But we can say that no bill has been introduced to exempt members of Congress from the Affordable Care Act — and they were never exempt in the first place. Lawmakers and staffers would be subject to the mandate to have health insurance or pay a fine, just as everyone else is.
As we said previously, members of Congress get private health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program , which actually served as a model for the exchanges. Federal workers pick from among many health plans. The exchanges would operate in the same way — like a marketplace for those shopping for private insurance. But some Republicans pushed the idea that if the exchanges were good enough for other Americans, they should be good enough for Congress. So, an amendment by Republican Sen.
Chuck Grassley of Iowa was added to the Senate bill requiring that the federal government offer only health plans that were part of an exchange to members of Congress and their staffs.
Update, Aug. However, according to the proposed rule, the federal government, as the employer, will still be able to make a contribution to health insurance premiums as it currently does.
That sounded familiar. And of course, the roles were now reversed as Republicans found themselves fending off criticism that they had not even read their own bill. And then this: Several readers have asked us whether House Republicans were exempting Congress and its staff from the bill they had proposed, and passed.
At FactCheck. The American Health Care Act , passed in the House on May 4 along partisan lines, includes an amendment that would allow states to obtain waivers from certain insurance requirements mandated by the Affordable Care Act. States could get waivers to: increase how much insurers can charge based on age, establish their own requirements for essential health benefits that plans must include, and allow insurers to price policies based on health status in some cases.
The amendment — penned by New Jersey Rep. Tom MacArthur — specifically exempts Congress and its staff from the effects of such state waivers.
But the reason for that exemption has nothing to do with trying to protect the insurance of members of Congress from the legislation. Rather, it is about trying to ease the passage of the bill. Republicans are seeking to pass the AHCA as a reconciliation bill , which would allow the Senate to pass legislation with a simple majority — 51 votes — rather than a filibuster-proof 60 votes which would require Democratic help. ACA in conjunction with current law 5 U.
The result? Congress must purchase insurance on exchanges per ACA and must provide the employer contribution per 5 U. The irony: Congress is treated as a unique entity, not because it is exempted from the Affordable Care Act, but because it is the only large employer forced onto its Exchanges.
Senator David Vitter R-LA has sought a legislative solution to the OPM regulation , clarifying the law to be consistent with what he sees as a fair bargain. Essentially, the Amendment expands the group required to purchase insurance on the Exchanges while removing a key benefit: the employer contribution. What is most remarkable is that the Vitter Amendment is loosely based on Sen. The Vitter Amendment can have serious, negative effects on government—particularly the federal workforce.
First, the bill affects higher paid, more experienced Congressional staff. These individuals serve on Congressional staffs because of a call to public service, the appeal of benefits, or the excitement of the work—often despite higher paying job opportunities in the private sector. Are their salaries above average?
Are they doing top quality work in an institution that needs all the help it can get? The cut in the employer contribution may incentivize some of the more experienced talent on Congressional staffs to exit public service. This loss of experienced, quality staff is the absolute wrong way to improve government. Second and more painfully, the burden of the Vitter Amendment falls on the shoulders of junior staff. This topic receives little attention, but deserves the most.
0コメント