In reality, it’s the critics — as part of their ongoing assault on the health care law — who are seeking special treatment for Congress, by proposing to make members and their staffs the only workers in the United States whose employer is barred by law from helping to cover their premiums. There’s no reason to discriminate against members and their staffs in this way, especially when doing so would make it more difficult to recruit and retain high-caliber congressional staff.

Here’s the issue: Under a provision authored by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and added to the legislation during the Senate Finance Committee’s health care deliberations in 2009, members of Congress and their staffs won’t be allowed to continue buying coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which offers a variety of health insurance plans to federal employees. Instead, congressional staffers and members will only be able to enroll in plans offered in the ACA’s new exchanges, with the government continuing to make an employer contribution. (Grassley himself has confirmed that he intended for the federal government to continue making employer contributions under the provision.)

Critics claim this is special, gold-plated treatment because other people can’t get an employer contribution and use it to help buy coverage in the health exchange system. That’s incorrect. The ACA explicitly allows small businesses with fewer than 50 employees (up to 100, at state option) to offer their employees health plans through the exchanges and to help cover the premiums. This is essentially the same treatment that members of Congress and their staffs will receive.