Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Why Does Congress Want to Exempt Themselves From Obamacare?
Why Does Congress Want to Exempt Themselves From Obamacare?
Dec 2, 2025 9:23 AM

In 2010, FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, attempted to debunk a rumor that the pending Obamacare legislation exempted members of Congress and their staffs from its provisions. They snarkily replied, “No. This twisted claim is based on misrepresentations of the House and Senate bills, neither of which exempts lawmakers.”

Members of Congress are subject to the legislation’s mandate to have insurance, and the plans available to them must meet the same minimum benefit standards that other insurance plans will have to meet. “All plans would have to follow those requirements by 2019,” Aaron Albright, press secretary for the House Committee on Education and Labor, told FactCheck.org. “People actually believe we wrote in the bill that Congress exempts itself from these requirements. That falsehood has been going around since the very beginning.”

You can almost hear the exasperation in Mr. Albright’s voice. How could anyone think that the same members of Congress who believed the legislation was good for America would exempt themselves from its provision? Do we think lawmakers and their staff are a bunch of hypocrites?

Well, yes. Yes we do.

Is anyone (other than Mr. Albright and the folks at FactCheck.org) really surprised that Congress is now trying to find a way to exempt themselves from the law they foisted on the rest of America?

Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.

The talks — which involve Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Obama administration and other top lawmakers — are extraordinarily sensitive, with both sides acutely aware of the potential for political fallout from giving carve-outs from the hugely controversial law to 535 lawmakers and thousands of their aides. Discussions have stretched out for months, sources said.

A source close to the talks says: “Everyone has to hold hands on this and jump, or nothing is going to get done.”

Yet if Capitol Hill leaders move forward with the plan, they risk being dubbed hypocrites by their political rivals and the American public. By removing themselves from a key ponent, lawmakers and aides would be held to a different standard than the people who put them in office.

Congress frequently exempts itself from laws that apply to the rest of America, which is despicable, but not all that shocking. But what makes this situation particularly galling is that Congress was in no rush to provide a religious liberty exemption so that thousands of employers do not have to violate their conscience. They stood by silently panies like Hobby Lobby were threatened with fines of up to $1.3 million per day. Yet now, as Politico reports, they are “concerned about the hit to their own wallets.”

When Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House she said about Obamacare, “We have to pass the bill so that you find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” Now that the fog of controversy has subsided the lawmakers have found out what is in it—and they don’t like how it affects them.

But the rule of law requires that every citizen is subject to the law. We can’t have one set of laws for Americans and a separate set of exemptions for our lawmakers. As Samuel Rutherford wrote in Lex Rex (1644),

That the king bind himself to the same law that he doth bind others, is decent, and obligeth the king as he is a man; because, 1. (Matt. vii. 12,) It is said to be the law and the prophets, ” All things whatsoever ye would men should do unto you, do ye even so to them.”

Congress may have granted themselves the legal authority, but they don’t have the moral right to exclude themselves from the laws they pass that bind us. If the King is not above the law, neither are you, Madame Senator and Mr. Congressman.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
The religion and schools debate, Scotland version
This story in the UK’s Education Guardian is remarkable for its links to a number of issues. In contrast to the American system, Britain’s permits “faith” schools that are part of the government system. Thus, this Scottish “Catholic” school is, in the American usage, a “public” school. Now that 75% of its students are Muslim, some Muslims are demanding that the school switch its faith allegiance. One of the obvious issues is the Islamicization of Europe. Here is a Catholic...
Remembering Ed Opitz
The Rev. Edmund Opitz, a longtime champion of liberty, passed away on Feb. 11. Rev. Robert A. Sirico, president of the Acton Institute, looks back on Ed’s remarkable life in an article today on National Review Online (also available on the Acton site as a PDF). Never to be mistaken for an “economic fundamentalist,” much less a theocrat of any variety, Ed was always careful to note that Christianity qua Christianity offered no specific economic model any more than economics...
Stewardship and economics: two sides of the same coin
In yesterday’s Acton Commentary, I argued that the biblical foundation for the concepts of stewardship and economics should lead us to see them as united. In this sense I wrote, “Economics can be understood as the theoretical side of stewardship, and stewardship can be understood as the practical side of economics.” I also defined economics as “the thoughtful ordering of the material resources of a household or social unit toward the self-identified good end” and said that the discipline “helps...
Hollywood and capitalism
Clive Cook has a terrific article in the March 2006 Atlantic Monthly that is worth reading in its entirety. But here’s my favorite paragraph: What is most striking, so far as the movies’ treatment of capitalism goes, is not the hostility of films whose main purpose is actually to indict corporate wickedness (Wall Street, Erin Brockovich, A Civil Action, The Insider, The Constant Gardener, and so forth). It is the idea of routine, reckless corporate immorality—maintained as though this premise...
The dignity of every human being
The February 11 issue of WORLD Magazine includes a culture feature, “Giving their names back.” Profiled in the article is Citizens for Community Values (CCV), a nonprofit in Memphis that does a victim assistance program called “A Way Out.” It’s a reclamation program of sorts, literally reclaiming women ensnarled in the sex trade industry, and giving them back their lives, reclamation evidenced by names. The very nature of the sex industry, be it topless dancing, stripping or prostitution, requires anonymity–no...
Blogroll roundup
A few items of interest from friends on our blogroll: The Evangelical Ecologist and Dignan’s 75 Year Plan react to news about Michael Crichton’s visit with President Bush.GetReligion writes on the government closing of a newspaper in Russia.Mere Comments talks about burgeoning threats to the dignity of human life, and the disarray of contemporary evangelical responses.No Left Turns discusses “Crunchy Cons.”Persecution Blog passes along concerns about the Bush administration policy toward Israel and the effect on Arab Christians living in...
Schall on wealth and poverty
The Jesuit journal In All Things devoted its Winter 2005-06 issue to the question of poverty in the United States. The issue brings together a number of perspectives from Jesuits, both liberal and conservative. The Rev. James V. Schall, S. J., contributed an article titled “On Wealth and Poverty,” one which the journal editors have described thematically as “choosing not to be poor.” Here is Schall’s article in its entirety: The most famous book in economics is The “Wealth” of...
Fumbling with fundamentalism
One of the religion beat’s favorite canards is to implicitly equate what it calls American Christian “fundamentalism” with what it calls Muslim or Islamic “fundamentalism.” After all, both are simply species of the genus. For more on this, check out GetReligion (here and here) and the reference to a piece by Philip Jenkins, which notes, Also, media coverage of any topic, religious or secular, is shaped by the necessity to plex movements and ideologies in a few selected code-words, labels...
2006 Novak Award goes to leading Polish scholar
Dr. Jan Kłos of the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin in Poland is the winner of the 2006 Novak Award and its associated $10,000 prize. An assistant professor with the department of Philosophy’s Chair of Social and Political Ethics, Dr. Kłos began teaching in Lublin in 1999. He has a specific interest in the history of economic freedom, nineteenth century liberalism, and dialogue between modernity and Christian thought. In 2001, he wrote a prize winning essay for the...
Good intentions and unsound economics
This Sunday I went to Mass at a parish I’d never attended before. I was quite pleasantly surprised—the music wasn’t bad, the rubrics were followed, the homily focused on the gospel, they chanted the Agnus Dei, and prayed the prayer to St. Michael afterward; not apparently liberal and better than many typical “suburban rite” parishes. But, during the petitions, one of the prayers was for leaders of nations, that they would eradicate poverty. Here is a classic example of the...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved