Pryor For Senate Fact Check: Cotton Goose Ad October 6th, 2013 Ad Claims Truth I’m Tom Cotton. I approve this message Voice Over: PolitiFact: Claim That A Senator Cast The Deciding Vote Was Rated “Mostly What’s good for the goose False.” According to PolitiFact, “The 60 Plus Association says that Florida Sen. Bill ought to be good for the Nelson cast the ‘deciding vote’ for health care. The health care law required 60 votes, so gander Nelson's vote was crucial -- as were the other 59 votes. But describing Nelson as the But not in Washington ‘deciding vote’ suggests he had some extraordinarily powerful role, and that’s not the Mark Pryor cast the case. Nelson had cautiously been a supporter for months as he tried to amend the law. deciding vote to make you We rate this claim Mostly False.” Nelson was 43rd vote cast in support of the bill. live under Obamacare [PolitiFact, 6/6/12] Graphic: Senator Ben Nelson Was 60th Vote To Break Filibuster Of Affordable Care Act. What’s good for the According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, “Then there's this to consider: Before the votes goose…ought to be good for were taken, Democrats and Republicans kept a count of supporters and opponents, and the gander Democrats could only round up 59 proponents to end debate -- until Ben Nelson of Nebraska agreed to join in. News coverage on that day, Dec. 19, 2009, described Nelson But not in Washington. the crucial 60th vote to break the filibuster. Never mind that "N," for Nelson, is in the middle of the alphabet, and Nelson's actual roll call votes put him there, not 60th. What mattered was that he was the 60th senator to agree, effectively putting the total at 60 before a single name was called. [Cleveland Plain Dealer, 4/14/12] GOP Claimed Multiple Senators Were Deciding Vote. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, “Brown and his allies say that's preposterous. They note that Republicans have made the same claim about several other Democrats, including Jon Tester of Montana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. [Cleveland Plain Dealer, 4/14/12 But Pryor voted himself and Factcheck.org: Congress Is Not Exempt From The Law, No Special Subsidy Exists. everyone in Congress According to Factcheck.org, “Congress isn’t ‘exempt’ from the law. It wasn’t exempt special subsidies so they’re back in 2010, when we first debunked such a claim; nor were lawmakers exempt in May protected from Obamacare when the bogus bit surfaced again. Three months later, they’re still not exempt. In fact, as we’ve said before, lawmakers and their staffs face additional requirements that other Mark Pryor voted to make Americans don’t. And the “special subsidy” to which Pittenger refers is simply a you live under Obamacare premium contribution that his employer, the federal government, has long made to the [H.R. 2590, Vote #396, health insurance policies of its workers.” [Factcheck.org, 8/30/13] 12/24/09] PolitiFact: Claim Congress Got “Sweetheart” Exemption From Obamacare Was Special Subsidies for Mark Rated “Pants On Fire” And “Wrong In Almost Every Regard.” According to Pryor PolitiFact, “Hensarling said that in a ‘sweetheart deal … members of Congress, thanks [Vote 211, 9/30/13] to the Obama administration, are going to be the only people in America to get subsidies in the Obamacare exchanges.’ This statement is wrong in almost every regard. Millions of ordinary Americans who currently lack health coverage are expected to get Obamacare subsidies in the years ahead. Congressional employees who purchase insurance on the marketplaces won’t be getting subsidies so much as they will be benefiting from a traditional employer cost-share, as many other Americans do. Far from getting a ‘sweetheart deal,’ congressional employees would otherwise find themselves forced off their existing insurance plan, something the law itself does to no other employment group. And the issue has been largely driven by Republicans, not by the Obama administration.” [PolitiFact, 10/1/13] Factcheck.org: Claim Congress Exempted Itself From Health Care Law Was “Bogus.” According to Factcheck.org, “Congress isn’t ‘exempt’ from the law. It wasn’t exempt back in 2010, when we first debunked such a claim; nor were lawmakers exempt in May when the bogus bit surfaced again. Three months later, they’re still not exempt. In fact, as we’ve said before, lawmakers and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans don’t. And the ‘special subsidy’ to which Pittenger refers is simply a premium contribution that his employer, the federal government, has long made to the health insurance policies of its workers.” [Factcheck.org, 8/30/13] Factcheck.org: “Special Subsidy” Is In Fact Normal Employer Contribution For Federal Employees. According to Factcheck.org, “In fact, as we’ve said before, lawmakers and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans don’t. And the ‘special subsidy’ to which Pittenger refers is simply a premium contribution that his employer, the federal government, has long made to the health insurance policies of its workers.” [Factcheck.org, 8/30/13] Factcheck.org: Claims That Congress Exempted Itself Were “Convoluted” And Not True. “This twisted reading of the legislation was based on the fact that originally Congress, like other Americans with work-based insurance or Americans on Medicare and Medicaid, wouldn’t be eligible for the exchanges. In other words, Congress was supposedly “exempt” when members couldn’t participate in the exchanges, and now that they are required to do so, they’re still somehow “exempt” from the law. Neither of these convoluted claims is true.” [Factcheck.org, 8/30/13] Washington Post: “There's No Effort To ‘Exempt’ Congress From Obamacare.” “The story has blown up on Twitter. ‘Unbelievable,’ tweets TPM's Brian Beutler. ‘Flat out incredible,’ says Politico's Ben White. ‘Obamacare for thee, but not for me,’ snarks Ben Domenech. ‘Two thumbs way, way down,’ says Richard Roeper. (Okay, I made the last one up). If this sounds unbelievable, it's because it is. There's no effort to ‘exempt’ Congress from Obamacare. No matter how this shakes out, Congress will have to follow the law, just like everyone else does.” [Wonkblog, Washington Post, 4/25/13] Huffington Post: “In Actuality, No One Is Getting An Exemption.” “In actuality, no one is getting an exemption. The decision to have the Office of Personnel Management continue its contribution to health care premiums simply restored the original intent of the law, as written by a Republican senator.” [Huffington Post, 8/2/13] New Republic: “The Suggestion That Obama Made Congress Exempt From His Health Care Law Seems Impervious To Reality.” “Like the death panels and immigration myths, the suggestion that Obama made Congress exempt from his health care law seems impervious to reality.” [New Republic, 8/13/13] MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, INCLUDING PRYOR, ARE REQUIRED TO PURCHASE INSURANCE FROM EXCHANGES DESIGNED FOR EMPLOYER-SPONSORED GROUP HEALTH BENEFITS OPM Ruled Members Of Congress And Their Staff Would Purchase Insurance On Small Business Exchanges Which Allow Employer-Sponsored Group Health Benefits. According to Politico, “The Office of Personnel Management has finalized a rule for how members of Congress and aides will obtain health coverage through the exchanges starting in January — and it’s requiring members of Congress and staff to enroll in the District of Columbia small-business exchange, even if they live or work outside the D.C. metro area. They won’t be eligible for subsidies to buy insurance regardless of their income, although they’ll be able to receive a federal employer contribution. But according to the rule, they’ll be able to collect that employer subsidy by buying in the small-business exchange, also known as SHOP. ‘SHOPs are designed to provide employer-sponsored group health benefits and are, therefore, the appropriate environment in which to provide an employer contribution to members of Congress and congressional staff,’ the rule says.” [Politico Pro, 9/30/13] OPM: Small Business Exchanges “Are Designed To Provide Employer- Sponsored Group Health Benefits And Are, Therefore, The Appropriate Environment… To Provide An Employer Contribution.” Federal News Radio reported, OPM's finalized regulations state that members of Congress and their official staff members must enroll in the small-business exchanges — or SHOPs — in order to continue to receive the government contribution. ‘SHOPs are designed to provide employer-sponsored group health benefits and are, therefore, the appropriate environment in which to provide an employer contribution to members of Congress and congressional staff,’ the rule states. ‘Further, this ensures that Members of Congress and congressional staff do not have additional choices in the individual exchanges with a government contribution that other individuals lack.’” [Federal News Radio, 10/2/13] Senator Grassley, Author Of The Amendment, Said OPM Was In Line With Intent Of His Amendment. According to Roll Call, “Grassley has said repeatedly that the OPM rule was in line with the original intent of the amendment.” Grassley told Roll Call, ““My goal, regardless of how the amendment was worded … was that we [in Congress] need to go into the exchange so that we would have to go through the same red tape as every other citizen.” [Roll Call, 9/26/13] Members And Congress And Their Staff Will Enroll In DC Health Link Small Business Market Set Up By ACA. According to the Washington Post, “The final rules state that while the administration has not changed its view that the ACA provision did not override the FEHBP premium-sharing authority, ‘SHOPs are designed to provide employer-sponsored group health benefits and are, therefore, the appropriate environment in which to provide an employer contribution to Members of Congress and congressional staff.