The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The Senate's CR

  1. #1
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,103

    Default The Senate's CR

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/10/16/senate-bill-to-fund-government-raise-debt-ceiling/
    They even included the $174,000 for Lautenberg's widow in the CR!
    SEC. 146. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint resolution, there is appropriated for payment to Bonnie Englebardt Lautenberg, widow of Frank R. Lautenberg, late a Senator from New Jersey, $174,000.
    It does appear that the verification of eligibility of subsidies for ACA will be required.
    SEC. 1001. (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Sec-retary’’) shall ensure that American Health Benefit Ex-changes verify that individuals applying for premium tax credits under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and reductions in cost-sharing under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18071) are eligible for such credits and cost shar-ing reductions consistent with the requirements of section 1411 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 18081), and, prior to making such credits and reductions available, the Secretary shall certify to the Congress that the Exchanges verify such eligibility consistent with the requirements of such Act(b) REPORT BY SECRETARY.—Not later than Janu-ary 1, 2014, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress that details the procedures employed by AmericanHealth Benefit Exchanges to verify eligibility for credits and cost-sharing reductions described in subsection (a)
    (c) REPORT BY INSPECTOR GENERAL.—Not later than July 1, 2014, the Inspector General of the Depart-ment of Health and Human Services shall submit to the Congress a report regarding the effectiveness of the proce-dures and safeguards provided under the Patient Protec-tion and Affordable Care Act for preventing the submis-sion of inaccurate or fraudulent information by applicants for enrollment in a qualified health plan offered through an American Health Benefit Exchange.
    I admit I cannot fully understand the procedural ins and outs that are described later. Does someone else understand the section about allowing the POTUS to "suspend" the debt limit?

    Basically, it will fund govt through Jan. 15; and raise the debt limit until Feb. 7, and give furloughed workers their back pay.

    Still ... we continue to work without a passed budget since the the beginning of Obama's Presidency. The Senate keeps promising to work on it, but it never actually happens.

    Congress and aides, and POTUS & cabinet, do NOT have to be part of Obamacare (even though the law says there are supposed to be ... they have been "waivered" by some vast stretch of the imagination). That such a provision could not pass Congress and the POTUS should be a clear message to the voters about how much these so-called representatives really care (or even know) about the real world that their constituents have to deal with.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  2. #2
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,811

    Default

    This deal sucks! I also heard about some dam being built in the deal. Oh that dead NJ senator was worth millions yet the dems denied death benefits to soldiers, pathetic..
    How can anyone repbilcan or dumocrat vote for this?
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  3. #3
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,103

    Default

    The following is a list of senators who voted against the budget deal on Wednesday:

    Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

    Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas
    Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho
    Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas
    Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.
    Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa
    Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev.
    Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.
    Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah
    Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
    Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho
    Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.
    Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
    Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.
    Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
    Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.
    Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.
    Sen. David Vitter, R-La.
    .......................
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Henlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Congress and aides, and POTUS & cabinet, do NOT have to be part of Obamacare (even though the law says there are supposed to be ... they have been "waivered" by some vast stretch of the imagination). That such a provision could not pass Congress and the POTUS should be a clear message to the voters about how much these so-called representatives really care (or even know) about the real world that their constituents have to deal with.

    I spent a little time searching for this, but the best I came up with is that there was a subsidy that these congressional people used to pay for their health insurance and that the administration ruled that they would continue to get the subsidy, but still had to buy their insurance off the exchanges. Because the money to pay for the benefit was not coming directly out of their checks it was being called an exemption? Is my information not correct on this?
    During break time at obedience school, two dogs were talking.
    One said to the other..."The thing I hate about obedience school is you learn ALL this stuff you will never use in the real world."

  5. #5
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,103

    Default

    WRT Congress et al and subsidies: The law was written to say they would get their health insurance from the exchanges, and they could not get subsidies. This was the way the law was written. Remember, "the law of the land". One might presume that this was done to make the law look "fair" to the voters. After all, if this was a wonderful thing, why would they not be participants?

    So, while the law may have changed the rules for these people, they then decided they didn't like that. Maybe they had never realized when the law was passed that this provision was in the law? We recall there was a lot of haste to pass the law ... and it was not debated in any detail due to the procedural method used to get the law passed. Remember, the House never voted on the law ... the O-care law was inserted into a bill that the House had already passed with none of O-care in it. Can't recall if it then went back to the House ... but Ds held the majority in the House at the time to get it passed there as well. No R voted for the O-care law; none.

    Whether it was evident then or not that the Ds would lose the House majority in the mid-terms, the Ds knew that they could never pass the law if they didn't control both Houses of Congress ... that was part of the reason for the haste. You will also remember that, even then, there were some Ds who resisted, and they were bought out. In the haste to pass the law that was so complex, it was common knowledge back in 2010 that it was impossible for many lawmakers to thoroughly read and understand exactly what was in the law they were passing.

    Then, when the Ds lost the majority in the House, and all these things were uncovered, there was no way for them to put these changes to a vote or the law would have been stalled ad infinitum.

    We also forget that there was never any funding for Federal exchanges ... probably because the Fed never imagined SCOTUS would declare that provision unConstitutional, and that there would be States who turned down govt $. Yet, when that happened, money is being used to fund the Fed exchanges in the States that opted out. Right there, is a big un-lawful use of O-care funding.

    These are not union workers. These are the "privileged" ones.

    Most all of them would have income that would disqualify them for subsidies ... but the administration directed the Personnel Office to find a way to keep them all in their same position as they were in before the law (although maybe their premiums also increased?) stretched the interpretation that each of them was a "small business w/less than 50 employees" ... while, in truth, they are all employed by the Federal govt and the law had already specified how their status was to be treated. Why should these govt employees be treated so much better than the private sector employee making $100,000/year?

    The Ds have said that O-care resembles a proposal of the Rs that was made some years ago. It could well be that O-care was "patched" together from sections of that proposal ... and they overlooked the fact that buried in there was the condition of removing this "perk" from Congress & its aides. The fact that these employees have received a 75% subsidy of their health insurance for so long, doesn't mean that it should not be changed. And the O-care law, as written and passed, made such a change.

    At least the CR did have the good grace to keep Congressional pay in "freeze".

    It has been said that all these people have to be paid so well because otherwise no smart & talented people would go to work for the government. After seeing what these so smart and so talented people have wrought for the rest of us, maybe we would be better off? Theory and reality can differ. When a scientist finds a theory that does not hold up to reality, he/she tries to find a new theory to explain the reality.

    In govt, if a theory does not hold up, they seem to just figure they didn't do enough of what didn't work So, they do more of the same thing, trying to force reality to conform to the theory.

    Remember when people were a little bit embarrassed to drive a Japanese car? The Japanese cars improved their quality to exceed that of American cars. When Americans became fed up with the quality of the US cars, they did the logical thing, they bought more Japanese cars. Today a whole lot of those Japanese cars are built by American workers. It would appear it wasn't the workers who were at fault ... it was the elite class of both unions and corporations that failed the workers to allow them to build the quality vehicles they were capable of building. It's almost like the elite class of govt "planners" are doing the same thing to the American workers who could make the US economy excel.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •