Here’s our debate over shutting down the government over Obamacare in a nutshell. Last evening, John Hawkins of Right Wing News tweeted:
https://twitter.com/johnhawkinsrwn/status/389163408819372032
Matt Lewis likes the idea:
https://twitter.com/mattklewis/status/389163643482697729
Hawkins rejoins:
https://twitter.com/johnhawkinsrwn/status/389173554794614785
Lewis:
https://twitter.com/mattklewis/status/389206781169528832
But, I responded, it makes no sense:
@mattklewis @johnhawkinsrwn No such exemption exists. Congress already provided healthcare. And absurd reason for two week shutdown.
— James Joyner (@DrJJoyner) October 13, 2013
Lewis more-or-less agrees:
https://twitter.com/mattklewis/status/389208488750379008
Seeing this as reasonable, I reply:
@mattklewis @johnhawkinsrwn it's not semantics. Congress as an employer provides health coverage for its employees.
— James Joyner (@DrJJoyner) October 13, 2013
@mattklewis @johnhawkinsrwn All federal government employees get subsidized coverage. Many plan options with employees paying part.
— James Joyner (@DrJJoyner) October 13, 2013
Lewis is again reasonable, so I continue engaging:
https://twitter.com/mattklewis/status/389210686771175424
@mattklewis @johnhawkinsrwn but surely shutting down the govt so that it's employees wouldn't be covered is idiotic.
— James Joyner (@DrJJoyner) October 13, 2013
https://twitter.com/mattklewis/status/389211687074934784
At which point, I go off to bed. Hawkins retorts:
https://twitter.com/johnhawkinsrwn/status/389226455663525888
Up again this morning, I rejoin the conversation:
@johnhawkinsrwn @mattklewis It just ain't true. http://t.co/wJYQ2zpe9m http://t.co/akou3WdmFa http://t.co/v79WwWKxD1
— James Joyner (@DrJJoyner) October 13, 2013
Hawkins retorts:
https://twitter.com/johnhawkinsrwn/status/389350000347455489
Confused as to how FactCheck.org, USA Today, and Yahoo Finance are equivalent to Daily Kos, I persist:
@johnhawkinsrwn @mattklewis What the law says is public record, not a matter of opinion. Congress goes from FEHBP to the exchanges.
— James Joyner (@DrJJoyner) October 13, 2013
@johnhawkinsrwn @mattklewis But the exchanges are designed for uninsured. So, Congress trying to make employees whole.
— James Joyner (@DrJJoyner) October 13, 2013
@johnhawkinsrwn @mattklewis Otherwise, a law designed to provide insurance would perversely take it away from Congressional employees.
— James Joyner (@DrJJoyner) October 13, 2013
Hawkins wins the day with this:
https://twitter.com/johnhawkinsrwn/status/389351315177877504
Sensing that facts are useless in this argument, I disengaged.
There are many arguments to be made against Obamacare. Having opposed the legislation throughout the process, I’ve made many of them. But the “Congress is exempting itself” argument is plain silly.
The facts of the matter, for those interested in such things, are these. Congress, like most large employers, provides subsidized health care for its full time employees. In this case, it’s the same coverage that I get: enrollment in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which provides a menu of coverage options, with the employer (in this case, the taxpayer) picking up 75ish percent of the tab and the employee the rest. Since it already provides coverage for its employees, then, Congress wouldn’t be impacted by Obamacare at all.
Except that it is. The law actually requires that Congressional staff come off FEHBP come the beginning of next year and join the exchanges created by Obamacare. Until and unless there’s a flight to push people off employer funded care and into the exchanges—which I think likely—Congress is essentially alone here. Basically, the exchanges would be for people who are unemployed or otherwise not covered by employer health plans and those employed by Congress.
But, as I note in short form in the Twitter exchange above, it would be perverse, indeed, for a law designed, however imperfectly, to widen the number of Americans covered by health insurance to disadvantage a class of people already covered; namely, Congressional employees. They, alone among all federal workers, would have to pay one hundred percent of their insurance premium. So, Congress is trying to fix the law to make its own employees whole–covering the same 75 percent of the premium that they’re covering now under FEHBP.
I suppose one could construct an argument for why Congressional staffers don’t deserve to have the same subsidized health coverage that all other federal employees and, indeed, most American employees, get. But I don’t see how one could construe the facts of the matter as one in which these people are getting “exempted” from a law that provides a venue for the uninsured to join a group plan, given that they are already covered by a group plan.










