Questions Congress should ask Sibelius.

[SteamKing]

People and corporations avoid taxes every day. That's why tax attorneys and tax accountants were invented (and profiting quite handsomely from helping people and corporations avoid taxes).

http://bgr.com/2013/10/29/google-facebook-linkedin-tax-dodging/

People don't take trips to the Caribbean just to lay on the beach, nor do they go to Ireland just to pick up a superior piece of lace.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know if the administration sold it in that fashion, but the next day they denied that the penalty was a tax.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/white-house-roberts-obamacare-mandate-penalty-tax/story?id=16679772

The dateline of the story is June 29, 2012, and the date of the USSC decision was June 28, 2012 according to your link.

New taxes are unpopular, so they sold it to the public as a penalty.

 

[Vic Sandler]

New taxes are unpopular, so they sold it to the public as a penalty.

I don't disagree on either of these two points. In fact, my link supports your second point. However, you claimed that the administration sold it as a tax to the USSC. I can't find any link supporting that view. Can you help me out?

 

[SteamKing]

You can call any checks you send to the IRS every spring as 'birthday presents for Uncle Sam', but they're still taxes.

The old joke used to be that government wouldn't rest until it figured out a way to tax the air you breathe. They've come close: now you have to pay a tax for merely breathing.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't disagree on either of these two points. In fact, my link supports your second point. However, you claimed that the administration sold it as a tax to the USSC. I can't find any link supporting that view. Can you help me out?

If you're suggesting that the USSC ruled on that explanation without the government arguing it, I'm not sure, but it isn't a hair I'm that concerned about splitting. Maybe I'll look it up later if I get a chance.

Edit: Yes, indeed: the Obama admin argued to the court that penalty=tax.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PDFs/11-117%20BIO.pdf

 

[Locrian]

However, you claimed that the administration sold it as a tax to the USSC. I can't find any link supporting that view. Can you help me out?

I think I can.

How about this discussion of the Verrilli's arguments?

Mr. Verrilli believed that his argument that the penalty for not obtaining health insurance was a tax and not a forced purchase, even though it was a secondary point in his defense, could be the lure to bring along Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and perhaps Chief Justice Roberts as the narrowest way that the conservative justices could uphold the law.

I think he was proven right.

This article may give some background as well.

“This case presents issues of great moment, and the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the court’s consideration of those issues,” Verrilli said.

Verrilli had to be careful, though. While he insisted that the penalty is not a tax for Anti-Injunction Act purposes, he is expected to argue as the case proceeds that Congress is within its authority to pass the health-care law in part because of its ability to tax.

“Today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “Tomorrow you will be back and arguing that the penalty is a tax.”

And he sure did. You might technically say that he both argued that it wasn't a tax, and that it was.

 

[Vic Sandler]

Today is the 30th unfortunate day for the website. It is currently down due to problems at the data hub.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/29/news/economy/obamacare-site-outage/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
You can still call the 1-800 number though, so either you can call the number without purpose, or the data hub isn't completely down. Also, it seems that the website went live even though the security tests had not been completed.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/politics/obamacare-website-warning-memo/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Sibelius claims that Obama is responsible but only after a considerable amount of blaming the questioner. Similar to what just happened on this thread I might add.

He is the President. He is responsible for government programs.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/30/frustrated-sebelius-to-questioner-whatever/?hpt=hp_t1

There has been one significant improvement to the website. Now I can browse marketplace insurance plans without logging in. However, the information I get is useless. There is no provision to enter the number of children or any ages, so the quoted price is just generic and not necessarily applicable to my situation. Also, while the co-pay is given, the deductible is not, so you can't really say what is being offered at the generic price. Thus you cannot compare plans. I hope that when the site is finally working and I can log in and find out what my subsidy is, I will get a different view of the marketplace than the one I am getting now. I.e. there are two views of the marketplace.

 

[Locrian]

There is no provision to enter the number of children or any ages, so the quoted price is just generic and not necessarily applicable to my situation. Also, while the co-pay is given, the deductible is not, so you can't really say what is being offered at the generic price. Thus you cannot compare plans.

I assume you are talking about the "See Plans And Prices In Your Area Now" button, and I agree its functionality is really lacking. Why they didn't allow you to choose exact ages is beyond me.

For anyone who isn't familiar with individual plan pricing, the rate is the multiple of five numbers: A base rate particular to a carrier & state, an area factor, a plan factor, an age factor and tobacco factor. While these are relativities and can be normalized lots of ways, typically the base rate is a dollar figure and the factors are on the order of one (but obviously not equal to one).

The "See Plan Prices Now" button assumes no tobacco and gathers all other information - loading the age table would have required a few extra bytes of memory. Why not take that final step? Currently if you choose "just for me" it let's you choose between two different age groups. The lower just gives you the rate for a 27 year old, the higher for a 50 year old. I'm not sure what ages it's assuming for the families (I could look it up but don't feel like it).

Now insurance carriers are being bombarded with individuals who used the "See Prices Now", got one rate, logged in for real, got another rate, and then called customer service. What a goofy design choice. I hope they get rid of that button.

Not only do you not have member cost sharing*, but you don't have network size, either. As I pointed out earlier, some plans are cheaper because they cut out a large swath of providers. A user should be able to make some reasonable comparisons just by using metal levels, but the additional details will be required to make a final decision.

*Vic Sandler, you mention you do see copays, but I don't see them. Where did you find them?

 

[BobG]

You might technically say that he both argued that it wasn't a tax, and that it was.

Nothing wrong with that.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."

 

[D H]

Today is the 30th unfortunate day for the website. It is currently down due to problems at the data hub.

This is getting very old, Vic. We all know that it the rollout was a debacle. It's going to be another month, minimum, before the website is *close* to fully functional.

Sibelius claims that Obama is responsible but only after a considerable amount of blaming the questioner.

No, she didn't. She said "whatever".

That is the perfect response to a "when did you stop beating your children" type of question. I watched some of that witch hunt. Harper's questioning was amongst the worst. The Republicans are doing themselves no favor here. I, for one, used to be a fairly solid Republican voter. Not any more. I'm a solid anti-Republican voter now.

Here's the sad thing. This rollout was a debacle, without doubt. The timing of the release was 100% politically motivated; that the product wasn't ready technologically was completely irrelevant.

Nobody is looking to the root causes. The Republicans in that hearing were looking for a scapegoat, preferably one whose last name is Obama. On the flip side, Democrats were making excuses after excuses. It was not a pretty sight.

 

[Vic Sandler]

Vic Sandler, you mention you do see copays, but I don't see them. Where did you find them?

1. From the main page click on 'See Plans Now"
2. Select "I'm looking for coverage for myself or my family", and click on Next.
3. Select "Health", and click on Next.
4. Select a state and county and click on Next
5. Select "You, your spouse, and your children" and click on Next.
6. Click on Next.
7. Click on Next.
At the top of the page it says:

Plans are put into 5 categories
These 5 categories (catastrophic, bronze, silver, gold, and platinum) are based on how you and the plan expect to share the costs for health care.

The category you choose affects how much your premium costs each month and what portion of the bill you pay for things like hospital visits or prescription drugs.

It also affects your total out-of-pocket costs - the total amount you'll spend for the year if you need lots of care.

Then it has the following chart.
CATASTROPHIC less than 60%of the total average costs of care
BRONZE 60% of the total average costs of care
SILVER 70% of the total average costs of care
GOLD 80% of the total average costs of care
PLATINUM 90% of the total average costs of care

I am not eligible for Catastrophic insurance. The thing about total out-of-pocket costs slipped my attention.

Edit: What follows is misleading. Read Locrian's post #83 below for clarification.

According to the 2500 page law, there is a cap of $6,350 per individual and $12,700 per family regardless of which metal you choose. However, according to the 12,000 page regulations, this cap will not apply until 2015. Therefore, you need to know the cap of the plan before you can evaluate its value.

In my opinion, the lack of a cap means that the insurance is by no means affordable no matter how you slice it. You can buy this insurance and still have your life savings wiped out. From now on I intend to call it the UCA.

 

[Vic Sandler]

During the recent government shutdown, there were daily reports of polls that were taken to find out if people blamed Democrats or Republicans more. Why are there no polls now to find out who people blame for the website problems?

 

[Locrian]

In my opinion, the lack of a cap means that the insurance is by no means affordable no matter how you slice it. You can buy this insurance and still have your life savings wiped out. From now on I intend to call it the UCA.

This is very misleading. The out of pocket limits are hard maximums* and are equal to or less than the values Vic Sandler noted in their post. The 1 year delay mentioned only impacts coverages where portions are carved out between separate companies. This should not occur in exchange plans.

Now if you're in a self-insured group plan with carved out drugs - which is not uncommon - then you should review your coverage. In this case it is true that you could face out of pocket costs of up to twice the ACA limit (once per carrier). However, it is very unlikely this impacts you unless your employer has made some significant and very negative changes to your plan recently (or plans to next year). If they chose to do that, it would not be related to, or required by, the ACA.

In other words, the only way you could be facting OOP costs higher than those required by the ACA is if you had multiple carriers and would have been facing those same maximums (or higher) anyways, regardless of the ACA.

*Edit: They're hard maximums for in-network services. This should go without saying. . . but I said it anyways.

 

[Locrian]

Will Insurer's be the next Obamacare dropouts?

Insurers may still be able to withdraw from the federally run exchange through this Thursday.

And why would one want to?

Lurking behind all this is another issue raised last week—the impact of sequestration on Obamacare, and on insurance companies in particular. The Congressional Research Service believes that insurance companies will personally end up footing the bill for the sequester’s cuts to Obamacare cost-sharing subsidies. Those cuts will total $286 million in the first nine months of 2014 alone.

And, as may have been mentioned, there's a potential adverse selection impact related to the problems with the exchange.

 

[Vic Sandler]

This is very misleading.

Thank you for this clarification. So if I ever successfully buy insurance through the exchange, it will have the $6,350 individual and $12,700 family out of pocket caps and therefore is not a consideration when comparing them to each other?

 

[Vic Sandler]

And, as may have been mentioned, there's a potential adverse selection impact related to the problems with the exchange.

This adverse selection business has me perplexed. It has been said that if the young and healthy opt for the cheap penalty instead of the expensive insurance while the old and sickly buy the insurance, it will sink the entire system. But how about individual companies? Is there a plan in place in case the young choose company A and the old choose company B?

 

[SteamKing]

That's a good question. In a normal market, company A would become very profitable while company B would probably wind up losing money. If this situation continued for some time, company B would probably have to exit the health care insurance business unless it was able to alter its mix of policyholders. If company B raises its rates to raise more revenue, it runs the risk not only of shedding its older customers, but it would also not be as attractive for the younger customers either.

There is no guarantee that the companies writing policies today will be the same ones doing so next year or in the future. Different states have different companies offering coverage. California has a lot of companies competing for business because of its large population. Smaller states with fewer people have much less choice.

One aspect of the health insurance market which the ACA does not address is that health insurance does not move across state lines. If you buy a policy when you are living in California and you move to North Dakota, you get to start over in obtaining coverage from one of the companies writing insurance there.

 

[Vic Sandler]

Today is the 32nd unfortunate day. It is also the 8th day I have been trying the same thing and expecting a different result.

 

[SteamKing]

Congratulations! You have met Einstein's definition of insanity.

Not to worry, though. Now the IT dudes from Oracle and Google who brought you a second Obama term have been turned loose on healthcare.gov:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-10-31/google-oracle-engineers-enlisted-for-obamacare-tech-surge

The answer is probably aboard these mysterious barges which keep turning up:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...barge-to-offer-high-end-showrooms-party-deck/

Nothing says luxury like a deck barge with a bunch of shipping containers on them! California, what a silly place.

 

[Vic Sandler]

Not to worry, though. Now the IT dudes from Oracle and Google who brought you a second Obama term have been turned loose on healthcare.gov

No need for the IT dudes, it will take at least a month just to get them up to speed anyway. Can they lend us their president instead.

 

[Borg]

The first day's numbers are in - 6. Yes, only six people managed to make it through on the first day.

 

[Vic Sandler]

This is the 28th unfortunate day for the ACA website. The site was down all day yesterday and a good part of today, but it is up now. I still can't log in. I called the 1-800 number and they told me they can't access my information even though it was input using the 1-800 number, not the website. That is, the problems with the website are not the only problems with the program as a whole. This time I got to speak to a supervisor, but it didn't do me any good. However, I was told that my case was being upgraded and that I would be receiving a call within 48 hours from a problem solving team that presumably has more effective tools at its disposal. I was also told that the 48 hour promise was not to be taken seriously and I shouldn't get upset if it were to take until Friday before they contact me.

I posted that on Monday. Then they said I should call back to the 1-800 number if the Advanced Resolution Center didn't contact me by 9:00 pm Friday. Since they did not call me, I called the 1-800 number. Three times. The first two times my call was dropped after I said I didn't want to take the survey after the call. The third time I called I said I would take the survey and I was connected to a representative. When I was finished speaking to the representative, I hung up and did not actually take the survey. The gist of the conversation was that when they told me I would be contacted by Friday, they misspoke. They were supposed to say that it would take from 2 to 5 days. In other words, if the Center doesn't call me by 9:00 pm tomorrow, I should call the 1-800 number. The representative I spoke to also claimed that he cleared my password and I should retry the link in the e-mail they sent me. I did so, but got the same error message as before.

 

[Vic Sandler]

This is getting very old, Vic.

You're preaching to the choir with that one brother. As I said before, I am providing an accurate account of my adventures with the website. I am not struggling with the vast complexities of a website tasked with dealing with the vast complexities of the ACA. I am just trying to get a user name and password that works. As far as I'm concerned I am doing a favor for those who are interested in it. It stands to reason that if you are not interested in it, you shouldn't be reading it.

No, she didn't. She said "whatever".

I know that's what the headlines said, but the actual quote is:
"You clearly, uh," (then a small pause, followed by), "whatever."
The Secretary put both her hands in the air, briefly, then resumed.
"He is the President. He is responsible for government programs," she concluded.

That is the perfect response to a "when did you stop beating your children" type of question.

Actually, the question was whether Obama was ultimately responsible for the rollout. Sebelius was asked several times before she gave the correct answer. "When did you stop beating your children?" doesn't have a correct answer.

Watch the video in this link. There's more to it than just 'whatever'.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/30/frustrated-sebelius-to-questioner-whatever/

 

[edward]

you're preaching to the choir with that one brother.


I know that's what the headlines said, but the actual quote is:
"you clearly, uh," (then a small pause, followed by), "whatever."
the secretary put both her hands in the air, briefly, then resumed.
"he is the president. He is responsible for government programs," she concluded.


Actually, the question was whether obama was ultimately responsible for the rollout. Sebelius was asked several times before she gave the correct answer. "when did you stop beating your children?" doesn't have a correct answer.

Watch the video in this link. There's more to it than just 'whatever'.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/30/frustrated-sebelius-to-questioner-whatever/

"Whatever."

 

[SteamKing]

I hate to pile onto poor Vic's troubles, but assuming one does enroll in a plan, the pain is not necessarily over.

Depending on a number of factors, the rates you are quoted for coverage for 2014 may not be the rates you'll have to pay for 2015 and beyond. Like most everything, these rates will be subject to change in the future, once more information comes available. If you can only barely afford coverage in 2014, it might be entirely out of reach in 2015.

Another thing to consider is that hospitals have not been merely sitting on the sidelines during this process. They have some pretty smart numbers guys, too, and when they examine the features of the various metal plans, with the high deductibles and the caps on payouts, the hospitals figure they will be at risk for making up the difference in what the health plan pays for and what services the patient consumes. As a result, some hospitals may refuse to honor insurance policies purchased on the exchanges.

http://health.usnews.com/health-new...2013/10/30/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare

 

[Vic Sandler]

It is difficult for me to ask the following question without seeming to be spreading false information. Please do not read this as a description of a real situation, but rather as a question. Am I correct in the following, or am I wrong?

Consider a person is so poor that they can neither afford any kind of health insurance nor can they pay for medical services on their own. Yet they make more than the maximum to qualify for medicaid. Currently, when they get sick, they have no recourse except to go to an emergency room, because while doctors can turn them away, hospitals cannot. The money to pay for these people comes from higher prices charged to hospital patients who have insurance or who are able to pay for services themselves.

Under the ACA, these poor people would likely get a subsidy large enough so that they could get a bronze or perhaps even a silver plan for no premium cost whatever. Now, they still can't afford to see a doctor since, there is a deductible and they can no more afford it under the ACA than they currently can. They still go to the emergency room and get free services up to the deductible and then the insurance company starts paying up to the cap, and then the insurance company pays for the rest. Thus less is added onto the bills of the paying customers.

For the poor, there seems to be no difference under the ACA than the current state of affairs unless there is within the ACA some provision to pay for doctor visits which tend to be cheaper than emergency room visits. Nor does there seem to be any difference for those who have insurance since they will continue to pay through insurance premiums that are higher than they would otherwise be, just as they do now. Of course, those premiums are subsidized for many people and that is a difference under the ACA. However, you cannot say with assurance that they won't pay for the subsidy directly through increased taxes, or indirectly through other means.

Please remember that although these are stated as facts, they are really questions.

 

[SteamKing]

The situation you describe also works for individuals and couples who are not poor. Under the ACA, the subsidies have an income cap, where if you make just $1 over the max. allowed income, POOF!, there goes the entire subsidy and you are on the hook for all of the premiums. There's no sliding scale to soften the blow, just $1 over the limit and the subsidy disappears. That's why the article in sfgate.com was so startling: it advocated that if an individual or couple thought their income for the upcoming year would put them over the limit for receiving a subsidy, they should cut back on their hours or find a way to make LESS money during the year. Talk about perverse incentives.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/netw...-can-net-huge-health-care-subsidy-4891087.php

So, in the years ahead, expect to see less economic mobility as people decide not to look for a better job or upgrade their skills or education because they might make too much income to get a subsidy to buy health coverage where there are large deductibles and copays and which might not even be accepted by many hospitals or doctors.

And remember, the unsubsidized premiums and out-of-pocket outlays all come out of after tax income, so people will be required to budget differently than in the past. This means less money to spend on entertainment, fixing up the house or buying a new car is put off, maybe the kids don't get to go to college after HS (and maybe not at all), and vacations become few and far between. The ripples in the economic pool really haven't started yet, but it doesn't look like there will be any strong recoveries anytime soon, and any dip back into recession will take longer to climb out of.

 

[Vic Sandler]

The situation you describe also works for individuals and couples who are not poor.

As in my previous post, the following is my understanding. Treat it as a question, not a fact.

Currently, if you are not poor and you have no insurance and you need medical attention, you may not be responsible for the entire bill. However, they will wipe out all of your savings before they start to charge your costs to others. Health insurance is not to protect your health, it's to protect your wealth.

I don't see how this has anything to do with my previous post, since I was talking about people who have no wealth to protect.

 

[Locrian]

This adverse selection business has me perplexed. It has been said that if the young and healthy opt for the cheap penalty instead of the expensive insurance while the old and sickly buy the insurance, it will sink the entire system. But how about individual companies? Is there a plan in place in case the young choose company A and the old choose company B?

That's a good question. In a normal market, company A would become very profitable while company B would probably wind up losing money. If this situation continued for some time, company B would probably have to exit the health care insurance business unless it was able to alter its mix of policyholders. If company B raises its rates to raise more revenue, it runs the risk not only of shedding its older customers, but it would also not be as attractive for the younger customers either.

I don't think these are inaccurate descriptions of the dangers of selection, but when comparing company outlooks in the 2014 individual market there are some additional considerations.

Risk Adjustment, firstly. Under the ACA, members on individual policies have risk scores assigned to them based on demographic characteristics and claims patterns. The average risk scores for a plan are tallied and compared between companies. Companies with higher risk scores will receive payments from companies with lower risk scores. Thus having sicker members results in both higher claims and higher revenues. Whether the revenues offset the claims is something we'll find out in late 2015.

Additionally, there are two more R's to consider: Reinsurance and risk corridors. Between these three systems, individual companies can still be very much at risk, but they are much less so than they would be without them.

The reason why the system needs young, healthy members is to lower overall premiums. HHS defined an age-curve that results in the young subsidizing the old. The young will be overpaying, and the older underpaying. The three R's will help protect a single company from disaster, but it doesn't help keep rates down for the entire risk pool.

Ultimately, if you design a system that results in cross-subsidization, you had better make sure the people you're taking money from can't opt-out, or you won't have anything to give the people you're trying to give money to.

 

[Locrian]

Depending on a number of factors, the rates you are quoted for coverage for 2014 may not be the rates you'll have to pay for 2015 and beyond. Like most everything, these rates will be subject to change in the future, once more information comes available. If you can only barely afford coverage in 2014, it might be entirely out of reach in 2015.

Very true. However, keep in mind that the size of the subsidy is based on the second highest Silver metal tier plan. So as premiums go up, so will the subsidy.

Well, for those that can get it.

As a result, some hospitals may refuse to honor insurance policies purchased on the exchanges.

http://health.usnews.com/health-new...2013/10/30/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare

I think we should keep in mind this is coming from both sides, though.

For the most part, you should - both historically and in 2014 - be using in-network providers. This means that the insurance company and provider have signed a contract detailing what payment rates are and how they will be paid. Network building and monitoring is an important service that managed care organizations and insurance companies provide.

What has happened is that insurance companies and MCO's are looking for any way to reduce cost, and some companies have introduced plans that don't include the most expensive providers. You can blame the providers for "opting-out", or you can blame the insurance company for being unwilling to pay the rates the provider demands. It is also true that some providers are refusing to provide out-of-network services, but I think this is a smaller issue than the introduction of thin-network plans.

Note that the extent of this varies by state. In my state and at least one next to it, there are thin-network plans that cut out huge swaths of world-class providers. But there are also more expensive plans that include pretty much everything available.

IMHO the problem here isn't the existence of these plans - personally, I'd love to cut out the most outrageous costing providers from my policy to lower premiums. The problem, though, is that I don't think people buying these thin-network plans will realize they've done so until it's pretty late in the game.

Expect a lot of noise about this in 2014.

 

[Locrian]

Now, they still can't afford to see a doctor since, there is a deductible and they can no more afford it under the ACA than they currently can.

If your income is low enough, there are reduced cost-sharing plans available.

However, I do share some of your worries, just with more cynicism. There are ways for the poor to reduce their cost sharing, but what about everyone else? I'm surrounded by people living in $300k houses with $60k in vehicles in their driveway that don't have $3k in savings - or at least claim that $3k in deductible expenses would be unbearable.

Insurance is a financial tool. Most US citizens are have little or no understanding of personal finance. The first can only work if we fix the second.

 

[SteamKing]

The politicians who whelped this monstrosity known as the ACA appear not to understand personal finance, either. But then, they don't have to, since they made a separate deal to keep themselves and their staffs off the exchanges.

The following story illustrates how the ACA is effectively turning formerly law-abiding citizens to considering if not outright law-breaking, at least non-compliance with ill-conceived legislation, which IMO further erodes the willingness of average citizens to abide by the rule of law. This state of affairs does not bode well for the future.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_YOURE_CANCELED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-02-09-44-38

 

[SteamKing]

The Secretary of HHS received a key technology document this week which should help start to resolve some of the problems with the healthcare.gov website:

 

[Locrian]

Hah, yea, I saw that, too. Funny stuff.

She looks like she's going to bite them.

 

[Locrian]

But then, they don't have to, since they made a separate deal to keep themselves and their staffs off the exchanges.

Well, let's be clear about how this worked.

The way the law functions, congress and their staff would never have been buying off the exchange if it weren't for very specific legislation that singled them out to have to - other largish, self-funded groups do not have to buy on the exchange. This exception was made to try to scare off Democrats, but the reality is that buying off the exchange doesn't hurt them any; they'd still be using taxpayer money and they'd be able to afford the platinum PPO plans (or whatever is best). Furthermore, some staff members would certainly be getting taxpayer funded subsidies to buy off the exchange, which seems pretty silly.

Having congress maintain their own self-funded plan so expenditures can be tracked - like almost every other large employer and government group out there - makes a lot more sense.