Print This Post Print This Post

Exempted From Obamacare: Senior Staff Who Wrote the Bill

by Ben Domenech

For as long as the political fight took over the past year, the abbreviated review process on the health care legislation currently pending on President Obama’s desk is unquestionably going to result in some surprises — as happens with any piece of mashed-up legislation — both for the congressmen who voted for it and for the American people.

One such surprise is found on page 158 of the legislation, which appears to create a carveout for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans.

ADVERTISEMENT


A major story during the course of the health care debate was whether members of Congress would commit to placing themselves in the same health care exchanges as average citizens, or whether they would hang on to their government plans — that’s why leadership chose to add this portion to the bill, serving as a guarantee that members would participate in the same health plans as the people. Here’s the relevant text:

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are–

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

But as with a lot of legislative matters, the devil is in the details — or in this case, the definitions. As anyone who’s worked on Capitol Hill knows, the personal office staff for a member is governed by different rules than those who work on committees and in the leadership offices. It appears from the way this language is written that those staffers NOT in personal offices, such as those working and paid under the committee structure (such as those working for Chairman Henry Waxman) or those working on leadership staff (such as those working for Speaker Nancy Pelosi) would be exempt from these requirements (emphasis added).

(ii) DEFINITIONS- In this section:

(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS- The term `Member of Congress’ means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF- The term `congressional staff’ means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.

According to the Congressional Research Service, this definition of staff will only apply to those staffers employed within a member’s “personal office” — meaning that it will absolutely not apply to committee staff members, and may not apply to leadership staff.

This problem was acknowledged earlier in the process — last year, Senator Grassley tried to repair it, but he was rebuffed.

As Speaker Pelosi said a few weeks ago, it’s only after this legislation is passed that we’ll truly find out what’s in it.

Update: Grassley is renewing his push. Here’s a release from yesterday:

“It’s pretty unbelievable that the President and his closest advisors remain untouched by the reforms they pushed for the rest of the country. In other words, President Obama’s health care reform won’t apply to President Obama,” Grassley said. “Last December, the effort to apply any new law to administration political leaders was rejected by the Senate Majority Leader. But there’s no justification for the double standard, and I’ll continue to work to establish fairness.”

The Senate legislation passed last night by the House of Representatives includes an amendment Grassley sponsored and got adopted by the Finance Committee last fall to have members of Congress and their staffs get their health insurance through the same health insurance exchanges where health plans for the general public would be available. During the closed-door negotiations on the bill late last year, the Senate Majority Leader carved out Senate committee and leadership staff from this requirement.

Subsequently, Grassley and Senator Tom Coburn attempted to offer another amendment to restore the requirement during Senate debate on the health care bill, but the Senate Majority Leader would not let their amendment to fix this loophole even come up for a vote. In addition to Senate committee and leadership staff, the amendment Grassley and Coburn filed during the Senate debate would have made the President, the Vice President, top White House staff and cabinet members all get their health insurance through the newly created exchanges. It would not have applied to federal employees in the civil service.

Grassley said, “It’s only fair and logical that top administration officials, who fought so hard for passage of this overhaul of America’s health care system, experience it themselves. If it’s as good as promised, they’ll know it first-hand. If there are problems, they’ll be able to really understand them, as they should.”

We’ll see if this gains traction (h/t Daniel Foster at NRO).

Follow Ben Domenech on Twitter.

TNL
  • larryzibilske
    The existence of text in the law that specifically identifies these groups, whomever they are, as having special qualifications for inclusion or exclusion tells us something. Why, if this is "health care for all Americans", is any specific reference to certain groups necessary at all?
  • richbrummett
    Unbelievalbe. When does this stupidity stop. Will our leadership ever step up to the plate and do the right thing?
  • SunnyOutlook
    "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." George Orwell, Animal Farm.

    I immediately thought of the above quote when I read this. Just change it to, "All people are equal but some people are more equal than others."
  • kristenhawley
    Nothing surprises me anymore - Nothing.
  • Ok America instead of bitching about what has happened and posting complants and doing nothing about it ,let's start seeing way's to change what has happened and bring America back to the people. How can we correct these action's who, can we contact who can we write to and how can we get this info to the American people out there so we can correct what is wrong.
  • elainergill
    This has always been the case and why does anyone think that the members of the Congress would shoot themselves in the foot by agreeing to being a "commoner"? They have all the perks and we have the jerks running our lives and gettting PAID for it, now and until they conk out or we vote them out!!
  • carolesandlerkahn
    Disgusting. But what did you expect, America? "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."
    Whatever a 'sow' is, I apologize for the comparison.
  • kennethfromgeorgia
    "It appears from the way this language is written that those staffers NOT in personal offices, such as those working and paid under the committee structure (such as those working for Chairman Henry Waxman) or those working on leadership staff (such as those working for Speaker Nancy Pelosi) would be exempt from these requirements (emphasis added)."

    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.

    I am not a 'full-time or part-time employee employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, either in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.' Does this mean I'm exempted from buying health insurance from the exchange too? Jimmyjames is dead right, on this one; reading for comprehension. 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.

    This bill attempts to mandate health insurance coverage for all Americans but does precious little to remedy the spiraling cost of healthcare, which is why health insurance is so expensive to begin with. One of the biggest problems with healthcare is that we use health insurance to pay for it to begin with. Were we to purchase groceries the same way we purchase healthcare, we would have milk that comes in vacuum-sealed, self-refrigerating bottles, but it'd cost $100 a gallon.
  • jimmiegrasso
    We the people have been trying to get that point across before Obama came along and the fat cats in Washington will never change the healthcare, retirement benefits or SS to include themselves. We are all just pawns in a socialist CHANGE!
  • LibsAreCommies
    The time has come to remove these corrupt CommieLib liars from power "By any means necessary". They should be physically dragged from office and jailed for willfully violating the Constitution. I call on the U.S. Military to stage a good old-fashioned coup.
  • rtfirefly
    So we solve the problem of alleged constitutional violations by constitutionally elected officials by a military coup? That's like to say you get a cold so you take a shot of malaria.
    Throw the bums out, not the republic!
  • jimmyjames1234
    I reiterate Wildwood's question. It states clearly that members of Congress and their staff ARE to be restricted to plans created by this Act. The article seems to say that committee members are not in this group, so are not included. Doesn't that make them regular government employees?
    So is this saying that ALL regular government employees are not subject to this Act? What about all state government employees, since there is language in the Bill that states 'barring State laws this Title...', does that mean all State employees are exempt?

    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?
  • helpourcountry
    We need to wake up the snoozers in the public so they know what is going on and work like the dickens to oust this corrupt, self serving bunch of thugs who have ahold of our government.
  • kroger
    only after you have your cranium in your anis, would you look around for insurance for the back pain that you now seem to feel coming on.
  • rowleya
    Why Comply?
    They Lie.
  • I fear the law & its reach into my life whether it be taxes or decisions about the delivery of health care to me by my Doctors &/or hospital. The "Quality Assurance Commission or Panel of Bureau, will have the authority to establish care guidelines based on many points. They get to make decisions based on who, what, where, when, why, & how. Sooner or later, since any & every federal bureaucracy or regulatory body has always expanded its authority or reach, its obvious they will one day decide "IF" I get health care delivery based on points "they" establish. That is frightening. So the bill scares me. But, the after effects or incremental expansion of authority scares me even more. That is the problem w/ government. It always is never satisfied with the inch you gave. It always wants 3,000 miles!
  • Why am I not surprised. This is what happens when you rush through a 2000+ page bill with zero accountability.
  • Rick013
    Don't ya just love equality under the law? Wow, gotta love our corrupt congress. Vote em out in Nov.
  • boyd2
    So maybe I should write my Congressman and see if he will put me on staff for mabe say a dollar a year?
  • myliberty
    Why surprised! They expemted themselves out of federal income tax, while you and I have to share our "wealth" with them
  • myliberty
    The states need too get together and nullified this piece legislature. Going through the supreme court is a favorite play by the moderate Republicans, (the lesser evil). It is expensive and long for the people to pay. Nullification by individual state legistlature. Next one should be federal income tax.
  • Surprise, surprise.
  • With as great of bill as these tyrants sold this as, wonder why they're exempting their staff members from it? Sounds like the Emporer is setting up a new Kingdom in Washington DC.
  • SteveCan
    November can't come soon enough ......
  • rowleya
    We'll Comply when they Comply?
  • nadadhimmi
    Incredible, unbelievable, incomprehensible ARROGANCE, ARROGANCE ARROGANCE. These people must be taken down, it will take a revolution to do it, but the people are just about scared and worried and above all pissed off enough to do it. These people must be tried and imprisoned.
  • hyphenatedamerican
    I've written this letter on my blog yesterday, before the final vote on the Obamacare. I apologize for the style - English is my second language...



    I want my country back!

    It seems like the ultra-liberals have been able to bribe and coerce enough congress-scumbags to pass the Obamacare. And as I said before, there would be hell to pay for this monstrosity. Obamacare is the very definition of unlimited government - the threat of which was forewarned by the Founding Fathers more than two centuries ago. The federal government, which is up to its neck in debt and unfunded liabilities, decided to launch the biggest entitlement of all times – the medical care for all. The spending on this new entitlement will surely dwarf many if not most of Federal programs and will make the bankruptcy of federal and state governments inevitable. The time of reckoning is at hand, brothers and sisters. Obamacare is the last breath of the liberal order – and it’s time to take America back from the party of thieves and looters.


    All patriots of this nation must stand together and fight back. United we will win! There is no blue or red America anymore – there are only those that believe in America the beautiful, America the free, America the shining city on the hill – and those that believe in welfare socialism and government servitude. Today, we fight not only for our personal well-being – but for the dignity and honor of this country, for the right to look into the eyes of our children and say – we defended this nation from the perils of socialism. In November 2010, we will answer the crucial questions of our times - are American people worthy of the efforts of the Founding Fathers? Will American people have the right to proudly say “We are Americans” – or will they forever live in infamy and indignity of welfare socialism?


    I am glad that the Democratic Party passed the Rubicon. From now on, there is no coming back for the liberal elites, no talks of compromise and middle-ground. Today, it is abundantly clear that we either will live in Obama's America or America that our Founding Father envisioned. You cannot have both.


    The November elections will be the most important elections in our lifetime. If you don’t vote for America in November – you don’t deserve to be called an American.


    Written by a Russian immigrant who loves America and who loves freedom.
  • Guest
    You are a true American,welcome
  • casualconser
    With sentiments like you have expressed, you are not a hyphenated American, you are an American.
  • hyphenatedamerican
    My last name has two hyphens - which makes me a very hyphenated American... ;)
  • Why am I not surprised? It will be interesting to see what else will be discovered in the days and weeks to come.
  • tinkicker
    Actually, 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.
  • casualconser
    Tin, not to throw water on your argument (or Ben's, for that matter) but the Federal plans are basically just like you and I get. Don't believe me? Go to http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2010/states/dc.asp for this years plans for DC (this includes congress-critters).

    Don't get me wrong, I am violently against this travesty of a law. But if we on the right are going to argue against it, we need to argue against the real aspects of the law (such as no tort reform, no cross-state insurance pooling to mitigate risks, etc.).

    Just IMHO
  • Two points: First, while that's true at the moment, who's to say that will be true after five years or so under this plan? Hard to predict whether those plans will still be something like what you and I will purchase.

    Second, I agree with your solutions, but while it's fine to say those aspects were missing, in reality, those matters should be handled at the state level. There's no barrier to cross-state purchasing and pooling that can't be overcome at the state level, and my colleague Maureen Martin has written extensively on why *federal* tort reform is a bad idea, including this column yesterday:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/21/good-idea-but-costly-outcome/

    Point being, the states have a lot of latitude to lead on these matters. If more states had followed Texas' lead on malpractice issues, you'd see more widespread benefits.
  • casualconser
    Actually, Ben, I agree with the "out-year" problem. Congress has a habit of changing things in little amendments to bills that say "section XX clause yy is amended to say. . ." You get the drift.

    Now, as to the states-rights issue, do not get me started! I believe this whole thing is a trampling of the Constitution, as it delves into those issues that are rightly ". . .reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." per the tenth amendment. I live in Texas, and volunteered for a few years for Texans for Tort Reform (that was twenty-some years ago) but we finally got it, and by gosh, my insurance went down.

    What I was pointing out was that this was the wrong way to go about an argument, simply because it tilts at the wrong windmill. Congress critters are easy prey, but I think we need to focus on getting back to the basics, or as you point out (and your colleague Ms. Martin wrote about) getting away from the federalism idea. I do think that it is part and parcel of the federal government's responsibility to make sure the states play nice with each other, and one way would be to enforce the actual meaning of the full-faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Maybe then we could have insurance offered across country, or end the ability of trial lawyers to shop for friendly courts in other states simply because the company had a presence there.

    Roger
  • wildwood15
    I don't understand. Doesn't it say that they are to use this plan's insurance? This part here. Can anyone interpret it? Does it mean a special exchange is being developed, just for them?

    the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are–

    (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

    (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).
  • wildwood15
    I don't understand the language. DOesn't it say that they ARE covered under this legislation? Gosh,I hate the way they write these things. WHat does this part say?

    the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are–

    (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

    (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).
  • armydadtexas
    Amazing: And Obama said this wasn't going to happen. He also said that Illegal Aliens would not receive TAX PAYER FUNDED HEALTH CARE. He also stated there would be no TAX PAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS. LIES<lies and="" joe="" lies.="" more="" right!!!="" was="" wilson=""></lies>
  • KSEMBB1
    Yes, he said illegals wouldn't receive tax payer funded health care.....so, he's making them legal! His next immediate push is amnesty. This is what he had in mind when he made that statement. He truly is a street-hustling snake oil salesman (my profound apologies to hustlers and snake oil salesmen everywhere).
  • ellid
    And you are truly a raving maniac.
  • armydadtexas
    Another Obama LIE EXPOSED. How many more does he get before America realizes the man is incapable of telling anything resembling the truth?
  • shtfmac
    Well, he did tell us the truth when he said he was going to "fundamentally change America." the crowds cheered as he promised to basically change our constitution, since it is the fundamental law of the land.

    It is actually quite frightening that we are having to argue the merits of freedom, liberty and free markets with socialist ideologues. What a frickin' disaster.
blog comments powered by Disqus
- September 3, 2010 -

MORE LEDGER

ELSEWHERE ON TNL

DAILY READS

MARKETS & POLICY

The WHIP

HEGEMON

CHEQUER BOARD