Rand Paul: If Elected Democrats Don’t Want Obamacare For Themselves, Why Should You?

Writing in the Washington Times, Rand Paul makes the point that Democrats tend to not want the “Affordable” Care Act for themselves

Earlier this week, in an effort led by Sen. Ted Cruz, some of my Republican colleagues and I took to the Senate floor with the intent of making Washington listen. The American people have made it abundantly clear that they do not want Obamacare. In fact, a majority of elected officials, the same officials that voted to implement this health care mandate, do not want it, either.

Last summer, in a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court wrongly concluded that Obamacare’s individual mandate could stand. As a consequence of the court’s ruling, starting on Oct. 1, whether they want it or not, Americans will be compelled to purchase a government-mandated product — health insurance — or pay a tax.

What should infuriate you the most is the fact that the same elected officials who implemented this mandate have recently declared themselves exempt from it. That is to say, these officials are forcing you to partake in something that they themselves are refusing. If Obamacare is so great, why then are federal employees and elected officials getting special treatment and opting out?

If President Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid and Chief Justice Roberts love Obamacare so much, they should live under it. Their actions speak louder than words, and it is erroneous for these leaders to even attempt to claim that Obamacare is a step forward for Americans.

Senator Paul goes on to describe many of the negative outcomes that have so-far occurred thanks to the “Affordable” Care Act. The layoffs, the dropping of coverage, moving employees to under 30 hours a week, the extremely weak jobs market, and so on.

I have a proposal. I have offered an amendment that would outlaw any special exemptions for government employees. This amendment requires all federal workers to purchase health insurance from the new Obamacare exchanges, instead of receiving taxpayer-funded subsidies.

I am also introducing a more broad constitutional amendment, which states that Congress shall make no law that treats citizens differently from the elites in the federal government.

He wants to remind lawmakers that they are not above the American citizenry. You can bet that the amendment will be shot down by the Democrat controlled Senate, if it even makes it out of committee. As to the Constitutional amendment, which I mentioned the other day, he should first bring it up in the Senate, and find a fellow Republican to bring it up in the House. This would require a 2/3 vote in favor in both, and we know Democrats will not vote for it. This would be good politics.

Then, he can attempt to get the States to call for a Constitutional Convention. With 27 controlled by Republicans, he would need 33. Would Democrat legislatures approve of having the Convention? It would then require three fourths of the States to ratify. 38 states. With 17 controlled by Dems, that would be tough. It would depend heavily on what the people in the States want. And there might be enough, even amongst Democrats, to push for Washington to have to submit to the same laws they pass for the citizens.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Rand Paul: If Elected Democrats Don’t Want Obamacare For Themselves, Why Should You?”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Your Republican elite leaders are lying to you, once again. Here’s the truth.

    Fact Check: Congress, staff are exempt from Obamacare

    Posted by
    CNN Staff

    ASSERTION:
    President Obama exempted members of Congress from Obamacare.

    “President Obama recently issued a special rule for Congress and congressional staff to get a special subsidy to purchase health insurance on the Obamacare Exchange unavailable to every other American at similar income levels,” said Republican Sen. David Vitter. “That’s an exemption, plain and simple.”

    FACTS:
    When Obamacare was passed into law, Sen. Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican, attached language to the bill that mandated members of Congress and their staffers would have to buy health insurance on the newly created health insurance exchanges. What nobody accounted for at the time was that members of Congress and their staffers currently have health insurance through their employer – the federal government. No other employer has been legally required to drop its employee’s health care plan and have them buy coverage on the exchanges.

    Like most other large employers, the federal government contributes a portion to the premiums of its employees. In fact, like many employers, the federal government pays most of the premiums for its workers; an average of 72 percent on Capitol Hill. The law didn’t account for the continued employer contribution for these federal workers who would now be buying their insurance on the exchanges. The exchanges were designed to help people without health insurance and people with overly expensive health insurance. It became clear that without their employer contribution, members and their staffers would essentially be getting a cut in pay and benefits equal to thousands of dollars. Even Grassley, the provision’s author, had said the government should continue to contribute to lawmakers’ and staffers’ premiums. What the Obama administration has done is ruled that the congressional workers will continue to receive the employer contribution to help them buy their insurance on the exchange.

    VERDICT:
    False. Congress is no more exempt than any other employer who drops coverage and then helps employees purchase insurance on the exchanges.

  2. So, essentially, Congress is exempting themselves despite the law stating they must get insurance through the exchange. Thanks for the confirmation

  3. Jeffery says:

    Umm, no. It is the exact opposite of what you typed. Please read up on the issue. Thanks.

    The Federal gov’t, as an employer, is not kicking their employees into the exchanges, but will continue subsidizing their current insurance.

    The company I founded in 2009 is doing exactly the same thing. Continuing coverage and subsidies.

    Senator Grassley wanted to kick Congressional staffers off their employer healthcare and into the exchanges.

    Remember, the exchanges (a conservative idea) are a marketplace for the uninsured to shop for competitive products, thus lowering the costs. Depending on income levels, the gov’t will subsidize these premiums.

    The people will end up loving it. The Republicans are doomed.

  4. […] like the health care plans we the taxpayers provide them with. Just ask Senator Dick Durbin.H/T The Pirate’s Cove Tweetvaso linkgoogle_ad_client = "ca-pub-1395656889568144"; /* 300×250, created 8/11/08 */ […]

  5. gitarcarver says:

    There is more to it than a simple exemption. In essence, what the President wants to do is to give what is an effective pay raise or compensation increase to Congress and staff by saying the government will pay for the difference in rates for staffers. (Which is amusing as rates were supposedto go down under ObamaCare.)

    Federal pay grades are set by law and tied to increases and standards of living within the US economy. The increase in compensation being offered for staffers because of ObamaCare is outside the law.

    Furthermore, the OPM has proposed a specific rule for staffers and contributions to their health care. It may not technically be an exemption, but it has the same practical effect.

    If it walks like a duck….

  6. gitarcarver says:

    But Jeffery, the Feds are subzidizing at a higher level because they don’t want staffers to feel the increased costs of healthcare under the plan.

    The “exemption” is that the staffers aten’t being forced to make the same choices millions of Americans are. You can argue that kicking on more is the same as the decidion other companies made, but that is not true as government doesn’t have to worry about keeping a business alive. They can increase revenues by taxing more or by going into debt more. Businesses don’t have that choice.

  7. Jeffery says:

    So there is no exemption, and the gov’t will subsidize their premiums like so many large employers do and will continue to do.

    If the argument is that the subsidy is too generous, please make that argument rather than spreading falsehoods.

  8. gitarcarver says:

    There is no “exception” now, Jeffery. But the proposed OPM rule does create the exception. And no,the government is not doing the same thing as a business.

    Staffers and Congress are not worrying about the ACA because they aren’t subject to the same pressures and eventually, the same rules as the rest of us.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7616 access attempts in the last 7 days.