On Monday, President Obama spoke to the nation about the difficulties in rolling out the affordable health care insurance component of the Affordable Care Act, saying,
“I recognize that the Republican Party has made blocking the Affordable Care Act its signature policy idea. Sometimes it seems to be the one thing that unifies the party these days. In fact, they were willing to shut down the government and potentially harm the global economy to try to get it repealed. And I’m sure that given the problems with the website so far, they’re going to be looking to go after it even harder. And let’s admit it — with the website not working as well as it needs to work, that makes a lot of supporters nervous because they know how it’s been subject to so much attack, the Affordable Care Act generally.
“But I just want to remind everybody, we did not wage this long and contentious battle just around a website. That’s not what this was about. We waged this battle to make sure that millions of Americans in the wealthiest nation on Earth finally have the same chance to get the same security of affordable quality health care as anybody else. That’s what this is about. And the Affordable Care Act has done that.”
While the president was speaking, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) released a press release indicating that last week, he introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the Senate — Senate Joint Resolution 25: “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government.”
The proposed amendment would establish for Congress, the members of the executive branch and the members of the Supreme Court equal treatment under the law for legislation that would affect everyday American citizens, making it impossible to issue laws that affect the citizenry without affecting federal government leaders.
This amendment was drafted after the Vitter amendment — a proposed addition to the ACA introduced by Rep. David Vitter (R-La.) that would have cut subsidies for health care to congressional and senior executive branch officials — was rejected by Senate Democrats and threatened with a veto. Paul’s amendment would render the health care subsidies — established by final ruling by the Office of Personnel Management — unconstitutional and challengeable in federal court.
“My amendment says basically that everybody including Justice Roberts — who seems to be such a fan of Obamacare — gets it too,” Paul told The Daily Caller by phone on Sunday. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts had ruled with the court’s majority in finding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mostly constitutional, with the forced Medicaid expansions by the states the only overridable issue. Since then, Roberts has earned the ire of many Republicans. “See, right now, Justice Roberts is still continuing to have federal employee health insurance subsidized by the taxpayer. And if he likes Obamacare so much, I’m going to give him an amendment that gives Obamacare to Justice Roberts,” Paul continued.
Paul’s amendment would not force the Supreme Court or any part of the judiciary to sign up through the ACA, as the healthcare law, as written, did not exclude the judiciary from using existing federal government health care coverage — and ACA insurance use is not mandatory to all citizens. Paul plans a separate bill that would require all federal employees to use ACA health insurance.
The “Obamacare fix”
The outrage over what is now known as the “Obamacare fix” started with an attempt by a Republican senator to kill the ACA before it was passed. After the initial drafting of the bill, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced “Amendment O” — “To require that Members of Congress and all Congressional staff purchase coverage through exchanges” — along with the suite of Republican amendments offered for the bill. The amendment was meant to be a roadblock; ideally, the Democrats would balk at the idea of losing their existing premium health care plans, the Republicans would insist, the White House and the Senate Democrats would be embarrassed in offering a product they wouldn’t use themselves and the bill would either die or be radically redrafted.
“Amendment O” read:
“This amendment would require that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, beginning in 2013, Members of Congress and Congressional staff must use their employer contribution (adjusted for age rating) to purchase coverage through a state-based exchange, rather than using the traditional selection of plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP).”
Instead, Grassley’s gambit failed. The Democrats took the amendment as an opportunity to show solidarity for the law. The problems came when attempts to modify the bill removed provisions for the subsidizing of the congressional health care plans via employer contributions to the FEHBP. Congressional staffers — including members of Congress — are recognized as employees of the federal government. The threat that the ACA would saddle congressional staff with higher health care costs forced a “fix” in which the OPM created a subsidy that replaced the FEHBP’s 75 percent contribution toward employee health insurance.
As this is presented as a “subsidy,” it is easy for Republicans to attack it as an example of government indulgence and an attempt to work the “Grassley gambit” a second time. In reality, though, this “subsidy” is not new money — it’s the payment of the employer contribution of the congressional staffers’ pay that — by law — the federal government owes them and is already guaranteed to them. The Vitter amendment and Paul’s amendment constitute a pay cut in which staffers making as little as $25,000 a year would instead be on the line for health plans costing as much as $7,000.
Costs of politics
The repercussions of this are real and devastating. “You’ve got to be fucking kidding me with this,” a Senate Democratic staffer told The New Yorker. “Wouldn’t the Vitter amendment lead to an actual exemption for Congress? If Congress, as an institution employing thousands of workers, did not contribute to its employees’ health care like most companies do, isn’t that an exemption? Maybe not an exemption under law per se, but an exemption according to standard practice. Either way, if that somehow makes its way through, I’ll be looking for another job. Congrats Tea Party, your eternal quest to starve the beast is chugging along full steam ahead!”
“I’ve been a staffer in a republican Senate office for 8 years,” added a Senate Republican staffer. “It’s extremely frustrating to have Vitter portray the employer contribution as some sort of exemption from the exchanges. My healthcare costs are already going to sky rocket, but being responsible for 100% of my premiums just isn’t realistic on my salary. I know I’m not the only staffer looking for a job off the hill because I knew this was a possibility. I can only assume the poor staff having to write the amendment language are hopefully throwing death glares at Vitter.
“That said, I can understand the rationale and strategy in embracing the amendment and I don’t resent the Members who are pushing it. They know full well they’ll have to deal with the consequences.”
The fine reality of the situation is that congressional Republicans are asking those least capable of carrying the implications of their anti-ACA plans to bear the entire weight alone. House staff salaries are at the lowest levels since 2007. While fewer House staffers are currently working today than in 2007, which accounts for some of the total expenditures’ drop, starting salaries have also decreased.
Personal gains and public losses
The truth behind all of this, however, may be as simple as the fact that the Republicans do not want the ACA for themselves. As explained in a report from the Heritage Foundation,
“The fact that Members are now surprised and worried about the implications of the PPACA for themselves, and profess shock at what they enacted, leads inescapably to the question, as asked by Robert Pear of The New York Times: ‘If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?’
“In short, Congress can keep its current health coverage by repealing Section 1312(d)(3)(D). However, the political price for doing so is that Members of Congress must repeal the rest of Obamacare as well—so that their constituents can keep their health plans, too.”
Only time will tell if the ACA is ultimately successful. However, it is the law of the land. Morally and ethically, playing with the livelihood of those that you depend on is morose, and the extents to which the Republicans are willing to travel to defeat this one piece of legislation are now beyond practical considerations. To play politics with a group of workers that are already paid 20 to 30 percent less than what they would get in the private sector, are overwhelmingly overworked, stressed out and — in large numbers — seeking a way out, suggests recklessness and a disturbing lack of consideration for the sacrifices that come with public service.
Paul’s amendment will not pass the Senate — which would require supermajority approval — much less pass the House with a supermajority and receive approval of three-quarters of the states. But the fact that he proposed it says a lot.