Lola Ball: Congressional health subsidy is unfair

August 21, 2013 

Obamacare was passed by Congress, signed by the President and upheld in the Supreme Court In the law it states that Congress shall be subject to all of the same provisions as the rest of us.

The provisions of the law would preclude them from receiving a subsidy due to the amount of their income. However, through an act of fiat, they now will be given a 75 percent subsidy.

Do you believe it is fair or constitutional that they have a special dispensation that negates the intent of the law and its provisions?



Editor's Note: Members of Congress and their staffs have been covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. The government, as the employer, paid most of the health insurance premium, as is typical for public employees and also common in the private sector. Once the Affordable Care Act becomes effective Jan. 1, members of Congress and their staffs no longer will be eligible for the federal employees' insurance but will have to get insurance through one of the plans offered in the insurance exchanges. The federal Office of Personnel Management announced the government will apply the employer contribution amounts up to 75 percent for the exchange plan. Basically it's the same benefit being transferred to the new insurance plan. For more information:

Merced Sun-Star is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service