Welcome to PatsFans.com

Two righties who ran against health reform opt out of Federal Health Benefits

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by DarrylS, Dec 9, 2010.

  1. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,958
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +424 / 12 / -26

    Great, gallant move by these two dudes.. the total is now four, for those who are counting.. but wait after closer inspection, they do not need it as they are already sucking from the big boob of state or federal government..

    Makes me kind of wonder, if a General or Admiral retires, and then steps across the hall to work in a civilian capacity in the Pentagon, does that retiree get medical benefits?? Double Dipping??.. not that there is anything wrong with it.

    ThinkProgress Two More Republicans Who Ran Against Health Reform Opt-Out Of Federal Health Benefits

     
  2. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,918
    Likes Received:
    333
    Ratings:
    +571 / 11 / -4

    #24 Jersey

    I'm sorry. Opting out of new insurance you have to pay for when you already get your old insurance for free doesn't exactly qualify you as "noble."
     
  3. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,197
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +572 / 6 / -2

    Why should anyone opt out of their employer provided health coverage. We went through this once before. The health bill, and the benefit your boss gives you as part of employment, aren't the issue. The issue is mandating coverage, and what amounts to a government takeover of the industry. These aren't one and the same.

    The Walberg details are something I rail on, and point to all the time. We have the same crap locally here. NO ONE should get lifetime health insurance for serving a measley sum of years as a politician. NO ONE! Where I now live, even those serving a 6 year term on the city council get free care for life. WTF is that? Then people wonder why gubmits are going broke, and taxes are rising. To get a lifetime benefit like that is complete BS. :mad:
     
  4. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,918
    Likes Received:
    333
    Ratings:
    +571 / 11 / -4

    #24 Jersey

    Wow!! We agree on something!!
     
  5. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,197
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +572 / 6 / -2

    We need all this stuff to be exposed to the public, so that they get mad, and demand it changes. BS like this is a good chunk of the reason why gubmits are going broke. This one woman who served 6 years, six fraking years, costs the city over $20,000 a year in health insurance (she has a family plan or some ****). She no longer works for the city, and hasn't for years. Why am I paying for her stupid health coverage? Now this is just one person, and one aspect of gubmit excess or waste. Multiply her by the other members she served with, or the other parts of gubmit that provide similar luxuries at the tax payers expense. This is why I'm such a huge proponent of outright bankruptcy. I personally believe that things are so bad, and people are so unaware, that we need the gubmit to fiscally collapse, so everything can be torn up, and the people can start over. I don't want that to happen, but I think that the problem is so severe, that it's the only way. It's inevitable unless things change.
     
  6. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    That's fine about the city councilors, 6 years isn't much in the way of service; but its chasing pennies when we need to go after at least $50's. Mandatory coverage means some 18 year old who never paid a dime before now kicks in something, and since the vast majority of 18 year olds don't get sick, that something does nothing but build interest until that person gets old and finally starts to get sick.

    The next step would be going at this problem from a cost perspective, but I don't see how we could possibly do that considering all the screaming about socialized medicine we heard just getting everyone to kick in some money for care.
     
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,197
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +572 / 6 / -2

    It's not chasing pennies. How many alderman, or city council people do you think have served over the years, and are collecting fat bennies till they croak? If there are 50-60 surviving benny stealers, that's $1 million per year in medical alone. What about the other city employees who get medical coverage till they die? Or who get it when they qualify for medicare? We're not talking pennies here.

    Forcing people to pay into a system like this is probably unconstitutional. We'll find out once some of these cases hit the SCOTUS. Regardless, pouring more money into the system is perfume onto the pig. How's that scheme working out here in good ole Massachusetts? Well, it's not. Why? Cuz it's a gimmick, penny cheap, dollar foolish policy. Without attacking the root problem in the industry, which is the actual cost of care, we won't do anything to curb costs. Rationed care is absolutely an inevitible. It's the only way to keep the costs in check. Plus, the more people you cover, the more people that will seek care. So whatever it is you hope to gain by pooling the cost of coverage (forcing everyone to pay in), you'll lose by adding in more users.

    I gave a general idea of what I would do. I'd employ a public option, as well as a tax deduction, or voucher maybe, for people who pay for their own care. I'd also make the public option a very simple, base coverage. It would be keep you alive medical care. Drugs would be generics, and their availability would be restricted in some sense (like no Viagra for instance), and some treatments simply wouldn't be offered unless they were deemed necessary. The point would be that the public option would be rationed care. It would cover anyone and everyone, at the expense of others, but it would be basic in nature. If you wanted better coverage, then you'd be encouraged to find it yourself. This may seem barbaric to some, but it's the only realistic way to keep the costs managable, while covering everyone in the country. Hey, the gubmit will give you a black and white TV with 4, 5, and 7, but if you want that hi-def flat screen with NFL Sunday Tickey, go pay for it yourself. (I just wanted to throw in something football related :D)
     
  8. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,958
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +424 / 12 / -26

    I know some do not want to hear this, consider the 18 year old who joins the military and never sees combat, at age 38 he or she retires with full family medical benefits for the rest of their lives..

    Times change, priorities change.. but this "gravy train" will never change.

    Aren't all congressmen after their term ends, no matter how long they serve, entitled to their previous medical plan?? No matter what lobby firm they go to work for..

    The same with Generals/Admirals who retire one day, and then step across the aisle in the Pentagon as "mentors" or "consultants".. do they effectively get two medical plans paid for by the government???

    It would seem to this viewer that there needs to be some type of legislation for any of these cases that if they are covered by another plan, then they automatically opt out of the federal plan on any level. The overall entitlement system for the military/congress will never change..
     
  9. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,918
    Likes Received:
    333
    Ratings:
    +571 / 11 / -4

    #24 Jersey

    No. I posted this same info into another thread just a few days ago, I think. Like all federal employees they must be vested with a minimun of (I think) 10 years....then they, like all other federal employees are entitled to COBRA for a period of whatever COBRA is. After that, they can, once again, be eligble to have their federal insurance as their secondary insurance when they retire - but they pay for it, just like always.

    No one "gets" two medical plans. They, like everyone else, must choose which one they wish to have. If they keep TriCare (Military insurance) they cannot "double dip" into a govenment employee plan. If they choose a gov. plan, they must drop TriCare. Regardless, both of them must be paid for by the employee - like every other plan there is, the employer pays some and the employee pays some. If they should choose to pay for both of them (and I don't know why they would) only one will pay. If they are retired and have TriCare as their primary, they may choose to also pay for a gov. offered plan as a secondary insurance. If they are over 65 - like everyone else, they will pay for Medicare and choose either TriCare or a government plan as their secondary. (Pretty much the way it works for everyone....no matter who they work for.)
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>