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 — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...