Welcome to PatsFans.com

Well, That Didn't Take Long...

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by wistahpatsfan, Nov 18, 2010.

  1. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    for Tea Party winners in the upcoming Congress to show that they're just another bunch of lazy, money-grubbing hypocrits.

    Jokes on you, America!

    Ha- ha!...:rofl:


    WASHINGTON — — A question about health benefits, posed by Representative-elect Andy Harris during a private orientation session for new House members, blew up Tuesday into the first mini-flap of the Maryland Republican's budding Washington career.

    During a briefing Monday on employee benefits for new congressmen, staff aides and family members, Harris wanted to know why he would have to wait a month for his new health insurance coverage to start.

    This is the only employer I've ever worked for where you don't get coverage the first day you are employed," Harris said, according to his spokeswoman, Anna Nix. She was quoted by Politico, the Capitol Hill newspaper that broke the story...



    Rep.-elect Andy Harris: Rep. Andrew Harris embarrassed by orientation question - baltimoresun.com
  2. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    I doubt this guy knows how dumb he is.

    "I'll fight to repeal Gov't run healthcare, but want my Gov't run healthcare from day 1!"

    Any Senator or Rep who is against Gov't run healthcare should be required to opt out, and get their own.

    The line starts behind Mr. Andy Harris.
  3. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    I think his point went over everyone's head. Where is this government run HC? It's employer provided HC (one that has exempted itself from the wonderful HC bill that was passed). His point was that with his government job, he has to wait for coverage, while with his private job at John Hopkins, he got it from day 1. The problem with his point, is that even in the private sector most employers have a grace, or waiting period, much like the government does here. So while his point went over everyone's head, he didn't do his homework either. He took his own personal experience at his employer, and assumed it was that way everywhere, when it's not. So both parties look foolish in the end. The people who didn't get it, as well as the congressman who didn't do his homework.
  4. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Exactly.

    MOST people have to wait for what is known as "Open Enrollment". Where a healthcare 'provider' gives all employees a 2 week window to sign up or forgo healthcare until the next period.


    The average new employee waits approx 3 months for coverage.


    Since he campaigned on repealing publicly funded healthcare, he should get his own. He should also never accept medicare...ever. Walk the Walk.


    His point is pointless. It shows just how much this guy knows about the average worker.....
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2010
  5. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    He is getting his own, from his employer.
  6. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Oh I know he is.....WE get to pay for his insurance. WE are his employer.

    He is in the odd position to be complaining about not getting the very thing he opposes fast enough. He is OPPOSED to government run healthcare, wants to repeal it. Since his job only offers such a plan, maybe he should opt out, and pay for it himself. Take a stand!

    Nobody forced him to run for representative.

    nobody is forcing him to take the governement run care he is b!tching about not having for 30 days.

    we elected more than a few of these people to congress.....
  7. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    He also gets to share in the cost since government insurance is also paid for through payroll deductions on the employee's part, as well.

    Be that as it may, he is, at the least, being pretty cold-hearted and obtuse. Does he not "get it" that all people are just like he is? They want, they need, health insurance. Even the people with pre-existing conditions who will, once again, be denied what he possesses if health care reform is repealed have the same wants he has. People who work for employers who've gotten away with not providing health care insurance will once again be denied insurance if health care reform is repealed.

    "He" doesn't want to wait 30 days but by repealing health care reform he wants to make sure that other people, once again, will have to wait forever.
  8. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    That's not so. This is what I mean by people who don't quite get it. The man is an employee recieving an employer benefit. Just like he would at UPS, or say Morgan Stanley. What he opposes is Uncle Sam controlling care for the general public, be it by mandating you buy coverage, or by giving it to anyone with a hand out, all while we the taxpayer foot the bill. Working, and recieving a benefit as a part of that employment, is not the same thing.

    If Obamacare is so good, how come government employees are exempt? I think we all know the answer to that.
  9. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    Would you care to explain just what you mean by that? How are government employees exempt? How are they affected any less than, say, an employee of Apple or a bank employee or a Fortune 500 employee?
  10. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    This is another logical fail. Those who want ObamaCare repealed, including myself, want genuine reform. The opposition is to this specific bill. The notion that we shouldn't repeal a horrendous bill, because some people might lose coverage, is foolish. If a bill sucks, it sucks. I think the vast majority of people want everyone with pre-existing conditions to be covered. I know I want them to be. What I know I don't want is this bill to survive, because it's both an albatross, and a path to single payer. My general idea for reform would include a sort of public option, but one where the provisions are extremely basic, and care is rationed. The point being, that if you want someone else to provide you with health coverage, then you're going to take what they give you. That means you can't get Viagra, or some mood enhancement meds cuz you feel lonely. You have access to only generic meds, and basic care. While that may sound cruel, it's superior to what we have now, or had a year ago. It's a means to cover everyone, keep costs down, and encourage people to pay for their own coverage, since the gubmit coverage is limited. Why should we, as in the taxapyer, pay for some deadbeat to get great care? The answer is we shouldn't. This would be a part of what would need to be done. Oh, and anyone recieving government provided, taxpayer funded care, would wave their right to suing for malpractice.
  11. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

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

    So some surgeon takes out your non-cancerous Kidney instead of the bad one and you're just SOL if you get this 1/2 arsed government stupidity of yours?

    Why in the world are you for subsidizing bad doctors but not poor people?
  12. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    So, in other words, you are advocating for some sort of "Death Panel," insurance coverage based upon income rather than expected outcome?

    Great. Just great.
  13. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    Don't worry. It would never get that far. "Basic care only" means they'd never even get to visit the surgeon in the first place much less qualify for cancer treatment.
  14. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    Yup. That's how it would work. Because lord knows doctors always take out the non-cancerous kidney. Extreme much? The point being, if you want someone else to pay for it, and provide it, then it's under the providers terms. Don't like it, then go get your own.
  15. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    What do you think government care is? Do you honestly think that government run care in other counries gives everyone everything they want? Cuz they don't. It's the only way to keep costs down. Rationing care, and restricting that which people can recieve. Obama talked about it himself, with his maybe you don't need that surgery bit. In Italy, where I've seen gubmit care close up, I can tell you that a lot is not covered. My family, especially during my grandma's last 10 years, was always buying meds, and paying for private treatments, because the gubmit simply didn't provide certain things. It's how it will be here as well.
  16. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    Based on expected outcome, RW....not on the financial status of the patient.
  17. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

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

    Answer: A guy who's terribly concerned about the welfare of poor (as in incompetent) doctors, who further mocks anyone showing any concern for poor (as in no money) children.

    Question: What is a typical Republican here in 2010? Alex.

    I decided to put my response in Jeopardy format just for lols.

    Saaaaavvvveeee the Doctors!!!
  18. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

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

    Oh btw in the USA drug patents are for 20 years, however due to the extended test period required they tend to be effective for 8-10 years on average since they're patented several years before they're approved for use. Generics can't be sold until that patent runs out.

    So RealWorldcare would lead to sick people being denied a perfectly suitable and approved drug for an average of 8-10 years while they wait for a generic. Yet its Obamacare that's the bad program that needs to be repealed.

    I'm at a loss in comprehending the stupidity here, but I do have one suggestion. How about you 'small government' types actually advocate for what you say and leave the coverage decisions to the experts instead of the government?
  19. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    I'm not quite sure what you mean here.
  20. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    The poor, as well as illegals in this country, get better care than I do. Meanwhile I pay $7,000 a year and rising, as well as pay for them. If you're a functioning human being, and you want coverage, you take what you can get. The notion that someone is entitled to have their care paid for by someone else, is ludicris. Plus, I never mentioned children now did I? That's right, I didn't.

    Did lay out a specific plan? That's right SFB, I didn't. You're at a loss comprehending much of anything, so your confusion is of no suprise. I made a general statement, nothing specific. Are there generics for existing drugs, yes there are. So could it be that drugs that have a cheaper generic would be what a freebiecare recipient would recieve? Indeed. As usual, SFB sees my name, and instantly moves to take a negative track towards anything, or everything I say, regardless of the logic behind it. Once an SFB, always an SFB. ;)

    The irony of someone mentioning stupidity, and then typing the latter. Um hello, the whole issue is that the gubmit is interjecting itself into health care. Oh no wait, that 2,700 page montrosity they passed is actually for smaller government. :rolleyes:
  21. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    You are advocating a different coverage for people based upon their ability to pay and saying that those who cannot pay should be denied anything beyond basic care and generic drugs.

    In countries with socialized medicine there is some sort of rationing, yes...but it is based upon the treatment itself and has nothing to do with who's paid for what. If a doctor recommends a certain treatment for a patient (and not a patient's wallet....in other words, it won't matter if he recommends the treatment for a millionaire or a pauper) the decision to treat or not to treat will depend on the expected outcome....taking into consideration the success rate of the treatment (does it work in 90% of patients or 0.4% of the patients) the cost of the treatment vs the cost of a treatment with similar outcomes, (does this treatment cost $65,000 and have a 60% success rate and there is another treatment which costs $25,000 and has a 59.8% success rate?) What is the success rate for a heart transplant in a 82 year old and the success rate for a heart transplant in a 12 year old? An 82 year old millionaire is not going to get a national health care plan (or any other health care plan, for that matter) to pay for his heart transplant - his odds are just too skewed for failure...however, the 12 year old pauper WILL get his transplant, from his family's health care plan or from Medicaid, because his odds of surviving are quite good.

    What you want is to deny the 12 year old based on his family's income and let him die and approve the 82 year old even tho it's going to be a giant waste of both his money and yours because he is almost certainly going to die anyhow.

    That's what I mean.
  22. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    Wrong. You are making it a case of treatment being based upon their ability to pay. Where did income ever come into this? I'm saying that anyone who wants gubmit care, i.e. free care paid for by someone else, is going to have to accept watered down coverage. I don't think this is too hard to comprehend. SFB took generics to mean if their isn't a generic available, then you can't have it. Which I never said. I'm merely presenting some generalities with respect to how I'd frame a policy. Of course in here, it's attack or be attacked, based on your name. The goal should be for people to be covered with some basic coverage, but at the same time, encourage everyone to maintain their own care. There are no easy answers, and as usual, difficult decisions have to be made. That some people won't like them is tough ****. Everyone can't live in a penthouse, and have cable TV. Reality simply doesn't work that way. If you have a better idea, feel free to present it.



    Enough with the 12 year old BS. Who mentioned kids? I didn't. It's the standard operating procedure of all liberals who can't logically make a point, to automatically insert children, emotion, or some massive extreme into the discussion. I never mentioned kids. I'm talking about adults. I'm talking about functioning people.
  23. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    Exactly! Why should someone who doesn't pay a dime for HC get coverage as good as those who do pay?

    Do I support funding equal HC for people who have no HC?

    NO, I do not. The PAYERS (tax PAYERS) may accept funding basic care as you inferred. But doubtfull...very, very doubtful we'd want to foot the bill for equal care.

    All I know is middle class Americans can not afford more taxes. So if they can do without increasing taxes or creating new taxes, by all means, do it.

    But don't tell those with HC that they'll be taxed on that HC to fund HC for others!:mad:

    When you stop and think about it, no one works they arse off for the "common good"...we do it for our own survival and maybe even some comfort later in life. unless you're a social worker...in which case I nominate them all for sainthood.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2010
  24. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    Are you against scholarships, too?

    Would you also advocate changing the way Medicad currently works? Should mentally or physically disabled people and children not be getting anything beyond basic health care?

    It's funny. You are always telling us how everyone is equal. How congressmen and presidents are not one bit better than we are - that no one is "better than" anyone else and yet here you are, saying that "we" who pay for our health insurance are entitled to better things than are those who are less fortunate than ourselves.

    What happens to the old people who get sick and use up all of their medicare benefits and their secondary insurance benefits? Once they are indigent should their nursing homes quit caring for them because the "taxpayers" are now footing the biggest part of their monthly bill?

    Best have your parents rethink their plan for hiding all their assests so that the state is forced to pick up their care immediately if you and RW get your way.

    Because they'll be dead within 20 days of getting sick. That's how long Medicare and supplemental health care insurance picks up the tab. From day 20 to 100 the patient is responsible for a $138.00 daily payment, plus whatever copay they would owe for medications, doctor visits or medical treatments. After day 100 the patient is responsible for all of it - and the average cost is from $6,000 to $10,000, depending on where you live and how much extra care you need beyond a place to stay, meals and physical assistance.

    I mean, really, if they can't pay without Medicaid (the taxpayer's money) why should they live? I'm pretty sure that full-time, round the clock nursing home care is beyond "basic," isn't it? Besides, there are people who are still paying for their nursing home care out of their savings - how unfair to them that someone else is getting it for free. Can't have that, can we?
  25. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    Every human is equal. But don't see how that translates a rationale where some must pay for others. And even worse would be INCREASING the benefits that "some" have to pay for while other just take.

    Tax dollars don't fund most scholarships. They are given by universities and only a small percent of those who can't afford college are offered scholarships. With HC, you're talking about EVERYONE who can't afford it, gets it.

    Look, Americans don't have the money or the energy to work to support those who don't support themselves. Remember, we don't want a "Nanny-state" that is the care-taker of it's citizens.

    My elderly parents only get so much HC coverage and they pay for their own. The last thing I'd want to see is someone getting something my parents couldn't get...and get it for FREE!
  26. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    You're not answering my question, PR. You've already told us previously that your parents have had the foresight to put all of their assets into someone else's name so that in the event they ever need nursing home care they will not have to use those assets to pay for their care.

    So, my question is this: If your parents should need nursing home care someday they will, obviously, be unable to pay for it since they own nothing in their own names - the state will pick up the balance of their care minus their social security and retirement checks right from the get-go. They've planned it that way.

    My mother and mother-in-law, on the other hand, did not plan it. They are both currently in nursing homes and they are both private paying out of their available assets (IRAs, savings accounts, home sales, life insurance policies, etc.) They will continue to do so until all of their money is gone. For now, however, they are both paying for their care.

    If I were to follow your line on logic, I should be loudly objecting to your parents possibly sharing their room, shouldn't I? I should be of the mind that your parents do not deserve the same treatment my parents are getting because my parents are paying for it and your's are not.

    After all, the last thing I should want to see is your parents getting something for free that my parents are paying for.
  27. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    If I had a crystal ball, I could tell you what my parents future is. But I don't.

    BTW...both my parents were lifetime contributors and worked their entire lives and thus paid taxes. Did your mother in-law work her entire life?
  28. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    Yes, she did. In fact, she worked part-time after retiring from her full time job until she was almost 80.

    Any more questions?

    And you've still not answered mine....would I be right to say that your parents have no business getting the same type of nursing home care as my parents do seeing as how my parents are paying for it and your's will be riding on the state's dime?
  29. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    Did you say something?:p

    My parents won't be going into a nursing home, I guess yours will.
  30. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    Oh, so now you DO have a crystal ball.

    And, if you'd read anything I'd said you'd have read that my mother and mother in law are both in nursing homes at the present time, so yes, they have.

    If you think you can take care of your mother after she's suffered a severe stroke that's left her unable to swallow, talk, open or close her eyes, move her right side, control her bodily functions, and eat or drink then more power to you, PR. I will tell you this, even if you are willing and able to quit your job, giving up your home, your savings, your own health insurance and signing away the rest of your future to move in with her and care for her, you are still going to require at least three full time, round-the-clock live-in caretakers with advanced degrees in medical care to manage feeding tubes, IVs, physical therapy, occupational therapy, suction, and whatever else is necessary. And that doesn't come "free" either......nor will Medicare or private insurance pay for it in a private setting. Nor will they cover the thousands of dollars worth of medications and tube feedings which fall through the Medicare donut hole. So, you are still left with applying for Medicaid and relying on tax payer dollars.

    What a fool you are for saying "that will never happen," PR. No one knows what will happen...not you, not me, not anyone. I at least know what CAN happen - and realize that if it does, it would be good to know that society, as a whole, cares - and that it would be wrong of me to not want the same care available for everyone that I want for my own family.

Share This Page