D.H

There’s a claim going around that Congress “exempted themselves” from Obamacare. That’s not accurate. The law required members of Congress and their staff to get their coverage through the ACA exchanges. That’s the opposite of being exempt. What people call a “loophole” was simply allowing employer contributions to continue — which is how most Americans receive health coverage through their jobs. You can debate whether that’s fair. But saying they “exempted themselves” isn’t fact — it’s a talking point. If I’m wrong, show me where the law exempts them.

@MrRockMan2001 @zerohedge “Repeating ‘loophole’ doesn’t make it an exemption. The law required Congress to use ACA exchanges — that’s the opposite of exempt. If you want to argue fairness, that’s a different conversation.”

@USMC228 @zerohedge It's a fact they exempted themselves via loophole. Constant trickery from leftist Democrats. Just like their confusing wording of ballot questions. They think themselves elite. They are not.

Cigna To Exit Obamacare In 2027 Amid Rising Costs zerohedge.com/political/cign…

@MrRockMan2001 @zerohedge “Calling it a ‘loophole’ doesn’t make it an exemption. They were required to use the exchanges — that’s the law. You’re arguing semantics now, not facts.”

@USMC228 @zerohedge Is it incorrect? No, it isnt. A loophole is a loophole. Not available to the public. In reality, they exempted themselves.

“You’re changing the claim. ‘Exempt’ means not subject to the law. Congress was required to use ACA exchanges — the opposite of exempt. Keeping employer contributions isn’t unique — it’s how most Americans get coverage through work. If you want to argue fairness, that’s a different conversation. But it’s not an exemption.”

@USMC228 @zerohedge You're ignoring something quite important. But of course you knew this already....they exempted themselves. Just not on paper. Money is fungible. While technically they aren't "exempt," money wise, they are.

“That’s not an exemption — it’s a distinction you’re glossing over. Congress was mandated into ACA exchanges by law. The 2013 rule just preserved employer contributions — the same structure most Americans already have. Being required to use the system while keeping employer support isn’t ‘exempting themselves.’ It’s using the same framework differently.”

@USMC228 @zerohedge A 2013 decision allowed Congress to get "employer subsidized premiums," a benefit typically not available to individuals in the public exchanges. So yes, they basically exempted themselves by getting their premiums covered.

“That’s not accurate. Congress and their staff were required to get coverage through the ACA exchanges — that was written into the law (Section 1312(d)(3)(D)). The only adjustment was allowing employer contributions to continue, just like most Americans with job-based coverage. That’s not an exemption — it’s using the same structure. And Cigna leaving has nothing to do with that claim.”

@zerohedge Remember, Democrats exempted themselves from Obamacare. There's a reason why. They KNEW it would become too expensive

"Nobody objects to showing ID at the polls — that already happens in 36 states with multiple acceptable forms. But citizenship is already verified when you register to vote. The SAVE Act adds a second layer requiring passports and birth certificates that 21 million legal citizens don't have easy access to. This isn't about ID. It's about creating barriers that didn't exist before to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Non-citizen voting is already illegal and already rare. This is solution looking for a problem."

@SenatorHick How is showing id Voter suppression? What a stupid fricking answer.

I’ll say it until the cows come home.  The SAVE Act is voter suppression. Mail-in voting is done in red and blue states alike. It’s safe and secure.   I'm still a hell NO on the SAVE Act.

"This is a test run. Trump knows Republicans are at risk of losing the House and possibly the Senate in 2026. If that happens he loses his protection. So watch the pattern — Supreme Court guts voting protections, DOJ targets minority districts, now a Senate candidate floats armed police intimidating Black voters in Detroit. Nobody condemns it. They're testing what they can get away with before November. This is not random. This is preparation."

NEW: A Republican U.S. Senate candidate said he's recruiting off-duty and retired police officers to serve as poll watchers in Detroit for the 2026 midterms — and suggested they could flash their badges at voters. Intimidating voters is illegal. Interfering with someone's right to vote is a federal crime. democracydocket.com/news-alerts/go…

"You posted a Vietnam war photo to justify the US government killing American college students on American soil. That's not a moral argument — that's the logic of authoritarianism. The FBI investigated and concluded the shooting was unjustified. The government settled with the families admitting wrongdoing. You call yourself a Christian veteran while defending your own government murdering American citizens for exercising their constitutional right to protest. That's not patriotism. That's blind obedience to state violence."

@USMC228 @MilHistNow Little wonder what would have happened to students in North Vietnam protesting the war and taunting NVA troops after burning buildings down on campus. Commies hold their own to no moral standard.

Today in 1970, Ohio National Guardsmen fire into a crowd of anti-war protesters at Kent State University killing four. "They were all on one knee and pointing their rifles at us," recalled one eyewitness. "Then they fired." The violence triggers campus strikes across the U.S.

"The FBI and Justice Department investigated Kent State. Their conclusion — the Guard was never in danger and the shooting was unjustified. Two of the four students killed weren't even protesting — they were walking to class. One was an ROTC student. A Christian veteran defending the killing of unarmed students on American soil by their own government should sit with that."

@MilHistNow The communist agitators were attacking the Troops after burning buildings on campus.

@robolivermd @whignewtons "It passed the House and received 50 Senate votes — a simple majority. It failed because the filibuster requires 60. That's not a lack of majority support — that's a supermajority threshold blocking majority will. Those aren't the same thing and you know it."

@USMC228 @whignewtons Incorrect. It did not have majority support in the 2021 Senate & would not have majority support in either house in 2026

All those people quick to say SCOTUS is crazy right wing never grapple with the cases that don’t fit their narrative. I just keep hearing all the “big cases” are political. But if mifepristone and gun manufacturer liability had been 6-3, they’d have been big. Unanimous? Not big.

@Zelectrician @Sassafrass_84 @ChristophE55272 "'Dems are cheaters' with zero evidence versus the Brennan Center documenting 21 million legal citizens who can't meet the SAVE Act's requirements. One of us brought facts. The other brought a bumper sticker. We're done here."

@USMC228 @Sassafrass_84 @ChristophE55272 BS...dems are cheaters plain and simple. News is everywhere

That's the point. Derp. Pass the Save Act.

"The filibuster requires 60 votes — not a simple majority. The For the People Act had majority support. It didn't have 60 votes. That's not a lack of bipartisan consensus — that's a procedural weapon being used to block majority will. The Senate filibuster isn't in the Constitution. It's a rule one party refuses to reform specifically to block voting rights legislation."

@USMC228 @whignewtons If the legislation has bipartisan majority support it can pass. When it doesn't it won't.

"Legislative solutions require a Senate willing to vote. The For the People Act passed the House twice and died in the Senate filibuster. Congress can't legislate what one party refuses to allow a vote on. Saying 'use the legislature' while blocking the legislature isn't a solution — it's a shield."

@USMC228 @whignewtons All those cases have legislative solutions if you didn't like these decisions. This court usually gets it right differentiating constitutional issues from legislative inaction

"Congratulations on graduating. But undocumented immigrants are legally barred from receiving the federal benefits you're describing — no food stamps, no Medicaid, no financial aid. They actually pay billions into Social Security and Medicare they'll never collect. The line you think they're skipping doesn't lead to what you think it does."

I'm a nobody from the cornfields of Indiana. I had to work warehouse jobs to pay my way through college after losing my mom when I was just 14. Illegals skip the line and get handed what I had to earn. This is why I care so much: how is that fair to young Americans like me?

"Update: Georgia is now being pressured to redraw maps eliminating Black representation in Atlanta. Louisiana canceled ongoing elections to do it. Tennessee and Alabama are already redrawing. The ruling dropped Thursday. By Sunday four states were moving. That's not a coincidence — that's execution."

"This is exactly what I warned about today. The Supreme Court ruling wasn't just about Louisiana — it was a loaded weapon. Now Trump's DOJ is using it to target Black and Latino voting districts nationwide. This is not politics as usual. This is a coordinated dismantling of minority political representation. Eisenhower warned us. We didn't listen."

⚠️ NEW: Trump’s DOJ says it will target Black and Latino-majority voting districts nationwide — using the Supreme Court’s recent ruling as its weapon. democracydocket.com/news-alerts/tr…

"Agreed. Congress has had the tools to end this — the For the People Act would have established independent redistricting commissions nationally. It passed the House twice and died in the Senate. The will exists on one side. The obstruction is on the other. Pressure on Congress only works if the Senate allows a vote."

Congress can stop gerrymandering TOMORROW. Stop blaming the other party or the courts. Start putting pressure on Congress.

"So when it's convenient, the NYT is fake news. But Farash's entire premise depends on a clip of Jeffries saying those words — words that originated from a White House source. Discrediting the NYT doesn't change where the quote came from. It just means you can't argue with the origin."

@emnode @Shawn_Farash That’s hilarious you’re referencing the New York Times, the biggest liars in the world.

Can someone on the Left tell me what rules we're playing by? If Donald Trump saying "March peacefully and patriotically" on January 6th is "inciting a violent insurrection"... Then what is it when Hakeem Jeffries calls for "Maximum Warfare everywhere all the time"? Because if we're playing by the Left's rules, Hakeem Jeffries should be held legally responsible for the mass assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents Dinner. Their rules. Not mine.