General Discussion

kelliekat44

(7,759 posts)

64. Congressional aides are not "government workers" last time I looked. They have an entire different

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 08:09 AM

Nov 2013

pay scale and employment rules. They generally make out like their bosses in the kinds of benefits and work requirements. I was once assigned on detail to a Congressional office. Believe me, those employees are not the same as the grunts working for the Federal Executive Branch of government.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

66 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Older hill aides shocked by Obamacare prices [View all] FarCenter Nov 2013 OP

Welcome to what the rest of us have been dealing with for years. nt Lex Nov 2013 #1

Not all of us.. Fumesucker Nov 2013 #44

The older ones may find that getting a new job ain't so easy. Shrike47 Nov 2013 #2

Actually, many of them will have no trouble getting hired SoCalDem Nov 2013 #9

If true, it's only because they had an extraordinarily and unequitable (to us) form of benefit. NYC_SKP Nov 2013 #3

A gift from us. Lex Nov 2013 #4

Don't know about inequitable, elleng Nov 2013 #5

I say inequitable from the point of view of one who doesn't enjoy these benefits. NYC_SKP Nov 2013 #6

Actually, the exhanges were modeled on the Federal Employee Exchange CreekDog Nov 2013 #52

Yes, I recall seeing that, elleng Nov 2013 #53

Sounds like you would prefer a dog eat dog world. Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #7

No. My point is that their "shock" is disingenuous. They should have been more aware and... NYC_SKP Nov 2013 #8

How do you know that they didn't know? Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #12

Not to mention the fact that govt employees on the whole get paid less than the private sector...t VanillaRhapsody Nov 2013 #13

+1 CountAllVotes Nov 2013 #39

Congressional aides are not "government workers" last time I looked. They have an entire different kelliekat44 Nov 2013 #64

They are Federal Employees....not in the Private Sector... VanillaRhapsody Nov 2013 #65

Snarkery. Heh. ogradda Nov 2013 #49

and only a fraction over 1% are losing "good" insurance... VanillaRhapsody Nov 2013 #66

I'm not sure that the article is true CreekDog Nov 2013 #15

I'm sure it's true Lydia Leftcoast Nov 2013 #18

I'm sure you're wrong, no matter how sure you are, here's why CreekDog Nov 2013 #25

I've known LL for years Art_from_Ark Nov 2013 #40

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Art Lydia Leftcoast Nov 2013 #55

That is really messed up Art_from_Ark Nov 2013 #59

Not bullshit. Unsubsidized ACA plans are high for older folks. mainer Nov 2013 #63

The employer share became a fixed price. NutmegYankee Nov 2013 #47

I think they are saying the employee contribution is 3 or 4 times as large. bornskeptic Nov 2013 #50

because their employer is FORBIDDEN from contributing scheming daemons Nov 2013 #10

And this does explain everything mainer Nov 2013 #62

you Better Believe It, dkf! scheming daemons Nov 2013 #11

Somethin' like that. JNelson6563 Nov 2013 #54

I'm inclined to call bullshit. eqfan592 Nov 2013 #14

How old are you? Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #16

it is bullshit, here's why: CreekDog Nov 2013 #17

How old are you? The exchange allows insurance companies to charge up to 3 Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #20

I priced it based on a 55 year old, here look: CreekDog Nov 2013 #22

And that may well be 3 to 4 times as much that they are already paying. Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #27

no they aren't. quit making shit up. CreekDog Nov 2013 #28

No, the employer contribution portion stayed in the legislation. It does not allow the staffers to okaawhatever Nov 2013 #30

I'm not making shit up. I am exploring and looking for answers. Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #32

well we are talking about whether the article is correct or not CreekDog Nov 2013 #33

I think they are looking at their premiums paid in a paycheck. NutmegYankee Nov 2013 #48

So what? It's their own Rethug Congresspeople who insisted on this. pnwmom Nov 2013 #35

I know that. Not once have I blamed "ObamaCare". Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #37

Until this legislation, the staffers and congress itself had access... eqfan592 Nov 2013 #46

Age 59. The age mentioned in the article $6599 per year. Add a spouse Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #29

that's about the same, even less than current Blue Cross coverage CreekDog Nov 2013 #31

Was there coverage subsidized by their employers (the govt.) before? Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #36

I've always imagined CreekDog as being 12 or so. n/t Skip Intro Nov 2013 #38

:) Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #42

You're the one that started a thread in Meta about me then self alerted it pretending to be another CreekDog Nov 2013 #51

Maybe because it's now without employer contributions? mainer Nov 2013 #60

Early thirties. nt eqfan592 Nov 2013 #45

No kidding. I think if anything, they referred to the federal plan as "heavily subsidized" and then okaawhatever Nov 2013 #19

Do they qualify for a policy on the exchange? I don't... Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #24

correct. it is bullshit. look at my post. CreekDog Nov 2013 #23

What a surprise! A negative spin from you again. Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #21

This smells like someone Egnever Nov 2013 #26

So what? This poison pill was engineered by the Rethugs. pnwmom Nov 2013 #34

Just more victims of the Republicans. Ikonoklast Nov 2013 #41

Geez. You never get tired of this crap, do you? HERVEPA Nov 2013 #43

most likely yet another Bullshit Anti-ACA story. Whisp Nov 2013 #56

Regression to the mean hurts those above, and below the mean, including millions HereSince1628 Nov 2013 #57

No no, it's not true! People are just making it up! And if it is Skip Intro Nov 2013 #58

Those prices don't shock me. It's what I was quoted for bronze ACA mainer Nov 2013 #61