By Michael Schaus
Monday, June 17, 2013
In a recent interview with Politico, Representative John
Larson (D-CT) explained that the President’s signature piece of legislation is
“unfair” and should immediately be challenged. Of course he has no problem with
the Federal government strong arming states into Federal Healthcare Exchanges
or punishing employers for hiring full time workers. . . He’s not even
concerned about the infringement on religious liberties through the now
infamous “birth-control mandate.” Instead, the Connecticut Democrat finds the
piece of legislation known as Obamacare deeply unfair because it requires
congressional staffers – and members of congress – to enroll in the Federally
Subsidized Exchanges.
That’s right. Representative Larson finds it horrifically
“unfair” that he and his staff will be relegated to the same system that is
expected to be imposed on tens of millions of Americans. The Democrat, who was
among the leadership in his party when healthcare reform was passed, said “this
is simply not fair to these employees. They are federal employees.” Maybe they
should get a better union?
According to Politico: The Affordable Care Act — signed
into law in 2010 — contained a provision known as the Grassley Amendment, which
said the government can only offer members of Congress and their staff plans
that are “created” in the bill or “offered through an exchange” — unless the
bill is amended.
There seems to be near unanimous support for the repeal
or alteration to this particular mandate within the law. Of course some
lawmakers and conservative groups are inclined to ask: why not toss out the
entire law? Many people on the right will, no doubt, feel a sense of
schadenfreude as legislators come to the dawning realization that, on occasion,
they have to follow the very rules they wrote.
Many Democrats and Republicans have pointed out that the
inferior insurance plans (Ya know. . . The ones that you and I will most likely
be relegated to after our current insurance is priced out of existence) will
have a negative impact on the retention of congressional staffers.
Representative Jo Bonner (R-AL) said that the threat of losing their current
insurance plans have already caused a number of staff members to leave the
Hill.
What people like Representative Larson fail to recognize
is that we, in the private sector, will be facing very similar challenges. . .
As companies shorten hours, and relegate larger portion of their workforce to
the ambiguous and arbitrary definition of “part time”, more Americans will find
themselves at the mercy of a bureaucratic behemoth. As more insurance companies
raise rates ahead of restrictive and punitive taxes, regulations and
limitations, more Average citizens will find themselves unable to afford the
coverage to which they have grown accustomed. And while Americans all across
this great nation suddenly find themselves facing IRS fees for “inadequate
insurance coverage” Lawmakers will be slightly inconvenienced by sharing in the
experience.
Of course, their inconvenience demands immediate
attention! (Did you sense the sarcasm in that last sentence?) They have even
scheduled talks between Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid. This is the consequence of DC’s inherent elitism: Their
inconvenience is an emergency of immediate consequence; but our inconvenience,
as the governed, is apparently only worthy of some extra IRS scrutiny.
Only in the world of Washington DC is it considered a
catastrophe when lawmakers and their aids are mandated to take part in the laws
they shoved down the throats of the American People. If nothing is changed,
there may very well be an exodus from DC while our governing class is relegated
to the depths of the bureaucratic nightmare they inflicted upon the rest of us.
. . Poetic justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment