Some health reform opponents claim the Obama administration is giving members of Congress and their staffs special treatment under the Affordable Care Act. The claim, which a number of media stories have repeated uncritically, is simply false: Although they will be required to enroll in health plans offered within the new health-insurance exchanges established under the law, members of Congress and their staffs will not receive extra financial help to pay for their medical care.
Critics are angry because the administration has confirmed that members of Congress and their staffs can continue to receive employer contributions to cover part of their premium costs. But that’s not special treatment. Today, most large employers do the same — the federal government, which provides coverage for members of Congress, their staffs and other federal employees, is no different.
In reality, it’s the critics — as part of their ongoing assault on the health care law — who are seeking special treatment for Congress, by proposing to make members and their staffs the only workers in the United States whose employer is barred by law from helping to cover their premiums. There’s no reason to discriminate against members and their staffs in this way, especially when doing so would make it more difficult to recruit and retain high-caliber congressional staff.
Here’s the issue: Under a provision authored by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and added to the legislation during the Senate Finance Committee’s health care deliberations in 2009, members of Congress and their staffs won’t be allowed to continue buying coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which offers a variety of health insurance plans to federal employees. Instead, congressional staffers and members will only be able to enroll in plans offered in the ACA’s new exchanges, with the government continuing to make an employer contribution. (Grassley himself has confirmed that he intended for the federal government to continue making employer contributions under the provision.)
Critics claim this is special, gold-plated treatment because other people can’t get an employer contribution and use it to help buy coverage in the health exchange system. That’s incorrect. The ACA explicitly allows small businesses with fewer than 50 employees (up to 100, at state option) to offer their employees health plans through the exchanges and to help cover the premiums. This is essentially the same treatment that members of Congress and their staffs will receive.
Nor is the setup for Congress double dipping, as some mistakenly charge. Members of Congress and their staffs, just like the small-business employees, will be ineligible for federal tax credits to help cover the cost of their exchange health plans — unlike people with low and moderate incomes without employer coverage who buy health plans in the exchanges on their own.
There is one way in which health reform’s treatment of members of Congress and their staffs is unique — but it doesn’t involve preferential treatment. They are the only people in the country working for a large employer that is allowed to offer health plans exclusively through the exchanges. Unlike all other federal employees, they will not be able to enroll in plans offered through FEHBP. That’s because of the Grassley amendment.
Some members of Congress who oppose the ACA propose to prohibit the federal government from contributing toward the insurance premium costs of members and their staffs. Now that would be special treatment — the health care law does not prohibit the employer of any other workers in the country from making such a contribution.
If critics truly wanted to make sure there is nothing unique here, they would propose dropping the Grassley amendment and treat members of Congress and their staffs the same as other federal (and private-sector) employees, by allowing them to continue to enroll in plans offered through FEHBP, with the federal government continuing to make a contribution to help cover the costs. That’s how health reform treats other employers: It allows them to maintain current insurance arrangements and contribute on their employees’ behalf.
Why aren’t opponents of the health care law trying to do that? Presumably because there’s no political advantage in doing so. It’s time to get beyond political firefights and get on with responsible governing, including making health insurance coverage under the ACA work as effectively as possible for the American people.
Robert Greenstein is president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Critics are angry because the administration has confirmed that members of Congress and their staffs can continue to receive employer contributions to cover part of their premium costs. But that’s not special treatment. Today, most large employers do the same — the federal government, which provides coverage for members of Congress, their staffs and other federal employees, is no different.
In reality, it’s the critics — as part of their ongoing assault on the health care law — who are seeking special treatment for Congress, by proposing to make members and their staffs the only workers in the United States whose employer is barred by law from helping to cover their premiums. There’s no reason to discriminate against members and their staffs in this way, especially when doing so would make it more difficult to recruit and retain high-caliber congressional staff.
Here’s the issue: Under a provision authored by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and added to the legislation during the Senate Finance Committee’s health care deliberations in 2009, members of Congress and their staffs won’t be allowed to continue buying coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which offers a variety of health insurance plans to federal employees. Instead, congressional staffers and members will only be able to enroll in plans offered in the ACA’s new exchanges, with the government continuing to make an employer contribution. (Grassley himself has confirmed that he intended for the federal government to continue making employer contributions under the provision.)
Critics claim this is special, gold-plated treatment because other people can’t get an employer contribution and use it to help buy coverage in the health exchange system. That’s incorrect. The ACA explicitly allows small businesses with fewer than 50 employees (up to 100, at state option) to offer their employees health plans through the exchanges and to help cover the premiums. This is essentially the same treatment that members of Congress and their staffs will receive.
Nor is the setup for Congress double dipping, as some mistakenly charge. Members of Congress and their staffs, just like the small-business employees, will be ineligible for federal tax credits to help cover the cost of their exchange health plans — unlike people with low and moderate incomes without employer coverage who buy health plans in the exchanges on their own.
There is one way in which health reform’s treatment of members of Congress and their staffs is unique — but it doesn’t involve preferential treatment. They are the only people in the country working for a large employer that is allowed to offer health plans exclusively through the exchanges. Unlike all other federal employees, they will not be able to enroll in plans offered through FEHBP. That’s because of the Grassley amendment.
Some members of Congress who oppose the ACA propose to prohibit the federal government from contributing toward the insurance premium costs of members and their staffs. Now that would be special treatment — the health care law does not prohibit the employer of any other workers in the country from making such a contribution.
If critics truly wanted to make sure there is nothing unique here, they would propose dropping the Grassley amendment and treat members of Congress and their staffs the same as other federal (and private-sector) employees, by allowing them to continue to enroll in plans offered through FEHBP, with the federal government continuing to make a contribution to help cover the costs. That’s how health reform treats other employers: It allows them to maintain current insurance arrangements and contribute on their employees’ behalf.
Why aren’t opponents of the health care law trying to do that? Presumably because there’s no political advantage in doing so. It’s time to get beyond political firefights and get on with responsible governing, including making health insurance coverage under the ACA work as effectively as possible for the American people.
Robert Greenstein is president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar