ADVERTISEMENT

Trump why not roll back Obama approved illegal subsidies for Congress members....

bullitpdq68

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2005
13,350
5,450
113
Home of the Cubs!!
http://www.heritage.org/health-care...eceiving-unconstitutional-obamacare-subsidies

Trump you want to unwind some Obama things then why don't you roll back these illegal ACA Obama approved subsidies to Congress!! This is something I could get behind!!

In our constitutional republic, it not only matters what officials do, but also how they do it. Constitutional policy ends can be pursued only by constitutional means.

That understanding lies at the heart of the recent decision in United States House of Representatives v. Burwell. There, the Federal Court for the District of Columbia declared the Obama administration’s disbursement of health insurance cost-sharing subsidies to be unlawful [4], because Congress didn’t appropriate the funds. Article I, Section 9, clause 7 of the Federal Constitution reads in part: “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. . .”

Ironically, House leaders celebrating this court victory are direct beneficiaries of the very same executive overreach. Current congressional health insurance subsidies are also being disbursed without any congressional authorization or appropriation. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) filed suit to block these special subsidies [5], but his case was dismissed for lack of standing.

It’s a complicated story [6]. In March of 2010, Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act, including Section 1312 (d)(3)(D). The relevant section reads:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans. (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 short, as of 2014, members of Congress and their staffs were not eligible for health coverage in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP); they had to enroll in Obamacare.

Notice, though, that the language does not provide for any health insurance subsidies, other than those available to all other Americans in the health insurance exchanges. Notice, too, the language does not grant any regulatory authority to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the agency that regulates plans and oversees employer subsidies in the FEHBP, the program that previously covered congress and staff.

The legislative history of this provision is intriguing [6]. Toward the end of the Senate debate on Obamacare, on March 24, 2010, Sen. Charles Grassley offered Amendment 3564 to provide insurance subsidies to congress and staff, and to include the president and all executive-branch political appointees in Obamacare coverage. Sen. Grassley’s amendment was defeated on a procedural vote of fifty-six to forty-three; all Senate Democrats voted against it. In voting down the amendment, the Senate voted down the insurance subsidies.

Members of Congress probably didn’t know what they were doing. After the horror of it all sunk in, meeting behind closed doors, they quickly launched a three-year search for various ways to escape the mess they had created for themselves.

The politics were positively ugly. With the sure prospect of millions of Americans losing their health plans, congressmen voting themselves back into FEHBP coverage would have been nothing short of scandalous. The prospect of having to take a recorded floor vote to give themselves special funds to help pay for their Obamacare coverage had zero political appeal as well. In the end, members of Congress neither authorized nor appropriated any special subsidies for their new coverage.

Instead, congressional leaders begged President Obama to fix their mess for them. It worked. In August 2013, the president’s OPM said FEHBP subsidies would be available for congressmen [7] enrolling in health exchange plans.

This was a bold move, even for Team Obama. Not only did the original statutory language fail to provide insurance subsidies, but OPM also had no authority under Chapter 89 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code to provide FEHBP subsidies to non-FEHBP plans. In fact, as Politico reported [8], OPM had concluded—before the president intervened—that it had no such authority.

The scheme then went from the bold to the ridiculous. In the FEHBP, under Section 8901(6) of Title V, the health plans must be “group” plans. So, no problem: OPM certified the DC SHOP exchange, reserved for firms with fewer than fifty employees, as the health insurance exchange for Congress. All Congress had to do was to somehow turn itself into a small business, with fewer than fifty employees. And, incredibly, that is exactly what unnamed congressional bureaucrats did: They submitted paperwork identifying each chamber of Congress as a small business, [9] employing forty-five people apiece.

Bottom line: Federal lawmakers and their staff members would get generous health insurance subsidies, administratively provided by OPM, without a congressional appropriation—just like the cost-sharing subsidies recently struck down as unconstitutional by the Federal Court of the District of Columbia.
 
Stepping back from what is legal or not under the law, do you agree that the US government should provide members of Congress and their staffs an employer subsidy for their health care similar to a private business or other Federal full-time employees?

IIRC, someone shoved this provision in there to say "if Congress likes the ACA so much it and its staffs should be on the exchange and not on the Federal plan anymore." The problem is they wrote it stupidly and didn't clearly state that employer subsidies should still be offered to Congress and their staffs just like other Federal employees. This was a mistake, they never intended to strip Congress and their staffs of health care subsidies.

Obama was fixing this problem because Congress didn't want the bad PR of passing exactly one Obamacare fix that only benefitted themselves. But it is a fix that needed to be made. No one intended for the ACA to strip members of Congress or their staffs of health care subsidies. It was an out and out mistake that would have been addressed by a technical corrections bill in another era.
 
Stepping back from what is legal or not under the law, do you agree that the US government should provide members of Congress and their staffs an employer subsidy for their health care similar to a private business or other Federal full-time employees?

IIRC, someone shoved this provision in there to say "if Congress likes the ACA so much it and its staffs should be on the exchange and not on the Federal plan anymore." The problem is they wrote it stupidly and didn't clearly state that employer subsidies should still be offered to Congress and their staffs just like other Federal employees. This was a mistake, they never intended to strip Congress and their staffs of health care subsidies.

Obama was fixing this problem because Congress didn't want the bad PR of passing exactly one Obamacare fix that only benefitted themselves. But it is a fix that needed to be made. No one intended for the ACA to strip members of Congress or their staffs of health care subsidies. It was an out and out mistake that would have been addressed by a technical corrections bill in another era.

What is the answer to this question? Does a private citizen making $175,000 a year who needs to purchase health insurance also qualify for the same subsidy? If yes then by all means if no then nope they should not get it either. If you cannot afford to purchase insurance as a member of congress who gets who knows in whatever other perks then why should you require the average citizen to do the same.

I mean we have people spending 60 million to try and win one of these seats if you can afford that then you can afford to purchase insurance outright!!
 
What is the answer to this question? Does a private citizen making $175,000 a year who needs to purchase health insurance also qualify for the same subsidy? If yes then by all means if no then nope they should not get it either. If you cannot afford to purchase insurance as a member of congress who gets who knows in whatever other perks then why should you require the average citizen to do the same.

I mean we have people spending 60 million to try and win one of these seats if you can afford that then you can afford to purchase insurance outright!!
Yep, nobody working a Federal job in DC needs a damn subsidy
 
If you take a dime of tax money you shouldn't point out others doing the same

I don't know if that means you are for the rich getting a subsidy or not....I consider $172,000 a year pretty well off and well all their pay comes from tax payers so not exactly sure what your point is. I wonder when or if the Pubs roll back Obamacare if they will get to go back on their old insurance plan or have to purchase on the open market. That would be interesting.
 
What is the answer to this question? Does a private citizen making $175,000 a year who needs to purchase health insurance also qualify for the same subsidy? If yes then by all means if no then nope they should not get it either. If you cannot afford to purchase insurance as a member of congress who gets who knows in whatever other perks then why should you require the average citizen to do the same.

I mean we have people spending 60 million to try and win one of these seats if you can afford that then you can afford to purchase insurance outright!!
A private citizen making $175,000 would have a similar subsidy from their employer, as would anyone else making $175,000 from the Federal government for being a full time worker. Members of Congress and their staffers had that until the day the ACA was signed, because they are full time employees of the Federal government.

This is why this portion of the bill was so stupid - you are fired up about Congress having the same health care subsidy as the average full time employee.

And Congress isn't even the big piece of it. The average person affected by this was a Congressional staffer who makes $30k-$75k. The average member of Congress was furious that these people lost their health care because of pandering.
 
Last edited:
Yep, nobody working a Federal job in DC needs a damn subsidy
Go back to la la land and stop commenting on this topic where you appear to know less than nothing. Good luck finding decent workers for the Federal government when you don't provide any real health insurance, which is what you are suggesting.
 
Last edited:
People seem to be missing the idea that "subsidy" here is really "their employer paying 75% of their premiums like you'd see at any other business." It is not "Obama gave them a special deal that the average exchange participant can't get." Members of Congress and their staffers are full time employees of the US government. We are their employers. We have a responsibility to provide them with basic employment benefits like health care.

The real issue at hand is the legality of the action - did Obama do something he can't do by statute?
 
Here's a simple question, bullit: How did the ACA affect what the government spends on health care for members of Congress?

The answer is zero after the Obama fix. Which the Heritage article admits is true.
 
A private citizen making $175,000 would have a similar subsidy from their employer, as would anyone else making $175,000 from the Federal government for being a full time worker. Members of Congress and their staffers had that until the day the ACA was signed, because they are full time employees of the Federal government.

This is why this portion of the bill was so stupid - you are fired up about Congress having the same health care subsidy as the average full time employee.

And Congress isn't even the big piece of it. The average person affected by this was a Congressional staffer who makes $30k-$75k. The average member of Congress was furious that these people lost their health care because of pandering.

What...are you kidding me if I am self employed and making $175,000 a year I also get a subsidy? I am really starting to hate Obamacare now!!. They don't work for a business if that was the case they would all be fired, they are basically self employed and do what they need to do to keep that office. If they don't like they don't have to run, maybe by doing that we could finally get some of them out of office that really don't need to be there.
 
A private citizen making $175,000 would have a similar subsidy from their employer, as would anyone else making $175,000 from the Federal government for being a full time worker. Members of Congress and their staffers had that until the day the ACA was signed, because they are full time employees of the Federal government.

This is why this portion of the bill was so stupid - you are fired up about Congress having the same health care subsidy as the average full time employee.

And Congress isn't even the big piece of it. The average person affected by this was a Congressional staffer who makes $30k-$75k. The average member of Congress was furious that these people lost their health care because of pandering.
The did not lose their Health Care.
 
Here's a simple question, bullit: How did the ACA affect what the government spends on health care for members of Congress?

The answer is zero after the Obama fix. Which the Heritage article admits is true.

All I am asking if I make $175,000 and forget weather I work for a business or not I might mow lawns for a living, do I get that same subsidy!! please answer the question!! Not sure were all this small business came in. Or maybe I am wrong does everybody making $175,000 no matter where it comes from get a subsidy just like those in Congress?
 
People seem to be missing the idea that "subsidy" here is really "their employer paying 75% of their premiums like you'd see at any other business." It is not "Obama gave them a special deal that the average exchange participant can't get." Members of Congress and their staffers are full time employees of the US government. We are their employers. We have a responsibility to provide them with basic employment benefits like health care.

The real issue at hand is the legality of the action - did Obama do something he can't do by statute?

What employer... so everybody making $175,000 can be considered to have an employer?
 
Here's a simple question, bullit: How did the ACA affect what the government spends on health care for members of Congress?

The answer is zero after the Obama fix. Which the Heritage article admits is true.

Here is a simple question should we have paid what we did for their insurance before ACA I don't think so, I never liked their previous plan, so why would I like what they have now as a tax payer. My company considers what they pay a benefit so they can justify paying us less, should we not do that for our congressmen I mean if they work for us let's cut their pay if they want a subsidy.
 
What...are you kidding me if I am self employed and making $175,000 a year I also get a subsidy? I am really starting to hate Obamacare now!!. They don't work for a business if that was the case they would all be fired, they are basically self employed and do what they need to do to keep that office. If they don't like they don't have to run, maybe by doing that we could finally get some of them out of office that really don't need to be there.
Come on. They are not "business owners" they are employees of the Federal government plain and simple.

Self-employed people can work more and make more money/profit. A member of Congress cannot do that.

I get the hate towards Congress but there are some very powerful reasons for us to offer a good compensation package to its members that you are ignoring:

- we want to be able to have citizen legislators, not just very rich people who can fund their lives out of pocket
- we want to lessen the appeal of bribery
- members of Congress generally have to keep two homes and travel from their home to DC. Some of that can be handled with campaign funds, but some of that burden falls on them
- we don't want good people to turn down these jobs because they pay so little
- we don't want them moonlighting in ways that create conflicts of interest

That means paying them an upper middle class wage and giving them access to the normal Federal employee benefits package of retirement and health care.
 
Last edited:
The average person making $175,000 is not self-employed. A member of Congress is not a business owner. They are an employee.

These are not good comparisons.

I know several independent contractor that make that and more in a year...You need to get out more and learn about business. More companies hire contractor to keep from paying benefits...so now quit sidestepping and answer the dang question!
 
Here is a simple question should we have paid what we did for their insurance before ACA I don't think so, I never liked their previous plan, so why would I like what they have now as a tax payer. My company considers what they pay a benefit so they can justify paying us less, should we not do that for our congressmen I mean if they work for us let's cut their pay if they want a subsidy.
Their previous plan was the exact same benefit as any federal employee for the exact reason that we didn't want Congress to have any sort of "special deal" on health care that was better than is provided to a common man worker.
 
Also I am friends with a person who does own a small business possible LLC has about 3 employees, He makes about $100,000 he said he gets no subsidy is that right or wrong?
 
I know several independent contractor that make that and more in a year...You need to get out more and learn about business. More companies hire contractor to keep from paying benefits...so now quit sidestepping and answer the dang question!
We should not be setting government policy on anecdotal people. Let's be realistic.

Where did I say ICs don't make $175k? My point is the average person making that is a doctor, a lawyer, an accountant, etc.
 
Also I am friends with a person who does own a small business possible LLC has about 3 employees, He makes about $100,000 he said he gets no subsidy is that right or wrong?
He's comparing apples and oranges. His point is not relevant. He's comparing income based subsidies which are government transfers of wealth to employer health care subsidies which are wages.

Using his logic, members of Congress get the same government transfer of wealth subsidy that he does - $0. Their subsidy is a wage like what I get by my employer paying $1,200 a month towards my health care premiums.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if that means you are for the rich getting a subsidy or not....I consider $172,000 a year pretty well off and well all their pay comes from tax payers so not exactly sure what your point is. I wonder when or if the Pubs roll back Obamacare if they will get to go back on their old insurance plan or have to purchase on the open market. That would be interesting.
I think for PR reasons they left themselves in the exchanges in the AHCA that passed the House. I don't know if they amended it to clearly state they should receive the same employer subsidy as other federal government workers do.
 
Congressmen are not independent contractors or small business owners.
Do members of congress not get a stipend for housing in DC? They get lots of other stuff free, I can't imagine they all pay the full amount for rent or house payments. Many of them, especially newbies, couldn't afford to live anywhere near DC if they were footing the bill for that and their place of residence back home.
 
Do members of congress not get a stipend for housing in DC? They get lots of other stuff free, I can't imagine they all pay the full amount for rent or house payments. Many of them, especially newbies, couldn't afford to live anywhere near DC if they were footing the bill for that and their place of residence back home.
No housing allowance is provided. Some of them actually live in their offices -
 
We should not be setting government policy on anecdotal people. Let's be realistic.

Where did I say ICs don't make $175k? My point is the average person making that is a doctor, a lawyer, an accountant, etc.

See this is the problem just like my friend who actually owns a small business he gets no subsidy period. Should the Federal Government be considered a small business or a conglomerate? I am sorry I don't think as member of congress you should get a subsidy and it should have never been done the way it was. You want to know how your laws actually affects those living in the Main streets of American then you need to live them. I actually know several people who make less than $170,000 and have to purchase insurance and don't get a subsidy because they make to much and that is what is upsetting to me and others which you seem to be missing in this whole debate I don't give a dang how you classify how the person works....how is it fair that somebody getting paid $175,000 gets a subsidy and another person working on their own making less doesn't? But yet you are fine with that and justify it because hey they are congress and they deserve it and the guy making $100,000 mowing lawns trying to support a small family doesn't, you are one sick person to think that. Not sure where you live but farmers and rural business men in small town USA can make on average a decent wage working for themselves, but then you force them to have to purchase certain insurance plans it can hurt them. The problem with guys like you and Cowherd is that you live in large cities where business are larger and you think hey nobody works for themselves it is all business, that is just not true life in rural America, and that is why you don't understand the appeal of Trump to those living outside of your large city self absorbed insulated bubbles.
 
Last edited:
Question for you bullet. Should employees of companies who make $175k+ be allowed to have the company they work for pay a percentage of their health care?

Just to correct the record, I live in a town with a population of 65k and went 65%+ for Trump in 2016.
 
Question for you bullet. Should employees of companies who make $175k+ be allowed to have the company they work for pay a percentage of their health care?

Just to correct the record, I live in a town with a population of 65k and went 65%+ for Trump in 2016.

In private business if the owners are share holders decide that is a reasonable compensation package who am I to say what they do it is not my money.

Also Cowherd you dad is in his on private practice I would guess in a small town like your home town he makes between $100,000 to $200,000 does he get a subsidy like Congress while trying to raise a family?
 
In private business if the owners are share holders decide that is a reasonable compensation package who am I to say what they do it is not my money.
So if you work for the federal government you should play by a worse set of rules than the private sector? I thought that was the whole point of a businessman president, that government would run more like private industry?
 
So if you work for the federal government you should play by a worse set of rules than the private sector? I thought that was the whole point of a businessman president, that government would run more like private industry?

I would actually classify them as a Contractor appointed to do a special job. But you are missing the whole point is this debate, its easy to pass a law upon your citizens when you don't have to live it. I want them to live it see how it actually affects middle class America, maybe then they would understand the Hatred towards the law.

Let me put it to you like this, if the Republican Congress had to actually live under the law and go out and purchase insurance like a normal self employed middle class American making $175,000 do you think they would be a bit more concerned with how the law was written instead of just repealing and throwing something out there that only benefits corporate America.... knowing they will just go back to the plan they were on?
 
I would actually classify them as a Contractor appointed to do a special job. But you are missing the whole point is this debate, its easy to pass a law upon your citizens when you don't have to live it. I want them to live it see how it actually affects middle class America, maybe then they would understand the Hatred towards the law.

Let me put it to you like this, if the Republican Congress had to actually live under the law and go out and purchase insurance like a normal self employed middle class American making $175,000 do you think they would be a bit more concerned with how the law was written instead of just repealing and throwing something out there that only benefits corporate America.... knowing they will just go back to the plan they were on?
The average middle class American is affected by Obamacare the exact same way as congressmen, because they are very likely to have an employee sponsored healthcare plan, with their employer footing much of the bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neutron Monster
The average middle class American is affected by Obamacare the exact same way as congressmen, because they are very likely to have an employee sponsored healthcare plan, with their employer footing much of the bill.

Man not sure why you and NM think that, My whole family is almost self employed or considered self employed by the government. Why you continue to want to debate this issue as employee sponsored healthcare versus self employed is crazy. I am trying to be on your guys side here and fight for middle America. But you guys want to sweep the few very small business or considered self employed Americans under the rug and defend congress, somebody who can control their own destiny and make three times what the average American makes with probable twice the benefits...wholy cow!! No wonder the Dems are losing.
 
The average middle class American is affected by Obamacare the exact same way as congressmen, because they are very likely to have an employee sponsored healthcare plan, with their employer footing much of the bill.

Unlike you I think affordable health care should include everybody even the self employed, I guess you believe just those working for corporate America and Congress should have affordable health care. I see why you supported Hillary now. Corporate America Rocks!!
 
Man not sure why you and NM think that, My whole family is almost self employed or considered self employed by the government. Why you continue to want to debate this issue as employee sponsored healthcare versus self employed is crazy. I am trying to be on your guys side here and fight for middle America. But you guys want to sweep the few very small business or considered self employed Americans under the rug and defend congress, somebody who can control their own destiny and make three times what the average American makes with probable twice the benefits...wholy cow!! No wonder the Dems are losing.
I'm not taking your feelings into account. Im just stating the numbers here.
 
I'm not taking your feelings into account. Im just stating the numbers here.

what numbers have you stated? You are stating you opinion you have given no numbers to those who are considered small/self employed and do not get subsidies.

Is your Dad considered corporate or self employed? and does he get subsidies I am sure he probable does not make $175,000 a year in rural America.
 
what numbers have you stated? You are stating you opinion you have given no numbers to those who are considered small/self employed and do not get subsidies.

Is your Dad considered corporate or self employed? and does he get subsidies I am sure he probable does not make $175,000 a year in rural America.
I doubt it, but I know my family could not get quality health insurance without Obamacare.

People making $175+ are more likely than not to be employees, not business owners. You disagree?
 
See this is the problem just like my friend who actually owns a small business he gets no subsidy period. Should the Federal Government be considered a small business or a conglomerate? I am sorry I don't think as member of congress you should get a subsidy and it should have never been done the way it was. You want to know how your laws actually affects those living in the Main streets of American then you need to live them. I actually know several people who make less than $170,000 and have to purchase insurance and don't get a subsidy because they make to much and that is what is upsetting to me and others which you seem to be missing in this whole debate I don't give a dang how you classify how the person works....how is it fair that somebody getting paid $175,000 gets a subsidy and another person working on their own making less doesn't? But yet you are fine with that and justify it because hey they are congress and they deserve it and the guy making $100,000 mowing lawns trying to support a small family doesn't, you are one sick person to think that. Not sure where you live but farmers and rural business men in small town USA can make on average a decent wage working for themselves, but then you force them to have to purchase certain insurance plans it can hurt them. The problem with guys like you and Cowherd is that you live in large cities where business are larger and you think hey nobody works for themselves it is all business, that is just not true life in rural America, and that is why you don't understand the appeal of Trump to those living outside of your large city self absorbed insulated bubbles.
The average person in America is either covered by government health care (medicare/medicaid/military/federal + state + local employee health care) or private sector employer provided health care. The average American is not buying health care for themselves.

Congress having government employer-provided care is as American as it gets.
 
Last edited:
In private business if the owners are share holders decide that is a reasonable compensation package who am I to say what they do it is not my money.

Also Cowherd you dad is in his on private practice I would guess in a small town like your home town he makes between $100,000 to $200,000 does he get a subsidy like Congress while trying to raise a family?
You are obsessed with this contractor/sole proprietor idea when that is not what a member of Congress is.
 
I would actually classify them as a Contractor appointed to do a special job. But you are missing the whole point is this debate, its easy to pass a law upon your citizens when you don't have to live it. I want them to live it see how it actually affects middle class America, maybe then they would understand the Hatred towards the law.

Let me put it to you like this, if the Republican Congress had to actually live under the law and go out and purchase insurance like a normal self employed middle class American making $175,000 do you think they would be a bit more concerned with how the law was written instead of just repealing and throwing something out there that only benefits corporate America.... knowing they will just go back to the plan they were on?
I deal with HR labor law on a regular basis...the employment situation of a member of Congress would 100% be considered full-time employment under US law. They fail the contractor test for many reasons.

On your second point, this is why they moved themselves from the Federal health plan to exchanges! So they would see cost increases and cuts in coverage if others did!

Here's what happened. Take an unmarried member of Congress. The Feds were chipping in something (let's say $4,000) per year for their health care as subsidies for premiums prior to 2010. The ACA said, ok, we're still going to give you the same $4,000 that other Federal employees get, but instead you have to use that money to buy an ACA plan. You can't buy into the Federal employee plan anymore. If premiums go up, you have to pay for that out of your pocket. You have to pay for the out of pocket costs, too.
 
See this is the problem just like my friend who actually owns a small business he gets no subsidy period. Should the Federal Government be considered a small business or a conglomerate? I am sorry I don't think as member of congress you should get a subsidy and it should have never been done the way it was. You want to know how your laws actually affects those living in the Main streets of American then you need to live them. I actually know several people who make less than $170,000 and have to purchase insurance and don't get a subsidy because they make to much and that is what is upsetting to me and others which you seem to be missing in this whole debate I don't give a dang how you classify how the person works....how is it fair that somebody getting paid $175,000 gets a subsidy and another person working on their own making less doesn't? But yet you are fine with that and justify it because hey they are congress and they deserve it and the guy making $100,000 mowing lawns trying to support a small family doesn't, you are one sick person to think that. Not sure where you live but farmers and rural business men in small town USA can make on average a decent wage working for themselves, but then you force them to have to purchase certain insurance plans it can hurt them. The problem with guys like you and Cowherd is that you live in large cities where business are larger and you think hey nobody works for themselves it is all business, that is just not true life in rural America, and that is why you don't understand the appeal of Trump to those living outside of your large city self absorbed insulated bubbles.
Your friend takes entrepreneurial risk. He keeps all the profits of his business instead of giving them to an employing firm for benefits like a health care subsidy.

This is not a good comparison.

Members of Congress are not entrepreneurs running a business with profit and loss that accrues to them. They are employees.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT