easlygary wrote:
1. Why were some Senators given special exemption from Obamacare and the same deal not offered to all.Seems illegle to me?
2. If it is the responsibility of congress to make laws or change laws, how can the executive branch ammend, change, or exempt certain groups from certain aspects of any law?
3. Is not it the responsibility of the judical branch to take action when such actions occur?
Do you think it's all a conspiracy?
I do not understand the details of the workings of government (whether district, county, etc. up to federal). However, I do trust the workings and the processes of challenging misworkings that have been our process of governing since our national constitutional government was set up. The questions you raise have answers, but not necessarily simple ones. Our government processes aren't simple. Suffice it to say in regard to question #2 that a degree of discretion in administrative details (regulations) apparently is standard practice and regarding question #3 if legislative or administrative actions are questionable (illegal), suits can be filed in the judicial system to seek correction.
In regard to question #1, I do not understand the question. How are Senators exempted from the ACA? As I understand the ACA, no one has to buy health insurance nor is anyone excluded from purchase of health insurance. If I choose not to have health insurance I will pay a small "fine" (the Supreme Court termed it a tax). Are Senators exempted from the fine? Are they excluded from claiming "subsidy" of health insurance cost (limited to low income, which takes Senators out of the that picture--ha)? My own health insurance situation is this: retired, family insurance through my last employment (USPS). I have medicare A (hospitalization?) but have not signed up for Medicare B (diagnosis, treatment?) or D (medicine?), which would only duplicate what I'm already paying for nor have I signed up for supplemental health insurance since its cost and the co-pays etc. I pay with my own insurance up to maximum amount would more or less balance out. I've been told I might be paying less for Medicare B and D than the part I pay for my private insurance plan and its co-pays and maximums, but since I worked until age 74 I suspect late enrollment might involve higher medicare B payments--and besides, my private insurance covers my wife--separate medicare payments required for her probably would make medicare more expensive for us in any case. I also pay a considerable monthly fee for "long term care" insurance...not very long term (3 1/2 year covered, more time depending on smaller degrees of "institutionalization" involved--more or less the span of time involved in that sort of end game) and unsure how necessary but, as I understand it, long-term care is different from medicare A hospitalization by definition.
"The devil is in the details." Details of medical treatment and of insurance for potential treatment cost beyond one's personal means certainly are complicated. ha. The ACA attempts to deal with the insurance of medical treatment--perhaps poorly, perhaps too costly or like "green eggs and ham" perhaps quite palatable when actually "tasted." ha. In any case, not much different from insurance as employment benefit except universally available. The details of legislation and the details of administration are complicated and perhaps it's understandable that people see government as literally a devil. ha. However, believe me, our government is not a conspiracy...just mixed up and wrangling over costs (spending and taxes to pay for it) and details and what's needed or not needed. No need to get all worked up and extreme about it, however. Yes, don't throw the baby out with the wash water but also don't drown the baby in the wash tub, so to speak...and don't frighten the baby with so much yelling and screaming, pushing and shoving. ha.
So, is government a conspiracy? ACA socialism? Obama a muslim? a traitor? Come on, people, get real, look to the actual details not name calling.