Welcome to PatsFans.com

Well, That Didn't Take Long...

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

  1. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    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 Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    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 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,150
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +537 / 6 / -2

    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 Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    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 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,150
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +537 / 6 / -2

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

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    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:
    15,889
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +559 / 9 / -5

    #24 Jersey

    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 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,150
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +537 / 6 / -2

    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:
    15,889
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +559 / 9 / -5

    #24 Jersey

    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 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,150
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +537 / 6 / -2

    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 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    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:
    15,889
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +559 / 9 / -5

    #24 Jersey

    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:
    15,889
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +559 / 9 / -5

    #24 Jersey

    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 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,150
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +537 / 6 / -2

    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 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,150
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +537 / 6 / -2

    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:
    15,889
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +559 / 9 / -5

    #24 Jersey

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

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    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 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    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 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,150
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +537 / 6 / -2

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

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,150
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +537 / 6 / -2

    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:
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>