Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Exclusive: Rand Paul wants Chief Justice Roberts, all federal workers, to enroll in Obamacare

  1. #1

    Exclusive: Rand Paul wants Chief Justice Roberts, all federal workers, to enroll in Obamacare

    Exclusive: Rand Paul wants Chief Justice Roberts, all federal workers, to enroll in Obamacare

    by Alex Pappas
    12:40 AM 09/23/2013

    Arguing federal workers should not get special treatment, Rand Paul says he does not want taxpayers subsidizing the personal health care plans of any federal employee — including Chief Justice John Roberts — anymore.

    With some in Congress arguing lawmakers and their staff should not get subsidies to cover their health insurance as President Obama’s health care law goes into effect, the Republican senator from Kentucky told The Daily Caller on Sunday that he’s going to start pushing a constitutional amendment that goes even further.

    Paul’s proposal — outlawing any special exemptions for government employees — would mean all federal workers would have to purchase health insurance on the new Obamacare exchanges instead of getting taxpayer-funded subsidies. Some critics say those subsidies amount to special treatment. The Obamacare health insurance exchange opens Oct 1.

    “My amendment says basically that everybody including Justice Roberts — who seems to be such a fan of Obamacare — gets it too,” Paul told TheDC by phone on Sunday from Mackinac Island in Michigan, where he won a straw poll of potential Republican candidates for president in 2016.

    “See, right now, Justice Roberts is still continuing to have federal employee health insurance subsidized by the taxpayer,” Paul said. “And if he likes Obamacare so much, I’m going to give him an amendment that gives Obamacare to Justice Roberts.”

    ...
    read more:
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/23/ex...-in-obamacare/



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Fiesty. He should make an amendment to send warmongers to command at the frontlines of war zones and his or her family as grunts in the front lines

  4. #3
    Seems like a good venue to attack qualified immunity too...

    No special treatment, no special laws....

  5. #4
    About time someone said it other than us.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Seems like a good venue to attack qualified immunity too...

    No special treatment, no special laws....
    Exactly great point. Qualified immunity (and the topic of exemptions for the ruling class) is the epicenter of where corruption originates. It needs to end.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by asurfaholic View Post
    Exactly great point. Qualified immunity (and the topic of exemptions for the ruling class) is the epicenter of where corruption originates. It needs to end.
    Very true, but as Rand's successes so far have shown, a narrow argument is easier to win. Eroding special privileges and establishing the rule of law over the "ruling class" will happen bit by bit, not all in one go.
    “Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?” - Oxenstiern

    Violence will not save us. Let us love one another, for love is from God.

  8. #7
    Good. I like this.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Inkblots View Post
    Very true, but as Rand's successes so far have shown, a narrow argument is easier to win. Eroding special privileges and establishing the rule of law over the "ruling class" will happen bit by bit, not all in one go.
    Yea, I agree. Point was this is a good opportunity to bring it up. Falls in line with Rands "Government Bullies" message too.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9

  12. #10

  13. #11
    The poll data is clear and cuts across party lines: 92 percent of the public does not think it is right that Congress and their staff are letting the Obama administration exempt them from the costs of Obamacare. Yet it seems many in Congress still want to dismiss these findings in hopes that these sentiments won't translate into actual voter preferences.

    Incumbents facing reelections shouldn't fool themselves. A recent real-world deployment of the issue shows it can powerfully impact candidates’ prospects.

    We tested the effect of the congressional exemption issue in six different 2014 races, which represent different election archetypes. We launched incumbent-specific, small but targeted, week-long communications campaigns, using mail, phones and internet, (but no TV or radio), directed at 7,500 likely voters. Then we analyzed the criteria regularly used by campaign strategists to measure the strength of an incumbent’s reelection campaign: the "hard re-elect", or the percentage of voters who say they will vote to reelect the incumbent; the "hard vote against", or the percentage of voters who say they will vote against an incumbent; and the "ballot test", or how the incumbent fares when matched up against his challenger.

    The incumbents against whom we tested the issue were: Sen. Mark Udall, Democrat from Colorado; Sen. Mary Landrieu, Democrat from Louisiana; Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina; Rep. John Tierney, Democrat from Massachusetts; Rep. Jim Matheson, Democrat from Utah; and U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, Republican from Idaho.
    [...]
    The results are the political equivalent of the canary dying in the coal mine; perhaps Congress will finally pay attention and reverse this exemption this week in the Senate or else in the House as part of the continuing resolution negotiation.

    Some may think that if they make a feint at undoing the exemption ruling, but watch that fail, that they can then avail themselves of the subsidy. But that is not the case: If members don’t decline the subsidy for themselves and their staffs, the public states that they still see this as preferring themselves and their paid staff over all their unpaid volunteers and constituents, and the price will be nearly as steep. In Mike Simpson's Idaho district, for instance, 55 percent of GOP primary voters said they would vote against Simpson to send a message even if he voted against Obamacare but decided to keep the exemption for himself and his staff; just 7 percent said they would vote for him anyway.

    As for the strategists, the message is clear: Get your incumbents on the right side of the issue, or spend election night on the edge of your seat; get your challengers on the right side of the issue, and prepare to win where you didn’t previously think possible.
    via Lew: High Muckety-Mucks Exempt From Obamacare
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/...rom-obamacare/
    Last edited by Lucille; 09-23-2013 at 01:59 PM.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  14. #12
    Off topic, but this was the first I saw this news:

    “My amendment says basically that everybody including Justice Roberts — who seems to be such a fan of Obamacare — gets it too,” Paul told TheDC by phone on Sunday from Mackinac Island in Michigan, where he won a straw poll of potential Republican candidates for president in 2016.
    Now, we know straw-polls are nearly meaningless and can be swayed by those willing to pay to play. But the Mackinaw Island event is filled with stuffy, Mitt Romney type GOPers that wouldn't have touched Ron with a ten-foot-pole.

    This is a good sign, if you care about Rand's chances, that he'll not only be treated fairly by the party insiders, but that he'll actually get the support from the big money interests in the GOP that's not pure war machine.
    "You cannot solve these problems with war." - Ron Paul

  15. #13
    It's symbolic obviously and insignificant in the big picture. But I think this position helps in the primary while not hurting in the general.

  16. #14



Similar Threads

  1. Chief Justice John Roberts Laments Judiciary's Lack of Funding
    By Origanalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-03-2014, 12:16 AM
  2. Chief Justice John Roberts was wrong to uphold Obamacare
    By Brian4Liberty in forum Obamacare
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-03-2012, 03:23 PM
  3. Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius?
    By Reason in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 07-01-2012, 04:46 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-28-2012, 03:06 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-10-2010, 07:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •