Incoming GOP rep demands federal healthcare - for himself.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2010 10:59 PM GMT
    Incoming Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) won his campaign on a message of opposition to and repeal of the Democratic health care reform legislation, but it hasn't taken long for him to signal that some of the things considered in the package would be nice to have for himself.

    "He stood up and asked the two ladies who were answering questions why it had to take so long, what he would do without 28 days of health care," a congressional staffer present at a freshman orientation session told Politico of Harris's reaction to news that his health care benefits wouldn't go into effect until nearly a month after his swearing in.

    Politico relays the kicker:

    "Harris then asked if he could purchase insurance from the government to cover the gap," added the aide, who was struck by the similarity to Harris's request and the public option he denounced as a gateway to socialized medicine.
    "This is the only employer I've ever worked for where you don't get coverage the first day you are employed," his spokeswoman Anna Nix told Politico, before explaining that the statements were grievances about the failures of government-run health care, and therefore a perfect fit into his campaign rhetoric against health care reform.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2010 11:08 PM GMT
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45256.html
    “If your conference wants to deny millions of Americans affordable health care, your members should walk that walk,” Crowley writes in a letter to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

    “You cannot enroll in the very kind of coverage that you want for yourselves, and then turn around and deny it to Americans who don't happen to be Members of Congress. We also want to note that in 2011, the Federal government will pay $10,503.48 of the premiums for each member of Congress with a family policy under the commonly selected Blue Cross standard plan.”

    “It is important for the American people to know whether the members of Congress and members-elect who have called for the repeal of health insurance reform are going to stand by their opposition by opting out of the care available to them at the expense of hard-working taxpayers. We look forward to your response in the coming days about exactly how many of the members in the Republican conference will be declining their taxpayer-supported health benefits.”

    Boehner and McConnell spokesmen declined comment. And Harris defenders argue that he’s simply availing himself of the same insurance enjoyed by private employees, coverage administered by many of the nation’s private health care companies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2010 11:17 PM GMT
    "he’s simply availing himself of the same insurance enjoyed by private employees, coverage administered by many of the nation’s private health care companies"


    Only all those people didn't campaign for their jobs based on opposing that kind of coverage.

    There really is no consistency to the republican/teabagger points of view, either among the politicians, or many of the right wing posters on here.

    Their philosophy changes according to whatever gives themselves personally, the most advantage at that moment - even if it runs counter to their "principles."


    Witness John McCain vs John McCain on DADT.

    He HONESTLY believes nothing, really, or he wouldn;t keep "moving the goalposts" whenever they inconvenience him.








    = unprincipled opportunists and hypocrites.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2010 11:30 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidIt's kind of humorous... and sad... how some Canadians on here follow United States politics so closely.

    Why not "expand our diet" by posting things about your country's political issues?



    Why is it "humorous and sad" that someone would be interested in the politics of a neighboring superpower?

    I find it humorous and sad that YOU find it humorous and sad.

    Careful...Your Palinesque anti-intellectualism is rearing its Clairol'd head.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2010 11:32 PM GMT
    The representative is wanting insurance provided by his EMPLOYER which happens to be the Govt because he is a Representative. EMPLOYER-provided healthcare is very typical in this country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2010 11:33 PM GMT
    http://mcmorris.house.gov/uploads/August2009HealthCareBenefitsforMembersofCongress.PDF
    Other perks of FEHBP that make comparison with private health insurance a joke:

    --work 5 years, get coverage for life (compared to 33% offered coverage after retirement in 2007 for LARGE private companies)
    --coverage not just for you but your family (size doesn't matter--same premium)
    --choice of plans in FEHBP far exceeds that of private industry (30% were not offered a plan and 44% just had 1 plan)
    --premium increases grew slower in FEHBP compared to private plans (7.3% vs 10.5%)

    1st thing to do if Repubs want to cut health care costs: CUT FEHBP PERKS!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2010 11:33 PM GMT
    It's easy to play war games with a joy stick and a computer screen and you can't see any real people. I think it is much the same with health care. It is easier to make health care a thing for the rich when you don't have to meet real people and look into a person's eyes and say, "Well ain't it just your bad luck that you can't afford to live no more?"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 12:31 AM GMT
    On average periods of waiting after being hired to kick in your health insurance:

    http://healthcare-legislation.blogspot.com/2010/01/waiting-periods-limits.htmlMany employers currently apply waiting periods to minimize the expense involved in providing health insurance to short-term employees. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Annual Employer Health Benefits 2009, waiting periods range from 30 days to six months, but the most common waiting period is 90 days and the average is just over two months.

    However, 29% of workers face a waiting period of three months or more, Kaiser found. Some three-quarters of new workers face a waiting period, but new workers at small firms (those with fewer than 200 workers) are more likely than workers at larger firms to face a waiting period (80% versus 70%). Also more likely to face waiting periods are workers in the retail (93%), wholesale (88%), and, ironically, the health care industry (87%).

    The longest “average” waiting periods (nearly three months) are found among workers in the agriculture/mining/construction, and the retail industries, while workers for state and local governments have the shortest average waiting period (less than two months). Workers at small firms are much more likely than workers at large firms to have a waiting period of three months (37% versus 12%), but 6% of workers at all firms have waiting periods of four or more months. But among workers at large firms, the largest proportion have either no waiting period (30% of firms) and 36% have one month.


    So Mr Harris must have had really good employers who were large firms, or he was plain lucky. Or he's completely oblivious to the reality of the majority of American workers facing waiting periods.
    Does he or his family have any preexisting conditions? If so, he'd better stay in government for at least 5 years so that his insurance won't lapse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 12:49 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidIt's kind of humorous... and sad... how some Canadians on here follow United States politics so closely.

    Why not "expand our diet" by posting things about your country's political issues?




    Well I guess it is better than the Australian on here that follows United States politics so closely and is fond of telling us to shut up and get out of our own country if we don't like certain politicians or the fact we do not have gay marriage. It is a pretty despicable thing to say.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 12:57 AM GMT
    Heartrobb said
    southbeach1500 saidIt's kind of humorous... and sad... how some Canadians on here follow United States politics so closely.

    Why not "expand our diet" by posting things about your country's political issues?




    Well I guess it is better than the Australian on here that follows United States politics so closely and is fond of telling us to shut up and get out of our own country if we don't like certain politicians or the fact we do not have gay marriage. It is a pretty despicable thing to say.

    I do think there should be some decorum across international boundaries. When I am discussing politics with friends in Europe, we might have spirited discussions, but I would not say derogatory things about their officials in the same tone that I might use when discussing US officials with other US citizens. Along the same lines, if someone from another country askes me a question about a US politician in polite terms, I would tend to respond. But when someone from another country demands I justify an opinion or comment I make about a US official, I will just blow him off.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 1:02 AM GMT
    "Or he's completely oblivious to the reality of the majority of American workers facing waiting periods."

    He has health care, so it is convenient for him to be to be oblivious.

    It is called social Darwinism: society is better served by survival of the fittest, and he is feeling fit enough to endorse that philosophy. But just let him lose his own coverage, and he will squeal like a little pig.

    I don't find many social Darwinists with ADD, AIDS, bipolar (like me), schizophrenia, and the like.

    That's exactly wat we have to do is expose the issues for people to better understand what is going on.

    YOUR RESEARCH AND INQUIRY IS EXCELLENT. I will try to follow this issue better with you, if you don’t mind. Kudos brother. Good job, and thanks.

    I had employer provided Kaiser for ten years, then took it private and kept it about five years. Then three or four years ago, my monthly premium was $550 a month with $25 doctor visit copayment and $10 prescription copay.

    I dropped it, and so far I have survived. It has saved me about $30,000. But that is also five days in ER.

    On the other hand, I have found ways to get my health care. I worked all my life, but now am not working, and my income qualifies me most places for free care.

    Further, the care has been excellent. The key is taking charge of your health and your care. Tell them what you want, and don't be afraid to resist what you don't agree with.

    I recomment CHAPS in Pasadena on Fair Oaks. Further, the care providers are great people. I admire them for the work they do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 1:28 AM GMT
    [size=12]Health Care Hypocrisy and Hypo-crazy[/size]
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 18, 2010 1:43 AM GMT
    Welcome to Upside down world

    Where you're against socialized healthcare until you have it icon_wink.gif

    You're all for repealing DADT if the Army brass you with you until they actually are icon_rolleyes.gif

    You're all for reducing the deficit until you actually Have To icon_confused.gif

    republicans ... if you weren't so god-awful dangerous you'd make me laugh icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 4:20 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    socalfitness said
    I do think there should be some decorum across international boundaries. When I am discussing politics with friends in Europe, we might have spirited discussions, but I would not say derogatory things about their officials in the same tone that I might use when discussing US officials with other US citizens. Along the same lines, if someone from another country askes me a question about a US politician in polite terms, I would tend to respond. But when someone from another country demands I justify an opinion or comment I make about a US official, I will just blow him off.

    The sky has just officially fallen. Hell has frozen over. I actually agree with you about something.

    Very very good. There's hope for you yet. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 6:02 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    socalfitness said
    jprichva said
    The sky has just officially fallen. Hell has frozen over. I actually agree with you about something.

    Very very good. There's hope for you yet. icon_biggrin.gif

    Couldn't resist your usual condescending snark, eh? Well, you're a Republican, it goes with the territory, I guess.


    J - You must block Socal. My life on RJ is so much more enjoyable without having to read that tired chicken hawk's obsequious postings.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 6:49 AM GMT
    Heartrobb said
    southbeach1500 saidIt's kind of humorous... and sad... how some Canadians on here follow United States politics so closely.

    Why not "expand our diet" by posting things about your country's political issues?




    Um, hasn't SB made comments about Canada's and the UK's politics?

    Me knows me smells a hypocrite. icon_lol.gif

    And shit smells better.



    Asshat!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 6:51 AM GMT
    Christian73 said

    J - You must block Socal. My life on RJ is so much more enjoyable without having to read that tired chicken hawk's obsequious postings.



    I've got the whole lot blocked. It's only when others quote those asshats that I even see their spew.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 7:00 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidhttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45256.html
    “If your conference wants to deny millions of Americans affordable health care, your members should walk that walk,” Crowley writes in a letter to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

    If I try to follow the same logic can I expect to See Senator Kerry (and the other millionaire representatives) leave a portion of their estate to the government even before estate taxes return? Will they be donating the millions to the federal coffers that they did not pay in taxes thanks to the Bush tax cuts? (Which they, apparently, strongly disagreed with while they raked in millions more...)

    You had Jane Harmon (democrat) worth 244 million, Jared Polis (democrat) worth 155 million, Senator Kerry worth 250 million. Should these people not also be putting their money where their mouth is when it comes to giving a portion of their estates back when they die or voluntarily taxing themselves until it is law? Actually, 2 out of 3 representatives are millionaires- so I expect to see all of them making these donations.

    Seems like the same reasoning (you may notice that I did not say that I am against the health care or that I support the tax breaks- only that it is hypocritical to be demanding that it only be the Republicans who "put their money where their mouth is" on one issue.)

    socalfitness said
    I do think there should be some decorum across international boundaries. When I am discussing politics with friends in Europe, we might have spirited discussions, but I would not say derogatory things about their officials in the same tone that I might use when discussing US officials with other US citizens

    In one way you are right... in the other, I get the feeling that most Americans, Canadians or Australians do not mind if you say derogatory things about the politicians that they disagree with. If I am on a very left leaning forum and call president Bush an "asshat" I will only be applauded and cheered; nobody will care what nationality I am.

    On the other hand, I do agree that showing some respect when discussing politics in general, is a good policy. I usually try to resist name calling or being overly personal. Having said that, a jackass is a jackass, whether he is a politician from Canada, America or Greenland- and every now and then I forget my manners and use rather unflattering language in reference to such politicians.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 9:12 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    socalfitness said
    jprichva said
    The sky has just officially fallen. Hell has frozen over. I actually agree with you about something.

    Very very good. There's hope for you yet. icon_biggrin.gif

    Couldn't resist your usual condescending snark, eh? Well, you're a Republican, it goes with the territory, I guess.

    I was actually just kidding. Did not mean anything condescending at all. I thought the emoticon indicated that, but I realize that can also be interpreted different ways.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 12:23 PM GMT
    west77 said
    If I try to follow the same logic can I expect to See Senator Kerry (and the other millionaire representatives) leave a portion of their estate to the government even before estate taxes return? Will they be donating the millions to the federal coffers that they did not pay in taxes thanks to the Bush tax cuts? (Which they, apparently, strongly disagreed with while they raked in millions more...)

    You had Jane Harmon (democrat) worth 244 million, Jared Polis (democrat) worth 155 million, Senator Kerry worth 250 million. Should these people not also be putting their money where their mouth is when it comes to giving a portion of their estates back when they die or voluntarily taxing themselves until it is law? Actually, 2 out of 3 representatives are millionaires- so I expect to see all of them making these donations.

    Seems like the same reasoning (you may notice that I did not say that I am against the health care or that I support the tax breaks- only that it is hypocritical to be demanding that it only be the Republicans who "put their money where their mouth is" on one issue.)


    http://www.ontheissues.org/john_kerry.htm
    # Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)
    # Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
    # Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
    http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=106220
    Polis does not support elimination of the estate tax.

    Harman is a Blue Dog, so she voted with the Republicans against the estate tax. What did you expect?

    The Bush tax cuts apply to everybody. Let them expire, and everybody will be required by law to pay the higher taxes. The only question is when should they be allowed to expire, if and when Congress comes to its senses. What's your point there?

    How would you know that certain Congressmen wouldn't donate part of their estates when they die?

    Yes, I think all representatives should put their money where their mouth is. Reid riding SUVs to a green conference is bad. Jane Harman voting against estate tax is bad. And so is a freshman House rep (an anesthesiologist to boot) not understanding the issues surrounding health care for a lot of Americans and vowing to repeal things that he takes for granted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 4:11 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    jprichva said
    socalfitness said
    jprichva said
    The sky has just officially fallen. Hell has frozen over. I actually agree with you about something.

    Very very good. There's hope for you yet. icon_biggrin.gif

    Couldn't resist your usual condescending snark, eh? Well, you're a Republican, it goes with the territory, I guess.


    J - You must block Socal. My life on RJ is so much more enjoyable without having to read that tired chicken hawk's obsequious postings.


    Do people on here actually block others? I just find it a little silly personally,... I don't know.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 4:21 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    jprichva said
    socalfitness said
    jprichva said
    The sky has just officially fallen. Hell has frozen over. I actually agree with you about something.

    Very very good. There's hope for you yet. icon_biggrin.gif

    Couldn't resist your usual condescending snark, eh? Well, you're a Republican, it goes with the territory, I guess.


    J - You must block Socal. My life on RJ is so much more enjoyable without having to read that tired chicken hawk's obsequious postings.


    Do people on here actually block others? I just find it a little silly personally,... I don't know.

    Apparently they do. Some ignore using the forum features, others by not paying too much attention to posts in certain topics by certain RJ members. I find it amusing when a member continually mentions that he has blocked another. It is as if either he is bragging about an accomplishment, or he thinks he is hurting the feelings of the blocked member. Neither of which is the case. If I start a thread and it is not visible to someone blocking me, I just realize the thread will not suffer the interference of specific members.

    Basically the "bragging" about it reminds me of a first grader who puts his hands over his ears and stands up so everyone can see.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 10:56 PM GMT
    psst.
    Hey, you myopic guys suggesting the Canadians try posting stuff about their own country.

    We do.
    Constantly.

    But it isn't about you, so you probably never read it. icon_rolleyes.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2010 1:15 AM GMT
    GAMRican said
    Heartrobb said
    southbeach1500 saidIt's kind of humorous... and sad... how some Canadians on here follow United States politics so closely.

    Why not "expand our diet" by posting things about your country's political issues?




    Um, hasn't SB made comments about Canada's and the UK's politics?

    Me knows me smells a hypocrite. icon_lol.gif

    And shit smells better.



    Asshat!


    See, SB! I told you I smelled anus.

    Thanks for the corroboration, GAMR!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2010 2:00 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    jprichva said
    socalfitness said
    jprichva said
    The sky has just officially fallen. Hell has frozen over. I actually agree with you about something.

    Very very good. There's hope for you yet. icon_biggrin.gif

    Couldn't resist your usual condescending snark, eh? Well, you're a Republican, it goes with the territory, I guess.


    J - You must block Socal. My life on RJ is so much more enjoyable without having to read that tired chicken hawk's obsequious postings.


    Do people on here actually block others? I just find it a little silly personally,... I don't know.


    Socal and ShyBuffGuy are the only ones I've blocked, for different reasons. To me, Socal contributes nothing to the conversation. He only ever repeats whatever someone else (usually a younger conservative guy) says. I also don't believe a lot of what he claims as his biography. And, Shy is a bit unstable, so...