Found http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2013/04/25/congress-fearing-brain-drain-seeks-to-opt-out-of-participating-in-obamacares-exchanges/?partner=yahootix" rel="nofollow - this article interesting.
Congress, Fearing 'Brain Drain,' Seeks to Opt Out of Participating in Obamacare's Exchanges
As Obamacare was winding its way through the Senate in 2009, Sen.
Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) slipped in an amendment requiring that members
of Congress, and their staff, enroll in Obamacare’s health insurance
exchanges. The idea was simple: that if Congress was going to impose
Obamacare upon the country, it should have to experience what it is
imposing firsthand. But now, word comes that Congress is quietly seeking
to rescind that provision of the law, because members fear that
staffers who face higher insurance costs will leave the Hill. The news
has sparked outrage from the http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/25/congress-obamacare-for-thee-but-not-for-we/" rel="nofollow - right and http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/04/congress_obamacare_for_thee_but_not_for_me.php" rel="nofollow - left . Here’s the back story, and why this debate is crucial to the future of market-based health reform.
Sen. Grassley’s original idea was to require all federal employees to
enroll in the exchanges, instead of in the Federal Employee Health
Benefits Program, where most gain coverage today. Indeed, a previous
Senate Finance Committee amendment proposed putting members and staffers
on Medicaid. But “ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/20/AR2010042005163.html" rel="nofollow - fierce opposition from federal employee unions ” sank Grassley’s effort, and he had to water his amendment down to only apply to Congress and congressional staff.
Staffers grumble about being stuck on the exchanges
Ever since Obamacare became law, this has been a source of grumbling
among the congressional staffers I talk to. One aspect of the Grassley
amendment is that it originally appeared to exempt staffers who worked
for congressional committees, and congressional leadership, because
those staffers didn’t work for specific Members of Congress. (My
understanding is that the Office of Personnel http://www.forbes.com/management/" rel="nofollow - Management has since clarified the regulations to include all staff, including committee and leadership.)
http://b-i.forbesimg.com/aroy/files/2013/04/ACA-Section-13121.png" rel="nofollow - - There
are a couple of legitimate issues for Congress to resolve with this
provision, formally known as Section 1312(d)(3)(D) of the Affordable
Care Act. First: Will staffers have to buy insurance on the exchanges
for themselves with after-tax money, or will the government be able to
contribute to these costs with a pre-tax contribution? Second: In the
past, the government’s sponsorship of health benefits for members and
staffers counted toward retiree benefits. If these individuals are
placed on the exchange, will their pensions will be affected?
According to the Congressional Research Service,
Congress’ in-house think tank, the government can indeed contribute to
members’ and staffers’ premium costs. “While it does not appear that the
contribution must be similar to the contribution provided under FEHBP,”
CRS writes in a http://b-i.forbesimg.com/aroy/files/2013/04/CRS-2010-04-29-staff-on-exchanges.pdf" rel="nofollow - 2010 report ,
“it seems the section may provide the authority for the federal
government to make a contribution to the health insurance premiums of
Members of Congress and congressional staff. Under FEHBP…the
government’s share of premiums is set at 72% of the weighted average
premium of all plans in the program, not to exceed 75% of any given
plan’s premium.”
So Congress should have the authority to fund a comparable portion of
the premiums as they do today. Staffers are waiting for a ruling from
the Office of Personnel Management on precisely this point.
A bipartisan deal to rescind the provision?
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obamacare-exemption-lawmakers-aides-90610.html" rel="nofollow - According to John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman of Politico,
however, Congress is seeking to wipe out these provisions and put
members and staffers back onto FEHBP. “Several proposals have been
submitted to the Office of Personnel Management,” they write. “One
proposal exempts lawmakers and aides; the other exempts aides alone.”
What’s surprising about the effort to revive the exemption is that it appears to be bipartisan. According to the Politico
reporters, talks to change the provision involve both Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio).
“Everyone has to hold hands on this and jump, or nothing is going to get
done,” one source told the reporters. Several of their sources worried
about a “brain drain” that would drive talented staffers off the Hill.
One subtle point needs to be made: Large employers in the private
sector are not required to put their employees onto the Obamacare
exchanges. Given that Congress is a large employer, this isn’t, in the
purest technical sense, about subjecting Congress to the same laws it
imposes on other large employers. But it is about subjecting Congress to
the laws it imposes on those who will have to buy insurance on the
exchanges: individuals who don’t get coverage through their employers,
and small businesses.
Exchanges are crucial to the future of health reform
While I have many friends who work for Congress, and I wish them
well, it is absolutely a good thing that members and staffers are
enrolled on the exchange. It is vital for these individuals to
experience, first-hand, how Obamacare’s costly mandates and regulations
will drive up the price of health insurance. Staffers will, in
particular, be affected by Obamacare’s “ http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/11/21/want-to-reduce-federal-spending-repeal-obamacares-steep-levies-on-young-people/" rel="nofollow - community rating ”
provision, which jacks up the cost of insurance for young people. (Most
Hill staffers are in their twenties and early thirties.)
If anything, even more federal employees should be required
to enroll in the exchanges, especially those at the White House and the
Department of Health and Human Services who are writing thousands of
pages of exchange regulations. (Indeed, a bill has been proposed that
would extend exchange coverage to the President, Vice President, and
political appointees.) It’s critical that those who design our laws get
to experience them for themselves. I might also throw in the good folks
at the Congressional Budget Office, who will get a better sense of how
these regulations affect exchange costs and subsidies.
This may seem like a lot of inside baseball. But it’s actually a
critical issue. If Obamacare can’t be repealed—and it is my view that
repeal is highly unlikely—then the http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2013/02/22/holtz-eakin-and-roy-the-critics-are-wrong-about-the-future-of-free-market-health-care-reform/" rel="nofollow - future of market-based health reform
goes through the exchanges. Getting private insurance exchanges right
is important, if we want to use them to reform Medicare, Medicaid, and
our other health-care entitlements. And the best way to make sure that
we get the exchanges right is to make sure that the people who write the
laws are also living under them.
UPDATE 1: Sherman and Bresnahan http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/john-boehner-hits-dems-on-proposed-obamacare-fix-90633.html" rel="nofollow - report that House Speaker John Boehner says that this **edited** is “Democrats’ problem to solve.”
“The fact that Democratic leaders want to opt themselves
out of the Obamacare exchanges shows that Sen. Baucus isn’t the only one
who realizes the president’s health care law is a ‘train wreck,’” said
Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.
“The speaker would like to see resolution of this problem,
along with the other nightmares created by Washington Democrats’ health
law, which is why he supports full repeal,” Steel added. “In the
meantime, it is Democrats’ problem to solve. He will not sneak any
language into bills to solve it for them — and the Democratic leadership
knows that.”
UPDATE 2: Harry Reid, in a carefully-worded statement, says there will be “ http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rjv8tf" rel="nofollow - no legislative fix ” to exempt members and staffers. That leaves open the possibility for OPM to provide a back-door exemption:
Senator Reid is committed to ensuring that all members of
Congress and Congressional staff experience the benefits of the
Affordable Care Act in exactly the same way as every other American. He
believes that this is the effect of the legislation as written, and that
therefore no legislative fix is necessary. There are not now, have
never been, nor will there ever be any discussions about exempting
members of Congress or Congressional staff from Affordable Care Act
provisions that apply to any employees of any other public or private
employer offering health care.
-------------
|