Skin in the Game: Members of Congress Will Be Covered By “Obamacare”

If this new health insurance system is so great, why aren’t members of Congress enrolling themselves, their staffs and their families in it?

http://willfulignorance.troll.blahblah.icanthearyou.blogspot.com

Good one, jnb. I fell for it!

Does this mean that the congressional health plan as it stands now will be offered on all exchanges so that people who use the exchange can get care as good as what Congress does?

Because the question of whether or not congressional reps use Obamacare is far less important than can regular folks get care that’s as good as what their D.C. employees get?

I heard an in depth discussion on the radio about this provision and I think it is another meaningless distraction, meant to reduce attention from the monumental achievement by the President in passing this bill to law.

No matter what anyone writes or says President Obama has made history and also has shown his ability to lead his party. It is great news for a first time President.

There will be more specious allegations about different things in the bill meant to cast the President and congress in bad light. I hope they can be explained away in a coherent and incisive manner.

While I do not agree with all the aspects of the Health-care bill, I think it has many good provisions in it and with time and patience the American public will begin to see and reap the benefits of this historical and incredible passage of a reform law for a horribly broken system.

LM
http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/criminals-use-technology-to-trackrape-and-kill-innocent-people/

What a novel concept: we are letting facts get in the way of fiction.

Thanks Karen for pointing out the facts. We just need to keep repeating.

This was sausage-making at its finest. Hopefully people will look at the good this has done (a la Medicare, Civil/Voting Rights acts and Social Security) and not look so much at what it took to get it.

Wow. Excellent.

This doesn’t mean too much. Congress will be able to pass an amendment that gives them a different plan (that’s clause (I)) or they would buy from the exchanges.

Just because congress’ plan is created under the act, it doesn’t mean that non-congressional Americans would have access to it. If the law only had the 2nd clause, it would mean a lot more.

I don’t think the question has been answered. The provision cited allows deviation from the intent stated in the requirement.
.
I am interested in the answer on 2 counts. One, my own congressman is making the claim that an exemption to the provision has been signed. Two, I think it important to know the status of HC for the congress members who are deliberating HC for everybody else, just from a logical and fairness standpoint.

It is the law. I have said all that I can about it, it is time to focus on something new.
.
Thanks KT for all the coverage.

chicago beat me to the point made. Great minds…

Perhaps you could get a citation to that exemption from him. I would be interested if it is true or just another distortion.

Seriously. I’m impressed.
.
And then sad that I was impressed. Says a lot about the state of most journalism these days.

Ivy, I will check but won’t hold my breath as he is a right winger and as we know they are not inclined to rely on fact. I just learned of it from a survey he asked me to take. Most of the questions I responded to as “undecided”. The one question I directly answered was a “no” to whether I agreed with his support of state atty generals suing the federal government over the legislation.

Speaking of facts, in another comment stream I saw the statement that the IRS would be auditing for health care. Here is the truth about that.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/26/irs-health/

What does the wicked smart Eric Cantor have to say about this?

I want to be on their death panel.

I promise to be nice.

Truth? You say truth? Try again IvyBTroll.
.
From the very Democrat Talkingpoints Memo, it reads…
.

“IRS is still figuring out the resources it will need “to implement the tax provisions” in the health care legislation.”

.
Of course they are not going to commit to what they will do at this stage of the game. BUT, the FACT remains that the “policing” agency for the new healthcare ObamaCare LAW will be….repeat WILL BE the IRS.
.
Here is a much more reputable source and link.
.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Health-care-reform-means-more-power-for-the-IRS-56781377.html
.

“Health care reform means more power for the IRS”

.
If any taxes are to be collected the only agency that holds the power to do so is the IRS. The Law is repleat with all types of Taxes and Penalties. In order to figure out how much tax or what penalty an individual or business will pay when caught is the JOB of the IRS.
.
Facts are facts. The IRS will audit, tax and penalize you, they may even throw your in jail.

Could you forward this to the editor of the Prescott Daily Courier, Prescott, AZ? He occasionally runs letters that claim the opposite and they don’t believe me when I inform them they are allowing people to lie in their newspaper.

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)

.
Are you going to keep a close eyeball on this Tumulty to make sure your little liberal friends in Congress do not pull a fast one and pass an amendment to EXCLUDE themselves once this issue goes to the back burner?
.
I am sure with your years of side-show chats with the liberals in Washington, you will know about any amendment before anyone else.
.
Or will you just bury it like most others things you do that shed light on the corrupt Democrats in Washington?

Representative Cantor will be available for comments when the shooting stops.

How did he get the media reputation for being smart as a whip exactly? Seems to me that after witnessing what happened to Hillary when she exaggerated her under fire incident, it’s pretty stupid for him to do the sane exact thing. Now it wouldn’t surprise me at all (Ala wrote a B in my face in PA and blamed an Obama supporter) if some bright eyed Republican operative has chosen to break some windows at a VA headquarters to try to distract the media from going after him for it his lies.

People who click on my link will see a video of the IRS Commissioner responding to questions.

Ah, if only we would see this – with the police report and the note that the building isn’t even in his district, nor listed on his web as a campaign office – as often we saw that story about Hillary.

Destor23 wins the Internet today. Thx for the laugh!

”Or will you just bury it like most others things you do that shed light on the corrupt Democrats in Washington?

Ah, rustydarling, are you accusing poor KT of lying again? Or are you accusing poor KT of shilling for SEIU / all unions / liberal Congress members (there are no others) / insurance companies / Greenpeace / Texas / Big Pharma / Monty Python / dead parrots / lemon pound cake manufacturers / haute couture fashion designers / Washington Week / TIME advertisers? Even if someone wanted to sell out, there are only so many causes one can stretch out over. And I don’t think KT shills for anyone, nor does any sane person. Oh wait, what have YOU said? Then again, poor KT is not the only one you’ve harassed lately, such as this morning’s puff pastry…

Oh more one-sided commentary from the far left liberal extremist Journalist from TIME.com. Thank you Jay (I love all things Communist and Socialist) Newton-Small.

Who’s next on your list, Rusty, poor Kate and Amy?

Seriously, Rustyblog, how many more people are you going to have to apologize to, if you keep running around calling center-right edited political reporters the next coming of Mao?
.
Apologize, starting with Tumulty for that ridiculous and offensive accusation of her shilling for the SEIU, before you have make up a new posting name that sounds even more like a brand of maxi-pad than “NewFreedom”:

Menstrual products are the topic of a wide evolution in ads, and yet, accurate media representations of menstruation are still rare (Kissling, 2002). Commercials for sanitary napkins and tampons premiered in the 1970′s but did not show the actual products; only the box appeared on the screen.
.
An ad for New Freedom sanitary napkins aired in 1976 played a catchy jingle which asked “Are you a New Freedom lady, are you a New Freedom girl? it’s what you want to be!” but never stated the proposed use of the product (Adult 70′s TV). These ads claimed comfort and absorbance (though absorbance of what was never mentioned) and happy women danced, hiked, swam, and rode bikes in white pants, the unstated assumption being that the right product could lead to a wonderful, active social life. It is from these commercials that the classic joke emerged:
.
A boy is with his mother in the store and asks if he can buy a box of tampons. When the mother inquires why he would want them, he replies, “Because I want to go swimming and hiking and bike riding like the lady in the commercial does.”

link to “The Portrayal of PMS on Television Sitcoms “

With a wife and daughter, SZ, somehow I feel more immune/less offended now to equating Rusty to a hygiene product. Even stranger, I remember that ad!

before you have make up a new posting name that sounds even more like a brand of maxi-pad than “NewFreedom”:

Classic!

Dee: “How did he get the media reputation for being smart as a whip exactly?” By definition. He’s the Republican Whip.

Thanks for the link, stuart, a good one. TV has had a long history of struggling with real-life issues (except for All in the Family, and daytime soaps had no problem). I Love Lucy’s forced ban on the word “pregnancy” is still a classic. But fear not; fiber products and condoms are the next great frontier. Fiber product mfrs. hawk these quack pills / powders to women heavily without telling them what they do …but they find out soon enough.

Anyone else old enough to remember ” Modess … because”? Okay, it was a magazine ad. I first noticed one when I was ten or so. It made absolutely no sense to me, of course.
.
I’m sure we’ve already kicked around the joke about the iPad. If not, it’s not hard to figure out. There’s a mock commercial out there on the Web, but I’m too rushed to dig it up.

I would bet his next name is a spin off of “Depends” undergarments for scared, old Republicans…….

I forget the specific tampon, but back in the day it was hawked as the only one “with that lovely difference.” Uh, can you be more specific?

Just a reminder, guys: Members of Congress are currently covered under FEHBP, which is very much like … an exchange, as envisioned under the bill. So they may not see much change at all.

KT:
.
Is it true that, under current law, 72% of the price of Congress’ health insurance is subsidized by tax-payer moneys?

Stuartzechman: I was idly working up a comment about the ominous, Orwellian tones of “newfreedom”–what was wrong with the old freedom, I thought you were “conservative,” etc.–but this is so much better. This world really would be unbearable without laughter, even if one is oneself sometimes the butt of it (and who hasn’t been?).

So would that be “exchange that we can believe in”?

stuart: considering that we pay their salaries, you could say that 100% of it is.

That doesn’t answer the question.

FB status worthy.

KT:
.
One could say that “100% of” the price of Congess’ health insurance is subsidized by tax-payer moneys, but that might leave people with the false impression that Congress –or any Federal employee– gets free health care, which they obviously do not:

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
.
Premiums vary from plan to plan and are paid in part by the employer (the U. S. government agency that the employee works for or, for annuitants, OPM) and the remainder by the employee. The employer pays an amount up to 72 percent of the average plan premium for self-only or family coverage (not to exceed 75 percent of the premium for the selected plan), and the employee pays the rest. This dollar amount is recalculated each year as health care costs and plans’ premiums increase.

Also, when you say “Members of Congress are currently covered under FEHBP, which is very much like … an exchange, as envisioned under the bill,” and then look at that blanket, non-means tested 72% employer (the government, in this case) subsidy, that’s also pretty misleading, isn’t it?
.
FEHBP is a health care plan that doesn’t look anything like what most individuals eligible for coverage in an exchange would experience in terms of price, even if the insurance plans available were similar to that offered in such exchanges laid out in HCR statute. And I’m not even going to bring up the vast difference between someone who experiences their premium subsidies paid for every month, and someone whose premium subsidies come in the form of tax credits at the end of the year, KT.
.
I can’t imagine that you really mean to favorably compare what people will probably experience from the exchange in their state (if the exchange setup even goes as planned, state by state) to what Congress experiences, KT.
.
I mean, Congress gets an employer-based system in which their employer pays three quarters of the premium price every month for which ever health care plan the employees themselves choose. That’s an even better deal than almost every employer’s group plan I can think of, KT, even the large companies’. I would love it if I could choose another insurer when my employers’ group provider denies my claims, KT, but I can’t –my employer’s the one making that decision for me, and certainly not based on how well or poorly I’m treated by the insurer.
.
Saying that Congress’ health care coverage is like individuals’ means-tested, tax-credit subsidized coverage in their state’s exchange is very misleading, KT, even if there are similarities in “choosing a plan” that pretty much end at the point that price enters into that choice.
.
Don’t you agree, KT?

binkieandmarcel:
.
The true hilarity of this isn’t even that his handle is a jingle for a 1970′s maxi-pad.
.
The funniest thing is that he says:

more one-sided commentary from the far left liberal extremist Journalist from TIME.com. Thank you Jay (I love all things Communist and Socialist) Newton-Small.

, and believes it.
.
Thanks for reading.

Sounds from Stuart’s explanation that members of congress have one of them there Cadillac plans and will soon be paying taxes on it! Or is that calculated only on the benefits and not on the outrageous amount paid on their behalf?

Big corporations pay varying percentages of the costs. For instance, one major media company whose benefits package I’ve seen pays 65% of the cost of employees earning over $70,000 and 70% of the cost of those earning less than that..
.
Meanwhile (and maybe this is a better comparison), here are the subsidies that other people in the exchanges would get:
.
Provide cost-sharing subsidies to eligible individuals and families. The cost-sharing credits reduce the cost-sharing amounts and annual cost-sharing limits and have the effect of increasing the actuarial value of the basic benefit plan to the following percentages of the full value of the plan for the specified income level:

250-400% FPL: 70%

.
This is from the Kaiser Family Foundation side by sides:
.
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

I want to be on the panel too and I promise not to be nice.

Thanks very much for that information KT. Since my entire working life was spent in the non-profit world, the payments you point out in the beginning are out of my experience.

The string is actually dental floss for the vampire’s among us.

Thanks so much for responding to commentary with this helpful information, KT.
.
(that “one major media company” is generous, indeed)
.
I read the Senate bill, and those didn’t seem like the numbers in question at all, because the bill only guaranteed that an 8% (+, I think) income share would be the maximum paid by those families. The “gold,” “silver” and “bronze” plans with their differing co-pays and deductible schemes must be factored, as well, which I don’t see here.
.
I think that this language “have the effect of increasing the actuarial value of the basic benefit plan” needs parsing, badly.
.
I’ll need to go back and fact-check this against the language of the bill, KT. I’ll be back.
.
Thanks once again for a substantial conversation about factual matters relating to this health care reform statute!

SZ: I’m a federal employee and they do pay about 2/3′s of our premium.

SZ: They added to the subsidies in reconciliation. But as I was reporting this week’s story, several members of Congress told me that was one of the things they will be monitoring most closely. They will have to do it, or this whole thing won’t be viable politically. As Andy Stern put it: “The worst thing would be to end up mandating coverage people can’t afford.”

KT:
.
They added to the subsidies in reconciliation.
.
Thanks for the update, that’s key, now I’m looking at “H.R.3590 – Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” instead of the original Senate bill.
.
Saying “they will have to do it” is a bit like saying “they will have to deal with Medicare soon,” isn’t it?
.
LOL
.
Again thanks so very much for this information, great stuff.
.
This is what we should be talking about.

KT:
.
Just an immediate thing that jumps out at me –why I think that language is badly in need of parsing– is that Kaiser talks about “cost-sharing subsidies” and “cost-sharing credits” and “annual cost-sharing limits”, etc. and those aren’t the same things as premiums at all.
.
While in the FEHBP “The employer pays an amount up to 72 percent of the average plan premium“, that’s the premium, not the cost of the plan.
.
What I mean by that can be illustrated best by reproducing the definition of “cost-sharing”:

Definition: Cost sharing refers to any payment required by the patient toward his or her health care costs. It is referred to as cost sharing because the insurer is not paying 100% of the cost of care, but rather “sharing” the cost with the insured.

So what that Kaiser blurb means is that subsidies go toward “cost-sharing”, which can mean co-pays, deductibles, “coinsurance” and any other designated out-of-pocket patient expense.
.
I’m having a little bit of a tough time at the moment getting to the specific annual deductible limitations of the exchange plans, but I can find this under SEC. 1302. ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS REQUIREMENTS:

(A) IN GENERAL- In the case of a health plan offered in the small group market, the deductible under the plan shall not exceed–
.
(i) $2,000 in the case of a plan covering a single individual; and
.
(ii) $4,000 in the case of any other plan.

So if we assume that the deductible of a family exchange plan is close to $4000, as it probably is, then the family will be subsidized for 70% of $4000 (assuming Kaiser isn’t averaging, or something) , which would be an annual deductible of $1200
.
So it looks as if, by not breaking out premiums from the whole “cost-sharing” pain (like deductibles), that 70% figure is a little misleading.
.
Now a fair comparison would be if a comparable benefits FEHBP plan had a $1200 deductible, and then we compared premiums, and saw if a family in the exchange’s second-lowest “silver” plan paid a premium that was 72% subsidized, like FEHBP.
.
I don’t think that’s what we would find, but I don’t know that for sure.
.
Remember, 70% of “cost-sharing” isn’t the same as 72% of premiums at all, KT, and shouldn’t be misunderstood to be so when comparing prices.
.
Wow, I feel like Marcy Wheeler must feel, KT!
.
OK, back to work fact-checking that figure…

Also,

Rank-and-File Members:
The current salary (2010) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.

So Congresspeople wouldn’t be eligible at all for subsidies in H.R.3590′s exchanges.
.
With FEHBP, they’d get 72% of their premiums paid, while a non-government employee family would be paying the full price of all costs –premiums, coinsurance, co-pays, out-of-pockets, etc– with no help at all.
.
(BTW, in New York City, where LB and I live, $174,000 just isn’t that large amount of money. It’s not rich, by any means. Teachers start at between $40k and $60k for example.)

Ummm…KT?
.
This looks bad.
.
The reason why I couldn’t easily find deductible/cost-sharing limits in HR 3590 is because they were in here, right above the small-group market limits:

(1) ANNUAL LIMITATION ON COST-SHARING-
.
(A) 2014- The cost-sharing incurred under a health plan with respect to self-only coverage or coverage other than self-only coverage for a plan year beginning in 2014 shall not exceed the dollar amounts in effect under section 223(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for self-only and family coverage, respectively, for taxable years beginning in 2014.

So of course I went to the IRS code Sec 223 to look that up (link to IRS Code
):

(2) High deductible health plan
.
(A) In general
The term “high deductible health plan” means a health plan—
.
(i) which has an annual deductible which is not less than—
.
————–(I) $1,000 for self-only coverage, and
.
————–(II) twice the dollar amount in subclause(I) for family coverage, and
.
(ii) the sum of the annual deductible and the other annual out-of-pocket expenses required to be paid under the plan (other than for premiums) for covered benefits does not exceed—
.
————(I) $5,000 for self-only coverage, and
————(II) twice the dollar amount in subclause (I) for family coverage.

Got that?
.
“Not less than” (2x$1000) $2,000 and “does not exceed” (2X$5,000) $10,000
.
Remember when I said that the deductibles might be close to $4000, like the small group plans?
.
I was right, if by “close to” we mean from $2,000 to $10,000 deductibles.
.
So the language under SEC. 1402. REDUCED COST-SHARING FOR INDIVIDUALS ENROLLING IN QUALIFIED HEALTH PLANS.

(c) Determination of Reduction in Cost-sharing-
.
(1) REDUCTION IN OUT-OF-POCKET LIMIT-
.
(A) IN GENERAL- The reduction in cost-sharing under this subsection shall first be achieved by reducing the applicable out-of pocket limit under section 1302(c)(1) in the case of–
.
(iii) an eligible insured whose household income is more than 300 percent but not more than 400 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved, by one-third.

So when Kaiser says 70% subsidizing of “cost-sharing,” they mean 70% of an annual deductible of between $2,000 and $10,000, which means a family is left with the possibility of a $3,000 a year deductible.
.
If the insurer charges the maximum allowable , then a family gets one-third off that $3,000 a year deductible, which brings it down to $2,000 a year.
.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that, somehow, the insurer doesn’t charge the maximum allowable, that they charge, oh, I don’t know $7,000 a year. I don’t know why they would do that, but let’s just say that they’re being generous that year.
.
That’s a $2,100 a year deductible, brought down by one-third in SEC 1402, so that’s an annual $1,400 deductible.
.
And families will pay to see their doctor, gynecologist and specialist (at least once if they’re in their 40′s or 50′s) out of this?
.
This looks bad.
.
The semantic trick is in the use of “cost-sharing” instead of “premiums,” “deductibles” and “co-pays or co-insurance” all broken out up front.
.
Even for a family at 300% FDL, that’s bad, KT.
.
Sure, it gets better the poorer a family is, but if you’re a solidly middle-class family outside of the rural South…?

Sorry, I just realized that I left 300% Federal Poverty Level (FPL) undefined.
.
Link to the 2008 FPL guidelines from Ohio Free Clinics
.
Here’s 300% FPL for a family of four in 2008: $63,600.
.
An annual deductible of $1,400 on top of premiums and co-pays and coinsurance for a family of four making $63,600 gross is bad.
.
It’s bad unless the idea is for people in that income bracket to give up their plumbing or boiler repair contracting careers, and seek jobs at large firms with group coverage –or the idea is for them to just not use health care unless it’s absolutely, positively necessary.

Thank you KT and thank you Stuart for informative posts today.

Apologize, starting with Tumulty for that ridiculous and offensive accusation of her shilling for the SEIU, before you have make up a new posting name that sounds even more like a brand of maxi-pad than “NewFreedom”:

.
First of all Mr Zilchman, apologize for what? I did not, nor accuse Tumulty of anything you alledge. You and the rest of your far left liberal extremists seem to have some delusion I am someone called “Rustyblog”. Are you trying to seem as wacked out as lawyermommy? Are you seeing people that do not exist? You truly should take your own advice and seek professional help.
.
2nd Fact, even if I was your so-called “Rustyblog”, then explain why Tumulty says this….

As Andy Stern put it: “The worst thing would be to end up mandating coverage people can’t afford.” from comment 16.10 Karen Tumulty
March 26, 2010
at 4:39 pm

.
For someone who wants to deny “shilling for SEIU”, I would say they have a very close relationship with the Socialist / Communist Andy Stern, President of SEIU. Especially when they can quote the man no less.
.
But, have fun with your “maxi-pads” and jokes. It is simply water down my back. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sheesh. Just had to post the TNR piece on FB. I just get so sick and tired of people who just think if it’s on an FB poll, it must be true. *sigh*

By the way, I’m still not seeing that presumed 70% subsidy of cost-sharing I referenced here:

So when Kaiser says 70% subsidizing of “cost-sharing,” they mean 70% of an annual deductible of between $2,000 and $10,000, which means a family is left with the possibility of a $3,000 a year deductible.

In fact, I think that I’ve misread that quote of yours, KT:

Provide cost-sharing subsidies to eligible individuals and families. The cost-sharing credits reduce the cost-sharing amounts and annual cost-sharing limits and have the effect of increasing the actuarial value of the basic benefit plan to the following percentages of the full value of the plan for the specified income level:
.
100-150% FPL: 94%
.
150-200% FPL: 85%
.
200-250% FPL: 73%
.
250-400% FPL: 70%

Those percentage numbers aren’t subsidy percentages at all, they’re percent of actuarial values.
.
Actuarial values are what the insurers in the exchange would expect to pay in claims.
.
They’re saying that the effect of subsidies will be to effectively increase pay-outs…
.
That 70% figure I threw in there in my earlier calculation is bogus, KT. It doesn’t exist. I just assumed it applied, but it’s from that Kaiser quote, and it applies to actuarial values, not subsidies at all. It’s bogus.
.
Those 94%, 85%, 73%, and 70% figures could never be compared to FEHBP’s 72% premium subsidies, because they have nothing to do with costs to people, only the value of policies against what’s charged.
.
Were you aware of that, KT, when you threw those numbers at me?
.
They’re defining plans in the exchange to have high deductibles of $2,000 to $10,000, and then reducing the deductible by one-third if the family makes $63k.
.
That means a deductible of between $1,400 and $7,000 a year, KT. I’ll try to go find some subsidies for those above the reduction in that section, I guess. I’m not sure they’re going to be there.
.
This looks bad. I hope that you’ve reviewed what those percentages actually mean.

rustyblogwhore, you’ve always been a delusional moron but this takes your idiocy to new heights:

You and the rest of your far left liberal extremists seem to have some delusion I am someone called “Rustyblog”

even if I was your so-called “Rustyblog”

Yeah, it was our delusion that you outed yourself when you were so busy ranting that you forgot which account you were using when commenting on a thread. Not to mention that you and your alter-ego are both so dumb as to consistently misspell the word definitely as “definately.”
..
Face facts, you are, were and will always be a pathetic and delusional douche bag rustyblogwhore. You can’t even be honest about your pathetic multiple accounts. Maybe you’d like to post that truth on your sad little blog!

First of all following the links did not lead one to the law and the way it is written.. it leads one to another translated script.. I will beleive it when I see it printed in the bill.. I still have a headache from reading the House Bill.. IF it is really in there that will be but 1 point for those that passed this bill there are still MANY things objectionable in it…. one can only wonder what bag of tricks awaits our fate.. they had to pass it to let us know what was in it.. kinda like a second hand car without test driving it or knowing what kind it is.. GOD HELP US..

Sorry, rusty aka rustyreturns / newfreedomblog / rustyblog / newfreedombra / rustyblogwhore / rustystillrefusestoapologizetokaren / rustyhateswomenjournalists, but Occam’s razor applies here. Unless IP addresses prove otherwise, you are rusty and we know it. Even if you used two adjacent terminals at the public library, we can safely bet if KT asks the swamp’s IT wizards at Hogwarts to check IP’s they’ll find patterns. And you DID out yourself, so if you really aren’t the same, why did you confess? No, the simplest explanation is the best. Remember that when you put something on the net it stays forever, rusty. Just tryin’ to help.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/02/11/morning-must-reads-3/
(the 19.x series is your “confession” but you had both profiles in the same thread, remember that, rusty? We do.)

The very fact that people have time to read this law, or any version of it proves that you all have too much time on your hands.

No, it proves that we take our democratic responsibilities as American citizens seriously.
.
There’s also that “fealty to the objective truth” thing that reality-based people care about.

Not sure if you were talking to me, but here’s the current law:
.
link to the full text of HR 3590

Too bad you could probably fit all of us in your average free health fair.
.
Thanks for spending the time and trouble to research and report on what this legislation really means for average citizens, Stuart. You too, Karen.

It’s nice to be appreciated, shepherdwong, thanks.

No incitement here. “I know nothing.’