If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Not news: employer pushes employees onto health care exchange. News: employer offers to pick up cost of coverage. Fark: Tea Party Senator sues to stop employer from paying. Ultra-Fark: affected employees are the Senator's aides   (dc.wispolitics.com) divider line 165
    More: Asinine, Paul Clement, United States Solicitor General, Human Resource Managements  
•       •       •

5120 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Jan 2014 at 11:18 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



165 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-04 09:42:29 PM
Part of the SC Johnson Corporation

A FAMILY Company
 
2014-01-04 09:45:32 PM
Wow. What a dick.
 
2014-01-04 09:51:53 PM
Folks are terrified that someone might actually receive a benefit that they can't take direct credit for...
 
2014-01-04 10:11:14 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Wow. What a dick.


My thoughts exactly.  I realize that being a congressional staffer looks good on the resume, but heck, when your boss is trying to actively prevent you from being able to afford health insurance it should really make you think about whether it's all worth it.
 
2014-01-04 10:16:01 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Wow. What a dick.

 
2014-01-04 10:21:20 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Wow. What a dick.


.
 
2014-01-04 10:24:40 PM
Tarded Enough Already Party.

What a dick.
 
2014-01-04 10:27:16 PM
Can't wait for the staffers to start talking to press about what really goes on in the office.
 
2014-01-04 10:28:30 PM
What a ringing endorsement for the GOP - "If we're willing to fark over those closest to us, just imagine what we'll do to you!"
 
2014-01-04 10:36:22 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Wow. What a dick.

 
2014-01-04 10:37:00 PM
That guy needs a solid stupping. By Rachel Maddow.
 
2014-01-04 10:49:35 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Wow. What a dick.

 
2014-01-04 10:55:02 PM
FTFA: "Rick Esenberg, president and general counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, is representing Johnson and a staffer who will file the suit Monday in the Eastern District of Wisconsin."

Okay, Sen. Johnson is obviously a, well, a johnson, but a staffer is suing because s/he doesn't want to receive this subsidy?

i1042.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-04 10:55:07 PM

what_now: cameroncrazy1984: Wow. What a dick.

 
2014-01-04 11:09:00 PM
ct.fra.bz
 
2014-01-04 11:09:04 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Okay, Sen. Johnson is obviously a, well, a johnson, but a staffer is suing because s/he doesn't want to receive this subsidy?


This staffer is probably covered on someone else's plan, thus the subsidy is meaningless to them and gives the douchebag cover.
 
2014-01-04 11:23:17 PM
The party of "Fark you I got mine" strikes again.

How this guy can look his staffers in the eye shows much of a craven dickstain he is.
 
2014-01-04 11:24:58 PM

Lackofname: The party of "Fark you I got mine" strikes again.

How this guy can look his staffers in the eye shows much of a craven dickstain he is.


Fark you. I've got mine.
 
2014-01-04 11:25:19 PM

dameron: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Okay, Sen. Johnson is obviously a, well, a johnson, but a staffer is suing because s/he doesn't want to receive this subsidy?

This staffer is probably covered on someone else's plan, thus the subsidy is meaningless to them and gives the douchebag cover.


Or they are being paid to take part in this.
 
2014-01-04 11:27:01 PM
It's worth noting as well that the idea to push aides and staffers onto the exchange was a Republican idea and an amendment proposed and supported by Republicans.  They thought it would be a poison-pill that Democrats would reject and they could run against; so they're now almost literally filing suit against their own ideas.
 
2014-01-04 11:27:43 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: FTFA: "Rick Esenberg, president and general counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, is representing Johnson and a staffer who will file the suit Monday in the Eastern District of Wisconsin."

Okay, Sen. Johnson is obviously a, well, a johnson, but a staffer is suing because s/he doesn't want to receive this subsidy?


It may make her taxes go up because it might be taxed as income.
 
2014-01-04 11:30:54 PM
They should get the same subsidy as private sector workers.  No more, no less.

Frankly, I'm surprised that they aren't in some government workers' union that has a special exemption and gold plated lifetime benefits.
 
2014-01-04 11:31:29 PM
Did the Followup tag get death paneled?
 
2014-01-04 11:32:00 PM

what_now: That guy needs a solid stupping. By Rachel Maddow.


I won't lie, I laughed.
 
2014-01-04 11:33:38 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Okay, Sen. Johnson is obviously a, well, a johnson


assets.sbnation.com
"Ve cut it off!"

 
2014-01-04 11:35:14 PM

cchris_39: They should get the same subsidy as private sector workers.  No more, no less.

Frankly, I'm surprised that they aren't in some government workers' union that has a special exemption and gold plated lifetime benefits.


They had the typical private sector subsidy, then they were specifically forced onto the exchange by law. They are going to get the same subsidy they had before, unless this guy somehow wins.
 
2014-01-04 11:35:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Wow. What a dick.


Can't really go further without upsetting the "Powers That Be."
 
2014-01-04 11:36:08 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Wow. What a dick.

 
2014-01-04 11:37:31 PM

i.huffpost.com
"Look, it's just until we're sure they can't be getting birth control!"

 
2014-01-04 11:38:01 PM

Hastor: It's worth noting as well that the idea to push aides and staffers onto the exchange was a Republican idea and an amendment proposed and supported by Republicans.  They thought it would be a poison-pill that Democrats would reject and they could run against; so they're now almost literally filing suit against their own ideas.


I don't think that's the case.  What this dick (because "Johnson" puns are funny) is suing over is the decision by the OPM to allow congressional staffers to receive employer subsidies even though the poison pill did not explicitly let them.  So his dickery is at least consistent.

For what it's worth, this is the exact tactic my mother's employer is pursuing, moving its employees off of group insurance (which had gotten ridiculously expensive) and letting them get coverage through the exchanges while cutting them a check for half the cost.
 
2014-01-04 11:39:59 PM

cchris_39: They should get the same subsidy as private sector workers.  No more, no less.

Frankly, I'm surprised that they aren't in some government workers' union that has a special exemption and gold plated lifetime benefits.


And the US government should fine itself $3,000 per employee, since they have more than 50 employees and now don't offer an insurance plan.
 
2014-01-04 11:40:02 PM
Black text on red is a Johnson move as well
 
2014-01-04 11:40:15 PM

Lackofname: The party of "Fark you I got mine" strikes again.

How this guy can look his staffers in the eye shows much of a craven dickstain he is.


localtvwiti.files.wordpress.com
"What are you talking about? They're staff! They're not allowed to look me in the eye!"

 
2014-01-04 11:40:32 PM

Hastor: It's worth noting as well that the idea to push aides and staffers onto the exchange was a Republican idea and an amendment proposed and supported by Republicans.  They thought it would be a poison-pill that Democrats would reject and they could run against; so they're now almost literally filing suit against their own ideas.


You mean like how they filed suit against the individual shared responsibility payment which they came up with back in 1989?
 
2014-01-04 11:42:52 PM
rugman11:

For what it's worth, this is the exact tactic my mother's employer is pursuing, moving its employees off of group insurance (which had gotten ridiculously expensive) and letting them get coverage through the exchanges while cutting them a check for half the cost.

This makes good sense and it was understood before hand that this would happen.

As for the lawsuit, I agree with it. If there are any "dicks" here it Congress not the Senator. Congress threw their own staff under the bus and now are trying to stop the bus before it hits anyone with a sneaky maneuver. It is bullshiat. Two wrongs do not make a right.
 
2014-01-04 11:43:20 PM

BMFPitt: They had the typical private sector subsidy, then they were specifically forced onto the exchange by law. They are going to get the same subsidy they had before, unless this guy somehow wins.


Can you clarify?

I was under the impression that a subsidy only applied if you were forced onto the exchange, and then it was based on your household income and spouse's coverage.  Not sure what "the same subsidy they had before [they were forced onto the exchange]" means.

This sounds like they are angling for keeping the same employer contribution, rather than the statutory subsidy the rest of us are stuck with.
 
2014-01-04 11:43:46 PM

rugman11: For what it's worth, this is the exact tactic my mother's employer is pursuing, moving its employees off of group insurance (which had gotten ridiculously expensive) and letting them get coverage through the exchanges while cutting them a check for half the cost.


Not seeing that as a problem.  My own employer went out of its way to inform me that their health plan was better than getting something through the exchanges.  And they were right.
 
2014-01-04 11:43:52 PM

dameron: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Okay, Sen. Johnson is obviously a, well, a johnson, but a staffer is suing because s/he doesn't want to receive this subsidy?

This staffer is probably covered on someone else's plan, thus the subsidy is meaningless to them and gives the douchebag cover.


LIke mom and dad's...because Obamacare extended the eligibility age for parents to cover their kids to 26?

theteacher: It may make her taxes go up because it might be taxed as income.


You sound concerned.
 
2014-01-04 11:44:04 PM

BMFPitt: They had the typical private sector subsidy, then they were specifically forced onto the exchange by law. They are going to get the same subsidy they had before, unless this guy somehow wins.


a57.foxnews.com
" 'Unless'. Pffft."

 
2014-01-04 11:50:43 PM

cchris_39: Frankly, I'm surprised that they aren't in some government workers' union that has a special exemption and gold plated lifetime benefits.


i.huffpost.com
"What? A union? Where?"

 
2014-01-04 11:51:04 PM
Are we sure that isn't a wig covering up his massive penis head?
 
2014-01-04 11:53:30 PM

ox45tallboy: Lackofname: The party of "Fark you I got mine" strikes again.

How this guy can look his staffers in the eye shows much of a craven dickstain he is.

[localtvwiti.files.wordpress.com image 400x225]
"What are you talking about? They're staff! They're not allowed to look me in the eye!"


What's that from?
 
2014-01-04 11:56:15 PM

cchris_39: BMFPitt: They had the typical private sector subsidy, then they were specifically forced onto the exchange by law. They are going to get the same subsidy they had before, unless this guy somehow wins.

Can you clarify?

I was under the impression that a subsidy only applied if you were forced onto the exchange, and then it was based on your household income and spouse's coverage.  Not sure what "the same subsidy they had before [they were forced onto the exchange]" means.

This sounds like they are angling for keeping the same employer contribution, rather than the statutory subsidy the rest of us are stuck with.


That's exactly what the OPM decision would do. Federal employees get a contribution directly from the government towards their health insurance plan; if they don't get health insurance, they don't get that contribution. Regardless, if they do get insurance, it is a part of their salary as a federal employee. That's what this is about. Ron Johnson thinks his employees are paid too much and wants to cut their pay. Period.
 
2014-01-04 11:57:29 PM

gingerjet: rugman11: For what it's worth, this is the exact tactic my mother's employer is pursuing, moving its employees off of group insurance (which had gotten ridiculously expensive) and letting them get coverage through the exchanges while cutting them a check for half the cost.

Not seeing that as a problem.  My own employer went out of its way to inform me that their health plan was better than getting something through the exchanges.  And they were right.


Oh, no.  It's not a problem.  The only thing it does is create a bit of a hassle because the insurance is automatically withdrawn on the 5th and she gets the check on the 1st so this month she had to go out of her way to get to the bank in time because she didn't get the check from her employer until the 2nd (since the 1st was a holiday) and she only had Friday to get it deposited.  The timing is a little tough, but otherwise it seems to be fine and she's back with an insurance company she's always liked better anyway.
 
2014-01-04 11:59:20 PM

cchris_39: They should get the same subsidy as private sector workers.  No more, no less.


Any private-sector employer is free to subsidize their workers' exchange plans to any amount they choose.  The government is equally free to give its employees whatever benefits it chooses.

Most of the private sector won't be choosing to do this because, unlike government, they are not forbidden from offering health plans directly - though honestly, I'd really like it if my employer would just subsidize an exchange plan rather than offer the insurance I have.   I could reduce my totalcosts about $600 per year if I got the plan that was best for me on the exchange, but it's not worth it to do that when my employer subsidizes 80% of my existing plan's costs.
 
2014-01-05 12:01:33 AM

Satanic_Hamster: dameron: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Okay, Sen. Johnson is obviously a, well, a johnson, but a staffer is suing because s/he doesn't want to receive this subsidy?

This staffer is probably covered on someone else's plan, thus the subsidy is meaningless to them and gives the douchebag cover.

Or they are being paid to take part in this.


See: What a dick, above.
 
2014-01-05 12:05:31 AM

Lizardlike: Hey world...need any evidence that liberals in general, liberal farkers in particular, are the party of petty outrage? Look no further than this stupid thread.


Account created: 2013-12-29

Ploink
 
2014-01-05 12:06:27 AM

Sum Dum Gai: cchris_39: They should get the same subsidy as private sector workers.  No more, no less.

Any private-sector employer is free to subsidize their workers' exchange plans to any amount they choose.  The government is equally free to give its employees whatever benefits it chooses.

Most of the private sector won't be choosing to do this because, unlike government, they are not forbidden from offering health plans directly - though honestly, I'd really like it if my employer would just subsidize an exchange plan rather than offer the insurance I have.   I could reduce my totalcosts about $600 per year if I got the plan that was best for me on the exchange, but it's not worth it to do that when my employer subsidizes 80% of my existing plan's costs.


Same here, but it would be almost $1200.
 
2014-01-05 12:08:35 AM

Hastor: It's worth noting as well that the idea to push aides and staffers onto the exchange was a Republican idea and an amendment proposed and supported by Republicans.  They thought it would be a poison-pill that Democrats would reject and they could run against; so they're now almost literally filing suit against their own ideas.


The whole ACA was their idea to begin with. And let us not forget that Golden Moment last year when Mitch McConnell filibustered his OWN bill.

Today's Republicans: masters of bein' fer it before they were agin' it.
 
2014-01-05 12:09:05 AM

cchris_39: Can you clarify?

I was under the impression that a subsidy only applied if you were forced onto the exchange, and then it was based on your household income and spouse's coverage.  Not sure what "the same subsidy they had before [they were forced onto the exchange]" means.

This sounds like they are angling for keeping the same employer contribution, rather than the statutory subsidy the rest of us are stuck with.


Yes, that's what they (the staffers and OPM, not they guy suing) wants.  Seems pretty logical to me.

It is also in line with what many employers who are moving their employees to the exchanges by choice are doing.

Their employer was subsidizing their healthcare before, and would like to continue to do so at the same rate and for the same reasons.
 
Displayed 50 of 165 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report