Posted on 10/25/2013 8:50:33 AM PDT by Brad from Tennessee
One plan for everybody. One provider.
********
Not really true. Multiple healthcare providers and different plans are offered through FEHB.
Issa is not “on the same team” with us, he likes to pretend and makes hay about holding hearings but nothing ever comes from them.
It’s a mess.
To surrender, however, is an enormous mistake.
It will legitimize this. it’s not legitimate, and it is illegal, what they are doing. Imagine what will happen when our government gives them a stamp of approval.
Already, I am looked down upon for not speaking Spanish/Mexican, and by people with a lot of money and education.
NO.
surrender caucus can talk all they/you want. It’s an irreversible mistake to stamp approval on it.
No way are they going to ever respect our laws nor our culture after pushing through.
NO
More proof Issa is a Democrat subversive
You know how many trillions it would cost to put Americans on Fed Health Care Plan? You would not be able to do this without all the Medicaid folks bring put on it...or they will claim RACISM
John McCain coined the term de facto amnesty in 2008 to fool and deceive the voter and now Marco Rubio has used it for the same purpose, i.e., to promote amnesty. The idea is to make it seem that there is no difference between real amnesty and de facto amnesty. It is ludicrous and dishonest.
Under real amnesty you can work LEGALLY; you can receive SSNs LEGALLY; you can travel freely from and to the US LEGALLY; you can receive welfare benefits, Medicaid, Obamacare, Medicare, SS, food stamps, etc. LEGALLY; you can get citizenship LEGALLY; you can vote LEGALLY, and you can sponsor your relatives to enter the US under chain migration LEGALLY.
How many of the lawbreakers under de facto amnesty, are paying taxes?
Yeah.....Legal amnesty won’t change anything I WILL NOTICE.
Yeah, you, McCain, and Rubio can spout this nonsense, but amnesty changes everything. Otherwise, why are those under de facto amnesty pushing for real amnesty? And make no mistake, you will notice because it is a BFD.
Wrong. It is done through private insurance companies.
I am a retired federal employee. There are multiple plans to chose from and none are run by the fed-gov.
The problem with this idea is that the fed-gov puts in about 50% of the cost for the insurance for current and retired employees.
Without this subsidy the cost would be just as unaffordable as anything you can get on the open market.
I have no idea what the good congressman is talking about. If he is talking about a 50% subsidy for the entire nation then he is even dumber that Obama.
The federal subsidy is 72% for current and retired employees. At least that is what I receive.
NOW--what Issa needs to do is add to that bill the private retirement plan--Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)-- which ALL Federal workers get to contribute to--and which earned one USPS worker I know $50,000 in 7 years!
And we wonder why Congress critters do NOT want anything to upset the Stock Market? With all their access to insider trading, that's where their money is, since TSP allows people to put a percentage of their pay into a bunch of different investments--some low risk, some high--but mostly in stocks.
I would LOVE to see reported somewhere the amount that is in each Congress critters TSP account--betcha it's in the millions for people like Reid and Pelosi!
If you read the story, the gov’t would not provide any money.. the employer would be allowed to contribute to the system like gov’t does for federal employeees . I believe this is something heritage or some other think tank proposed in early 90’s.
Can we all get away from the harmful terminology of the Socialists?
There is NO ‘federal subsidy’...it’s a TAXPAYER subsidy.
We should be hammering them when they ask “why do you hate OCare” with “Maybe, just maybe, If I wasn’t already paying for the ‘72% subsidy’ to D.C., on top of their other ‘generous’ benefits, I MIGHT be able to pay for my OWN care or 401k or vacation or. Same with my $$ stolen for Section8, EITC, EBT, etc. which ‘they’ never paid a dime into to receive.”
It's got the the Fed union people way upset. That's OK by me.
He’s not serious.
Ted Cruz is serious.
I’d like to see Issa take 21 hours out of his week in pushing amnesty, to present this case to the people in every known form of communication and 2 million signers, and take all the abuse even and especially his own party would give him.
No way.
As far as I understand it the employer would contribute the "subsidy".
The open market makes it very difficult for small businesses to get in on anything like a choice between 230 insurance companies. Presumably the Federal employees aren't having to deal with not being able to purchase across state lines so they have a gold-mine of choice.
This is a great idea by Issa IMO.
If any rep proposes a good idea, I will commend him/her.
Good ideas are cheap, right now, that’s all I mean. Especially when they’re not serious and no one is going to take them up and follow through.
Last one was defunding obamacare.
So you'd rather NOT have our reps coming up with good ideas? That's pretty silly.
OH, not at all. I think that reps who are working hard at pushing amnesty, like Issa is, should come up with ideas that neither they nor anyone else is going to take remotely seriously, if it takes them off their real goal, in destroying our country as they work for some undisclosed entity is so doing as long as it takes them off task.
In this case, however, this is the idea of some low level staffer, put out in a hurry in order to take your eyes off the subject.
We call that Blarney. there are many names for it, but we Irish types recognize it ten miles away and refer to it as Blarney.
Nonsense.
I've heard the idea proposed more than once by different people.
The more people who discuss it, the better.
OK. Can’t wait for Issa to get right on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.