end health care for you, your staff, & your constituents.”

So Sen. Murphy equates having the same healthcare options as the rest of us as a "punishment" and "ending health care" for them.

Typical liberal hypocrisy - it's good for you, but I want something better. Oh, and you get to pay for it, too.

I have said many times, the key to ending Obamacare is removing all exemptions including Congress and their staffs, unions and anyone else who received an Executive Order exemption from Obama.

Totally agree with the President, why should Congress tell us what's good for us but not have the same insurance.

striker55 wrote:Totally agree with the President, why should Congress tell us what's good for us but not have the same insurance.

If that would happen we might get an incredibly wonderful healthcare bill that is also incredibly expencive . Our congressmen can afford it, and in mostly they don't care about the costs of things.

Liberty wrote: Our congressmen can afford it, and in mostly they don't care about the costs of things.

I would tend to agree, but if that is correct, would they kick up such a fuss about losing the subsidy?

mloamiller wrote:

Liberty wrote: Our congressmen can afford it, and in mostly they don't care about the costs of things.

I would tend to agree, but if that is correct, would they kick up such a fuss about losing the subsidy?

What I'm afraid of is that in order to protect their subsidy they would subsidize all. Can we afford that?

Liberty wrote:

mloamiller wrote:

Liberty wrote: Our congressmen can afford it, and in mostly they don't care about the costs of things.

I would tend to agree, but if that is correct, would they kick up such a fuss about losing the subsidy?

What I'm afraid of is that in order to protect their subsidy they would subsidize all. Can we afford that?

That is a valid concern from my point of view. Too many of the Washington swamp rats are just looking for a path to single payer.

mloamiller wrote:

Liberty wrote: Our congressmen can afford it, and in mostly they don't care about the costs of things.

I would tend to agree, but if that is correct, would they kick up such a fuss about losing the subsidy?

They don't care when we pick up the tab but it's a different story when the money comes out of their own pockets.

I'm afraid that the whole Obamacare debacle was craftily designed so that a single payer system was the only way out. I'm still appalled that the then Speaker of the House said, "We have to pass this bill so we can find out what's in it." If we are doomed to a single payer system, get ready to wait years on any surgical procedure. Just look at the UK. Government controlled healthcare is limited and poor healthcare. It then becomes a budget item only.

Apart from all of the subsidies, and other hand outs with Obamacare. This repeal and replace process is nauseating. It is beyond me that only a select few Senators (Cruz included) want or have included, in these proposals, to have the ability to buy/sell policies across state lines. This is Supply and Demand, and competition at its simplest. The price of healthcare would decrease overnight. All it would take would be one provider to offer an affordable, appealing plan. Once the success of that ONE plan takes hold, the other providers will do the same, ergo, the decrease via competition.

And just a side note. I googled how much Insurance company/lobbyist money was contributed to the members of congress (Dems and Reps), in 2016 toward their campaigns.....$25 Million. Avg. of $46,000 per Congressman. Is there any question whom they are beholden to?

The Affordable Care Act was never about care or affordability at all. It deals with health insurance, not health care, and was crafted in such a way that repealing it would be extremely difficult. The Progressives knew very well what they were doing and they went about getting it done while they could. Even though the Democrat party is in the minority in the House and Senate, it appears that the Progressives still hold the field with enough Republican support and Republican in-fighting the keep ACA the law of the land. Insurance and Pharmaceutical lobbyists have in effect bought support for the status quo along with ever-increasing prices, regardless of the name of the law.

mloamiller wrote:President Trump threatens to end a government subsidy (also known as our tax dollars) that pays part of the ObamaCare premiums for Congress. Without it, Congress would be required to select from and pay for the same types of plans the average citizen has available to them. Given how reluctant they are to make any changes to ObamaCare, they shouldn't have a problem with that, right? Wrong. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy described it this way

"This is a clear threat to Congress: pass my health bill or as punishment I will end health care for you, your staff, & your constituents.”

So Sen. Murphy equates having the same healthcare options as the rest of us as a "punishment" and "ending health care" for them.

Typical liberal hypocrisy - it's good for you, but I want something better. Oh, and you get to pay for it, too.

Don't forget that republicans recently voted to exempt themselves from their healthcare bill: Why Republicans Exempted Their Own Insurance From Obamacare Rollback: The unusual nature of staff and member health benefits.

Bottom line..... they do not believe that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Does Congress seriously think they can treat their constituencies this way indefinitely, without some kind of revolt?

Middle Age Russ wrote:The Affordable Care Act was never about care or affordability at all. It deals with health insurance, not health care, and was crafted in such a way that repealing it would be extremely difficult. The Progressives knew very well what they were doing and they went about getting it done while they could. Even though the Democrat party is in the minority in the House and Senate, it appears that the Progressives still hold the field with enough Republican support and Republican in-fighting the keep ACA the law of the land. Insurance and Pharmaceutical lobbyists have in effect bought support for the status quo along with ever-increasing prices, regardless of the name of the law.

This is dead on accurate.

Insurance companies are limited to roughly 20% of premium dollars for operating expenses and profit. The easiest way to make more $ is to ignore cost of care and increase premiums.

Hard to overcome $10,000,000,000 in lobby $. Pharma, docs, hospitals, med equip cos and ins companies own congress.

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=i

Nothing will help until the cost of care is reduced.

I stopped working full time in late 2013 (not my choice, but that's a different story), just before ObamaCare took effect. I bought a PPO policy from Humana at that time, with a high deductible but with access to my primary care doctor and two specialists I see.

Every year since ObamaCare took effect, my coverage has gotten worse and my costs have increased. This year, I was forced into an HMO policy that none of my doctors take, so I'm officially in the spot where I've been unable to keep my plan or my doctors. For example, even though I have "out-of-network" benefits, my retina specialist refuses to see me. I'm in search of a new "in-network" specialist and it's not going well.

Anyway, I've been paying attention throughout this debate and I keep hearing that this replacement plan or that one would result in millions of citizens losing insurance. That's bad, so we can't do that! (Never mind that no one ever mentions if these citizens have ever gotten any benefit from the insurance that they may "lose".) On the other hand, how many millions of people are getting poorer and poorer insurance and healthcare as a result of this law? Why doesn't anyone report or consider that?

I'd be perfectly happy with a complete, "clean" repeal and no replacement. Take me back to 2013!

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm now looking forward to Medicare in two years. My insurance choices and health care are likely to improve when that happens. Unbelievable.

Where are the self-serving, lily livered republicans who support the POTUS? It's not just the democrats, it's all of them.
TERM LIMITS for congress and federal judges!