Rand Paul introduces Constitutional Amendment Hold Gov Officials to Same Standard as American People

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Soooooo, what are you going to do when a large enough portion of the population refuses to comply with Obamacare, and the whole thing just goes under?

Because, these threads continue coming out, and it would seem that the majority opinion of members here is that Obamacare is crap.

We don't have to argue with you.

We can just choose not to abide by this ridiculous law.

You can't force us to do anything.

Why do you think the penalty/fine is just $95.00 (for the first year)? It's to keep EVERYBODY from taking their complaint into court and overwhelming the system. Sheople ALWAYS take the lazy man's way or the cheapest route, and court is expensive and time consuming.

The ring through the nose is firmly in place. Prepare to follow the rope. Force isn't necessary at all when they've got one hand on your wallet and the other one on your watch.

reply to post by Bassago


This is political grandstanding at its finest. Paul is thinking of one thing and one thing only: his Presidential ambitions.

Bassago
Chances of it passing though? Probably zilch.

Bassago - you and I are normally on the same sheet of music. Here's a bit of harmony. Rand Paul is introducing an amendment that can't pass this congress or this president. What is the anticipated ROI?

I am VERY distrustful of this quiet spoken, externally well-meaning guy. Like Cruz, I think he's found his niche in the senate. What does he gain by doing this now, as opposed to at a time where he might pull it off?

kimar
reply to post by Bassago

 

This is political grandstanding at its finest. Paul is thinking of one thing and one thing only: his Presidential ambitions.

Wow, you're a telepath? How about reading POTUS for us then, that would be scary and more helpful.

Holding congress to the same laws and standards as everyone else is a noble and acceptable effort. I'm glad someone has the guts to actually at least make the attempt.

REMINDER~~~~~~

Please debate the topic in a civil manner.

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

You are responsible for your own posts.

Failure to do the above will have consequences......

Thanks.

reply to post by Bassago

Oh of course not, perish the thought. That these cretins would have to come down off the mountain and live by the same standards they're forcing on everyone else is a terrible idea *wink, wink*.

We get it, they're special.

Apparently you don't get it.

What is it that you think Congress is getting out of with the ACA?

The only thing the ACA requires all people to do is be covered by health insurance...Congress already was...they are now being forced to drop that employer health insurance and purchase through the exchanges.

Does anyone else have to do that?

reply to post by oblvion

Obama illegally altered law to make an exemption where by many .gov employees or "officials" however you want to think of them, and their staff are not required to comply with this "law".

He did?

Could you show me exactly what he altered in the law...and how exactly federal employees are not required to comply with the ACA?

Do you know that if the are a federal employee, they already have health insurance and are already compliant with the law?

So what exactly are you talking about?

AlienScience

Apparently you don't get it.

What is it that you think Congress is getting out of with the ACA?

The only thing the ACA requires all people to do is be covered by health insurance...Congress already was...they are now being forced to drop that employer health insurance and purchase through the exchanges.

Does anyone else have to do that?

And apparently you didn't read the original post. I said an article about HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying that she "wasn't signing up for Obamacare" led me to Rand Paul's introduction of the constitutional amendment. Which was the main topic.

But since you asked, personally I feel every federal worker and contractor should have to take the same obamacare medicine they're foisting off on the rest of us.

reply to post by Bassago

And apparently you didn't read the original post. I said an article about HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying that she "wasn't signing up for Obamacare" led me to Ran Paul's introduction of the constitutional amendment.

Why would she go through the exchanges when she ALREADY HAS HEALTH INSURANCE????

Even if Rand's amendment passed, it still wouldn't require Sebelius to purchase anything through the exchanges.

She has health insurance, she is 100% compliant to the ACA law and individual mandate.

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe


Sorry about that DontTreadOnMe. Trying to keep this thread on the rails is like herding cats.



reply to post by AlienScience

AlienScience

Why would she go through the exchanges when she ALREADY HAS HEALTH INSURANCE????

Even if Rand's amendment passed, it still wouldn't require Sebelius to purchase anything through the exchanges.

She has health insurance, she is 100% compliant to the ACA law and individual mandate.

Rand Paul's introduction of the constitutional amendment is the topic, not the ACA. I'll ask again, please try to stay on topic. Thank you.

reply to post by Bassago

Rand Paul's introduction of the constitutional amendment is the topic, not the ACA. I'll ask again, please try to stay on topic. Thank you.

I believe you are the one that brought up Sebelius in your OP...why do you want to dodge that topic now?

Rand is introducing this bill because he is tying it to the ACA and saying federal employees are being treated differently, which is just a flat out lie.

And you are trying to imply that Sebelius is not being compliant with the ACA, but you don't seem like you want to answer a simple question.

Why should she get insurance through the exchanges when she already has insurance through her employer???

AlienScience

Rand is introducing this bill because he is tying it to the ACA and saying federal employees are being treated differently, which is just a flat out lie.

That's not the issue, the amendment is. What he said (via amendment) was:

"Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress."

Last time I checked the HHS secretary wasn't a member of congress.

And you are trying to imply that Sebelius is not being compliant with the ACA, but you don't seem like you want to answer a simple question.

No I am not saying anything of the sort. I said that article took me to to the Rand Paul Amendment. Is that clear enough?

Why should she get insurance through the exchanges when she already has insurance through her employer???

Well that's another issue and I've already told you how I feel about that.

So what is the median household income? If you guessed $51,000, then you were right. Maybe this is what we should base their pay off of? Ours goes down, and theirs goes down also. Maybe this will give them the incentive to do a better job with the economy. And hey we are being generous, we could just give them a percentage of that number determined by the ave number of adults in each household.

Hey that's a pretty fair amendment. Sounds good.

Much drama on this thread. Now that we're all calmed down can we rationally talk about the tax-payer supplied subsidies that members of congress get to offset the huge increases in the mandated health insurance tax imposed by the mad tyrant Obama and his gutless crew of mouth-breathing lackies?

Cheers,

beez

beezzer
Much drama on this thread. Now that we're all calmed down can we rationally talk about the tax-payer supplied subsidies that members of congress get to offset the huge increases in the mandated health insurance tax imposed by the mad tyrant Obama and his gutless crew of mouth-breathing lackies?

Cheers,

beez

Hee Hee. Which thread are those topics in?

reply to post by Snarl


I'm simply talking about the Obama-gifts to off-set the high costs of Obamacare to members of congress.
www.nationalreview.com...#!

beezzer
reply to post by Snarl

 

I'm simply talking about the Obama-gifts to off-set the high costs of Obamacare to members of congress.
www.nationalreview.com...#!

End of the lead paragraph: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform. Was that what I was alluding to in my second post on this page of the thread?

All those guys are better than this.

beezzer
Much drama on this thread. Now that we're all calmed down can we rationally talk about the tax-payer supplied subsidies that members of congress get to offset the huge increases in the mandated health insurance tax imposed by the mad tyrant Obama and his gutless crew of mouth-breathing lackies?

Cheers,

beez

Do you mean for the Federal Government to make the exact same contribution to their health care premiums that they have always have made?

Except now, a Republican amendment to the ACA is forcing Congress and it's staff to drop their employer (federal) insurance and buy through the exchanges...so now there needs to be a special mechanism to get them the exact same contribution to their health premiums that they have always received?

Is that the "gift" you talk about?

reply to post by AlienScience


So you are claiming that no waivers, no subsidies for the new Obamacare brought about by the mad king Obama, exist?