Guess who actually uses a government option for health care?

#26
#26
Not LG's best post if he was trying to make an example for UHC. It is obviously better coverage (and lower cost) than most company health care plans, but that's essentially what it is... and the members of congress are choosing to take advantage of the "company" benefit. Biggest difference, of course, is that their primary source of "revenue" to cover the expense for this "company" benefit is the U.S. taxpayer.
 
#27
#27
droski said:
no not as posh, but far posher than the private sector enjoys.
Click to expand...

Depends. I bet there are executives that enjoy benefits in the private sector that are far greater than what anybody else...Congress included...gets.

I agree the government stuff is ridiculous, but it works both ways.
 
#28
#28
rjd970 said:
Which is why Congress should forfeit what they are getting and purchase private plans like they want the rest of us to do. I pay for my healthcare, what makes them so special?
Click to expand...

so therefore what? we should bankrupt the country because congress is hypocritical?
 
#29
#29
rjd970 said:
Depends. I bet there are executives that enjoy benefits in the private sector that are far greater than what anybody else...Congress included...gets.

I agree the government stuff is ridiculous, but it works both ways.
Click to expand...

at large companies there can't offer better healthcare for the execs than the rest of the company so i think you are off base. there are guys at my company making $10 mil a year who pay more for their premiums than i do.
 
#30
#30
droski said:
at large companies there can't offer better healthcare for the execs than the rest of the company so i think you are off base. there are guys at my company making $10 mil a year who pay more for their premiums than i do.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the pensions.
 
#31
#31
droski said:
so therefore what? we should bankrupt the country because congress is hypocritical?
Click to expand...

No, we shouldn't allow Congress to get what they are getting.

Let me be clear, I am against socialized healthcare for anybody...Congress included.
 
#32
#32
MG1968 said:
how do you know some don't? If you apply your standard as thoroughly as it appears you want it applied, you should be outraged that the Obama's chose a very expensive private school for their daughters.
Click to expand...

IPorange said:
Hmm, then how DO you feel about the Obama's not putting their daughters in public school? Isn't that also supposedly good enough for everyone else, and thus good enough for them?
Click to expand...


I gather that both of you just pik ced up your Fox News/Drudge talking point memos on how to distract from the real issue.

The Obamas have not said that private schools are in principle a bad thing because they represent government gone amuck. They have not claimed that private schools are part of a hidden agenda to bring down Western Civilization.

And in fact, if you numbnuts would think about it for a second, you would realize that your argument epically fails because what you cite is an example of private and public entities delivering the same service and co-existing and people having a choice in the matter.

Some Republican members of Congress, on the other hand, have declared that government run healthcare is disastrous purely in principle. I'm not talking about the cost issues, which are very real. I'm talking about the feigned, "but, but, its socialism and must be rejected at all costs" argument....

... they make as they run downstairs to get a flu shot from their government run health center.
 
#33
#33
obama cut funding for poor black kids to attend the very same school his kids are going to.
 
#34
#34
First off - the article has nothing to do with a public option (government health insurance).

Congressional members buy PRIVATE insurance just as most employees do. They have a relatively large pool to draw from.

As an additional benefit, they have access to some medical care and facilities but these to not provide their complete health care or substitute completely for privately insured care.

Using this article as an argument for a public option is a huge stretch.

Using it as an indication of hypocrisy of values is likewise a huge stretch. They are government employees and they receive a government benefit they can choose to use.
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
I gather that both of you just pik ced up your Fox News/Drudge talking point memos on how to distract from the real issue.
Click to expand...

What does it say about me when both camps of partisan hacks identify me as the other?
 
#36
#36
lawgator1 said:
I gather that both of you just pik ced up your Fox News/Drudge talking point memos on how to distract from the real issue.
Click to expand...

I'll take my FNC/Drudge talking points over your MSNBC/Huffpo talking points ANY DAY of the week.
 
#39
#39
IPorange said:
Individuality is so rare in political discussions that it is simply labeled as foreign and attacked, much like how the human immune system works.
Click to expand...


No, but Obama, who does not claim that private schools are the tool of Satan and Karl Marx and sends his kids there anyway, cannot for one second be compared to Republican Congresspeople who spew whatever they are told by the insurance lobby, only to be found to be using at least a form of the very thing they claim is the end of the world.
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
No, but Obama, who does not claim that private schools are the tool of Satan and Karl Marx and sends his kids there anyway, cannot for one second be compared to Republican Congresspeople who spew whatever they are told by the insurance lobby, only to be found to be using at least a form of the very thing they claim is the end of the world.
Click to expand...

i see so being in the pocket of the unions is better than being in the pocket of the "insurance lobby?" Does it matter that the majority of americans agree with the "insurance lobby" and disagree with the unions? shouldn't ones impartiability be more in question if they are supporting something that their primary financial supporters support yet the overwelming majority of americans do not?
 
#41
#41
droski said:
i see so being in the pocket of the unions is better than being in the pocket of the "insurance lobby?" Does it matter that the majority of americans agree with the "insurance lobby" and disagree with the unions? shouldn't ones impartiability be more in question if they are supporting something that their primary financial supporters support yet the overwelming majority of americans do not?
Click to expand...


This "majority of the people agree with the insurance lobby" argument is a total crock of you know what.

First in the polls that show this to be the case, it depends on who is asking and how. Its called push-polling.

Second, even if it were accurate to say that (which it isn't), it would be proof only that the insurance lobby has managed to convince people of their position, not proof that their position is the best policy choice.
 
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
This "majority of the people agree with the insurance lobby" argument is a total crock of you know what.

First in the polls that show this to be the case, it depends on who is asking and how. Its called push-polling.

Second, even if it were accurate to say that (which it isn't), it would be proof only that the insurance lobby has managed to convince people of their position, not proof that their position is the best policy choice.
Click to expand...

In other words, if it doesn't agree with your point of view it must be BS. Do you ever really think about what you are saying?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top