You are aware that this provision you are completely mischaracterizing was inserted into the bill by Grassley (R-IA).
"Of all the misconceptions surrounding the new health reform law known as Obamacare—and there are many—one of the newest and most infuriating is the idea that Congress made itself “exempt” from a law that puts onerous new burdens on many other Americans. That contention is totally false. In fact, members of Congress, along with their personal staffers, are required to participate in Obamacare, which is a more stringent requirement than employees of many big companies face."
"When the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010, it included a passage that said: “The only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff … are (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).”
In plain English, that means that at the end of this year, members of Congress and their personal staffs will no longer be eligible for the federal health care plan, and they’ll have to purchase insurance through an exchange instead. That requirement was initially proposed by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)"
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-...emption-obamacare-another-myth-153149342.html
"The Myth of the “Exemption”
David Vitter is right. Congressional staffers are treated differently under the Affordable Care Act. Unlike all other large employers in the United States, Congress is specifically banned from maintaining its current healthcare plan. Large employers (as defined under ACA as companies that maintain 50 or more full time workers) face a penalty if they remove employees’ health care benefits. Under a provision of ACA, Congressmen and their staffs are required to purchase health care from Exchanges.
This unique treatment is not the cause of ire among opponents of ACA, however. The controversy over the “exemption” comes from a proposed regulation from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in August. The regulation is quite clear. It notes that the Affordable Care Act requires all Members of Congress and staff to purchase health care on the Exchanges, per the amendment to the original law. However, ACA is silent about the employer contribution that Congress and staff currently receive.
Like most employees (public and private), Congressional staff who receive health care from their current plan (Federal Employees Health Benefits Program) pay part of their premium. The remainder is paid by their employer: the U.S. Congress. The employer contribution is a standard part of employer-provided health care plans in the United States—affecting a majority of Americans. OPM does note that Congress failed to remove the provision of law outlining the employer contribution. As a result, current law requires Congress to maintain the employer contribution for “all health benefits plans fitting within the definition set forth in [5 U.S.C.] 8901(6)” (see OPM regulation RIN #3206-AM85).
OPM argues that Congress, in designing the Affordable Care Act had the opportunity to nix the employer contribution, but it did not. OPM, as a result, must issue regulations consistent with the law. ACA in conjunction with current law (5 U.S.C. 8901) defines healthcare coverage for Congress and its staff. The result? Congress must purchase insurance on exchanges (per ACA) and must provide the employer contribution (per 5 U.S.C. 8901).
The irony: Congress is treated as a unique entity, not because it is exempted from the Affordable Care Act, but because it is the only large employer forced onto its Exchanges."
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2013/10/04-aca-vitter-amendment-federal-workforce-hudak
