Good Enough For Thee But Not For Me

The Democrats have touted the health care reform as a panacea. It will cure all our ills. But if it is so wonderful and Barry Obama thinks it is the right thing to do, why is he exempt from it? Why is the leadership of the Congress exempt? Why are staffers of leadership exempt?

Rank-and-file House and Senate staffers will be forced out of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) and into the restricted federal health insurance exchanges, but not the leadership or committee congressional staff or the federal civil service bureaucrats who will be making your health care decisions for you.

“This is such an incredible affront to every principle of equality in this country that it demands an immediate apology to the nation by the President,” House Republican Conference Secretary John Carter (Texas) said. “That should be followed by a straight up-and-down vote in the House and Senate on a bill requiring every member and staff in both Houses and the administration be included in this new monstrosity, with no exceptions for leadership, committee staff, the President’s cabinet, or the President. If they think this crap is good enough for Joe the Plumber, then it should be good enough for Barack Obama, Rahm Emmanuel, and Tim Geithner.”

The bill was amended behind closed doors by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) back in December to exclude all congressional committee and leadership staff from the horrors of the health care “exchange.” The President, Vice-President, cabinet members, thousands of Obama administration staff and an unknown number of czars will all remain in the FEHBP.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-Okla.) attempted to offer a floor amendment in December that would have nullified Reid’s covert carve-out, but Reid blocked a vote on the amendment. Human Events

Fact Check claimed that it was not true and that members of Congress would have to be in the exchange. This is certainly not true for leadership and the bill says “Notwithstanding any other provision of law…” so they might be exempted under another provision of law. But no matter what, leadership, Obama, and certain staffers will be exempt as will many members of the administration.

The FEHB actually works fairly well because it allows competition among a number of companies in various geographic areas and the pool of employees is large. This is the free market working well.

If it is good enough for us it is good enough for them.

We need to make them pay at the polls.

Big Dog


If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

31 Responses to “Good Enough For Thee But Not For Me”

  1. Surely this doesn’t surprise you, BD. Congress has a long history of exempting itself from burdens it imposes on the rest of us: the minimum wage, Davis-Bacon, Social Security and Medicare payments come immediately to mind. The flip side is its delicious readiness to arrogate comforts and luxuries to itself that private citizens can’t even dream about. A lifelong pension and staff support after one term in office? Health insurance completely paid for by the federal treasury, in perpetuity? Taxpayer-funded transport and security? Exemption from all local and state firearms ordinances? Really!

    This is the arrogance of power writ large. “We are not your servants or representatives, here to do a job at your bidding. We are your masters, and we will have the best of all things, at your expense. It’s what we deserve for being what we are. You must agree; after all, your votes put us here.”

    It was much less expensive to have a king and a hereditary nobility. They had to raise their own revenues and their own armies. And they couldn’t create huge bureaucracies at will, either.

    If the consciousness of these outrages were national in scope, we might actually manage to force some improvements. But most Americans are utterly unaware of the huge gulfs between us and our “representatives.”

  2. Darrel says:

    As usual, your point is debunked in the comment thread at your own link.

    “…the president, his staff, congress, and all congressional staffers, along with the several million federal employees an retirees are exempt from Obamacare. They are covered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. Also exempt are spouses of members of the military and retired military, who are covered by Tri-Care. These are the two programs that are already listed as approved in the bill.”

    “These committee staffers do not currently get access to the Congressional healthcare plan, so it’s illogical to write express language to require them to shop for health insurance in the general market when they already do.”

    “There are too many genuine issues to be had, with this bill to be getting your collective chains yanked over a bonehead misrepresentation nit-pick of an obscure provision on page 158. This blog post is like saying that speeding laws are unfair because they don’t specifically state that John Doe, from Poughkeepsie is subject to speeding laws.”

    And this last one has some especially useful information for you:

    “For the rest of the commenters, will you ever learn to read for comprehension? Do you always just blindly believe anything someone puts on some blog?”

  3. Big Dog says:

    For the rest of the commenters, Darrel asks you to read for comprehension but his so called comprehension comes from a comment in the article, not the article.

    So if we use Darrel’s method we should just pick a comment from here and accept it as the truth.

    As usual Darrel, you distort to sway the argument. The quote you wrote came from a comment. It is not sourced and it is not verified. The language of the bill thogh combined with the definitions shows who is exempt.

    The Human Events item points out how the narrow band of people were excluded and Senator Grassley has objected all along.

    • Adam says:

      I like this comment:

      I call on the U.S. Military to stage a good old-fashioned coup.

      He means coup at the ballot box, of course! Your side is way too patriotic to call for treasonous action!

      • Big Dog says:

        You care to source that?

        I can find similar comments from when Bush was in office. I can show you a bald communist that says he wants to take this government down and that this is the goal of the communists. Does he represent all you progressives?

        Some people make stupid comments. We will not need to use force unless the government uses force to exert its will. That is why there is a econd Amendment. So long as everyone stays in his lane we should all be OK.

        Remember the progressives carrying the sign that said they support our troops…when they shoot their officers? Do they speak for all of you?

        But since we are in the treason mode, care to have John Kerry arrested for treason? He met with our enemy (and he had no governmental authority to do so) in a time of war. He aided and abetted them and that is under the Constitutional definition of treason…

        Care to arrest Ayers for treason, he declared, and then waged, war on the US. Let’s get them first.

        • Adam says:

          Source what? The comment is there for you to read.

          The problem is these people sound like you. They sound like Victoria. You can find the kooks on the left but will they sound like me? Do I call for violence? Have I ever defended Bill Ayers? No and no. Yet, we can’t get through a day without you or another conservative on this site invoking the idea of revolution to overthrow the democratically elected government. But of course you always just mean at the ballot box…of course of course…

  4. Big Dog says:

    I must have missed that comment. Is it here someplace?

    And until you can prove that I am calling for violence you need to put a lid on that. I have made it clear that I am talking about November. You are trying to equate my opposition to violence to marginalize my concerns.

    Just as I believe some of the reported vandalism is from the left in order to paint the opposition as violent.

    • Adam says:

      “I must have missed that comment.”

      Sorry. I thought I had made it clearer than I did that it’s on the page Darrel was quoting. Here is the link.

      “And until you can prove that I am calling for violence you need to put a lid on that.”

      You always walk a fine line and you know you do it.

      “Just as I believe some of the reported vandalism is from the left in order to paint the opposition as violent.”

      Maybe, if you had anything to base that idea on. Your side is the one that constantly accuses my side of being too weak to fight for anything or defend our country. Your side carries posters with threats and actual fire arms to town halls and protests to prove your point. Then after all that you seem to act like any suggestion of violent action from your side is just made up by liberals.

      • Big Dog says:

        Yeah, I wonder who shot a bullet into Eric Cantor’s office? Jean Schmidt has had threatening emails as well. Looks like there are fringe elements on both sides.

        Maybe the Dem pols stoked this by hyping up what has happened and now there is retaliation from the left fringe.

        • Adam says:

          “Maybe the Dem pols stoked this by hyping up what has happened and now there is retaliation from the left fringe.”

          Or maybe your side is just full of deranged gun toting anti-government lunatics who are itching to shoot someone or something?

  5. Big Dog says:

    Far as I have heard onlybricks were thrown through windows, no guns from my side. A few threats but mostly just people calling up and cussing them out without a threat.

    Canter’s office was shot at. Since he is Jewish and a Republican then it was one of your guys.

    Making a bigger deal of this than it was is causing problems. It just makes the loonies on both sides come out of the woods.

    No, doubt there are many deranged gun toting nuts. Some, to be sure, but not many. If my side wants to shoot someone they can join the military and go to Iraq or Afghanistan. Your side needs another outlet because it rarely joins the military.

    Overblowing this was part of the Alinsky plan from the Dems.

  6. Big Dog says:

    Or maybe the shot came from a higher elevation. That would explain how to hit it on a downward angle.

    • Adam says:

      I believe the police assume it was an arc and not a downward shot or it would had more velocity. Apparently it didn’t have enough energy to penetrate the window but just cracked the glass a little.

      • Big Dog says:

        It would be necessary to have velocity and mass. A small caliber might have the velocity but not the mass to penetrate.

        There are plenty of variables. Unless they found the round it might be hard to determine.

        • Adam says:

          The police believe it to be random gunfire and not an attack. They found the round and they can see the damage it did to the window. Eric Cantor simply exaggerated this for political reasons…you know…the same thing he was accusing Democrats of doing at the time.

          • Big Dog says:

            The police believe…

            That is proof enough for me.

            Don’t know but a bullet hit his office.

            Also know that most of the messages I heard were not threatening, just people cussing them out. The true threats should be investigated but the Dems are using it for politcs (sending out the donation requests) when, if there are true threats, they should be worried about those. And they should stop saying it was the right making threats until they know who actually did it. They have been burned by this in the past.

            • Adam says:

              “That is proof enough for me.”

              Sarcasm I assume? If so this is another amazing show of your inability to admit when you’re wrong. I mean, why accept the evidence provided by the police who investigated? Your conclusions are just as valid anyway, right?

            • Darrel says:

              The rest of the story:

              “In a news release Thursday, police said the bullet struck at about 1 a.m. on Tuesday. The preliminary investigation showed that “a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window. The round struck with enough force to break the windowpane but did not penetrate the window blinds. There was no other damage to the room, which is used occasionally for meetings by the congressman.”

              Richmond police spokesman Gene Lepley told CNN Friday that it was the result of “random gunfire.”

              As Crooks & Liars notes:

              “…none of the right-wing bloggers who raced to get this story up — folks like RedState, Gateway Pundit, Schmuck of Spades, and Daily Caller — have bothered to update their posts and correct the record for their readers.

              Which means, of course, that you have a broad swath of wingnuts who really believe Eric Cantor’s office was shot at too.

              Yet another addition to the already ridiculously long list of provably untrue things right-wingers believe.”

            • Adam says:

              Cantor: I Didn’t Know Shot Was Random Until After My Presser

              Right. But of course it’s Democrats who are using the attacks for political gains right?

              See, Vic Snyder is the latest to pretend being threatened with death is a big deal and to use Alinsky to turn this to his advantage. Perhaps he might even be killed and his death will give Obama an excuse to round up all conservatives and use guillotines on them. It’s past time, really if you ask me. Don’t want health care? Well, off with your head!

  7. Adam says:

    So yes, we have Cantor’s phony gunshot attack and Mean Jean Schmidt who got a “nasty” phone call for not voting for the bill which called her a racist.

    On the other hand we have by my count 17 instances or threats or vandalism against Democrats. That is 4 counts of heated rhetoric like Palin saying “reload”, 5 death threats by voice mail or letter, 2 instances of addresses being published to encourage people to go there, and 6 cases of vandalism against buildings or homes.

    But of course the Democrats brought this on themselves for voting for that bill that the vast majority of half the country opposed…

  8. Big Dog says:

    Well the preliminary investigation shows that and Cantor did not know until after the presser. It appears to be random.

    There is a chance a low caliber weapon was shot from above. Have seen it before, small caliber gets through glass and that is about it.

    In any event, very few of the things going on are threats and it was all OK when you guys had bus trips up to AIG employee’s houses to harass them. Private citizens harassed in acts condoned by government.

    There are acts of violence all the time and most come from the left but they are not reported on. Recruiting stations blown up, glass smashed, bullets through windows (in places besides Cantor’s office).

    You guys have blown up buildings and tore stuff up for decades as part of your “peaceful” protests. Don’t get excited because a few people are expressing anger

  9. Big Dog says:

    I am absolutely certain that these letters are coming from leftists groups in an attempt to marginalize the opposition.

    Lou Dobbs did not lie. That article says that it is still being investigated. He was there, no one else was.

    Why is it that the left is a target when someone yells boo but when actual violence occurs from the left then it is all made up?

  10. Big Dog says:

    Yes Adam, you Dems brought this on yourselves. Send busloads of people to AIG employee homes and harass them. Tell supporters to get in people’s faces. Say the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks is me.

    You reap what you sow or as Wright might say, your chickens are coming home to roost.

    Palin said reload. You morons think that is a threat. How about refresh and continue the battle. Ooooh, reload is a threat.

    Obama said if they bring a knife we bring a gun. OMG, Obama wants to shoot us.

    Get out from under the covers.

    And when they can show WHO made the threats then we can talk about it. You say it was the right and so do the lap dogs in the media but that is an assumption. Could be lefties trying to cause some trouble or the anarchists who want social disorder.

    Let a Muslim try to detonate a bomb on an airplane and the left defends it as a single act even after the guy says more people are involved and will be coming. Let a Muslim walk into a place and detonate a bomb and we can’t be sure that radical Islam was involved.

    Let a member of Congress (but only on the left) get a few nasty phone calls or even a few threats and all the sudden it must be the right. Where is the it is a lone person or we can’t be sure until we investigate.

    I guess Muslim terrorists deserve more consideration in this.

    But Adam, you all brought it on yourselves. You cry about addresses and your side has published plenty and even gave bus rides.

    You were not whining then.