<p>If it’s such a good law.…</p>
<p>[Harry</a> Reid exempts some of his Senate staff from Obamacare exchanges](<a href=“Harry Reid exempts some of his Senate staff from Obamacare exchanges”>Harry Reid exempts some of his Senate staff from Obamacare exchanges)</p>
<p>^ The law allows committee and leadership staff to be given the exemption.</p>
<p>The law allows many things that are causing difficulties. Most of them have yet to surface.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t doubt that. Just wondering why they chose not to participate in the law the general public don’t have a choice not to.</p>
<p>Because they like their plan, and they want to keep it.</p>
<p>Because most of the general public, like the committee and leadership staffers, have employer coverage and do not have to purchase insurance on the exchange. I don’t want to get political, but you should read up on how Senators, Representatives and their personal staff ended up having to go on the exchange. </p>
<p>Those staffers do not work for a particular Senator or Rep - they work for the federal government, and like all other federal employees, they can keep their employer insurance.</p>
<p>Actions like this is divisive when they are asking limited number of people share the burden of insuring the previously uninsured at a greater cost.</p>
<p>^so call your rep/senators and complain. </p>
<p>Congress and their staff should never have been put on the exchange. It is/was a political stunt. Nothing more, nothing less.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, but is that cost in fact greater? That is, are people now buying into the private insurance pool having to insure a more expensive risk pool than the employer-insurance risk pool? Are you having to insure sicker people than the employer pool?</p>
<p>A lot of the previously uninsured are going on Medicaid. Do you have data on how healthy the people not covered by employer insurance and in households making more than $12K are, compared to people presently covered by employer insurance? I do not have such data.</p>
<p>Ten bucks says the uninsured non-Medicaid group is healthier, because they’re a lot younger.</p>
<p>CF, interesting analysis. I dont know if I buy it. Maybe. $10 isnt that much. Dont put your neck out too far. 
Kaiser Foundation put out a report that showed who the uninsured are. </p>
<p>That report was linked in this thread but now there are so many posts it is kind of hard to find. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that is not what the ACA (clearly) says… (the politics or how or why what happened, happened, are irrelevant at this point, the simple fact is that it was written into law.)</p>
<p>“Except that is not what the ACA (clearly) says…”</p>
<p>I’m not sure I understand. In the law it says that Congresspersons and their personal staff have to get their insurance on the exchange. The committee/leadership staff are not personal staff of Congresspersons.</p>
<p>Wasn’t the small business mandate written into the law, too. Somehow that has been delayed until after the election. Probably not political, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s here: [The</a> Uninsured: A Primer ? Key Facts about Health Insurance on the Eve of Coverage Expansions | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation](<a href=“http://kff.org/uninsured/report/the-uninsured-a-primer-key-facts-about-health-insurance-on-the-eve-of-coverage-expansions/]The”>http://kff.org/uninsured/report/the-uninsured-a-primer-key-facts-about-health-insurance-on-the-eve-of-coverage-expansions/)</p>
<p>But do not be deceived by Iglooo’s complaining. Those uninsured fall into three categories: people who are not required to get insurance at all, like undocumented immigrants and also legal immigrants; people who make less than $12K household income, who are eligible for Medicaid in expansion states; and the remainder: citizens who are in households with income greater than $12K.</p>
<p>Only the third group falls in the private insurance risk pool. So now, the private insurance risk pool is people who previously had private insurance, who are disproportionately healthy, plus people who make more than $12K per year but don’t have employer insurance, who are disproportionately young. It may be that this new risk group is less healthy than the employer insurance group, but I have $10 that says the private group is healthier.</p>
<p>What small business mandate are you referring to, actingmt? I am not aware of a small business mandate in the ACA.</p>
<p>People hide behind complex analysis…… Would you say the benefit of ACA is that people with pre-existing conditions now get a health insurance and no cap? If so, the money to treat them has to come from somewhere unless they are all going on medicaid.</p>
<p>CF, thanks for that link. I wanted that link. :)</p>
<p>I will read that report…and keep it.</p>
<p>I am not into the politcal posts.</p>
<p>I think she is referring to the mandate that businesses over 50 employers have to offer insurance or pay a penalty. They do not, however, have to purchase their insurance through the exchange. </p>
<p>Businesses under 50 employees do not have to offer any insurance.</p>
<p>People who post that the ACA clearly says something should link to the part of the ACA that clearly says it. Otherwise, we might think that those people are spreading falsehoods to support an agenda.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not a small business mandate.</p>