Skip to main content

Delaware's Democratic Senators have their own health insurance subsidized

You gotta love it.

US Senators Tom Carper and Chris Coons make a base salary of $174,000/year before all the perks of office are considered.  Perks include the ability to wrack up another $26,100 in speaking fees per year and a Personal Allowance Component to the Members Representative Allowance that provides for them to use $944,000 (at our expense) to pay for up the nine staffers, who may themselves individually make up to $168,000/year.  Hillary Clinton often says it takes a village to raise a child; when you elected Carper and Coons you also paid for a village to cater to their every need.

But you knew that, right?

What you didn't know is that Tom Carper and Chris Coons now purchase their insurance through the DC ACA marketplace (which, apparently, is functional only because it would not do to have the marketplace serving the US Congress not work), and that you are subsidizing 75% of their premiums.

That's right--among the people who need and receive a government subsidy for health insurance premiums under Obamacare are the poor, the struggling middle class, and United States Senators.

And their staff members.

That's what today's Democratic Party stands for:  taking care of the insurance needs of career politicians who make far more money than most of us will ever see, so that they can vote to reduce the Cost of Living Allowances for veterans, end unemployment insurance benefits, and support the killing of people going to weddings in Yemen.

Here's a thought:  how about a rule that says until at least 50% of the target population in your own state has managed to achieve health insurance via the marketplace, your application remains inactive, and you--Tom and Chris--get to pay your own damn medical bills.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...