supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9526) 12 years ago
http://www.politico.com/n...45181.html

Republican Andy Harris, an anesthesiologist who defeated freshman Democrat Frank Kratovil on Maryland's Eastern Shore, reacted incredulously when informed that federal law mandated that his government-subsidized health care policy would take effect on Feb. 1 - 28 days after his Jan. 3rd swearing-in.

"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," said a congressional staffer who saw the exchange. The benefits session, held behind closed doors, drew about 250 freshman members, staffers and family members to the Capitol Visitors Center auditorium late Monday morning.

"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.

I'm surprised this man can find a tailor who can craft a pair of pants capable of containing his enormous brass plated testicles.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5104) 12 years ago
Teabaggers...God love 'em.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1594) 12 years ago
This is nothing new- retarded rhetoric out of one side of the mouth and hypocritical action from the other.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2741) 12 years ago
You've got to give it to these guys who get elected by pandering to the far right, whether it be religious zealotry or anti-tax fever: They very consistently revert to looking out for for number one once they're safely ensconced in their seat of power.

And thank God for that, because that usually involves looking at the world through eyes that are slightly more moderate and much more realistic.

So, under these circumstances and these circumstances only, I say Three Cheers for Hypocrisy. Hoorah. Hoorah. Hoorah.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12754) 12 years ago
I LOVE this jerk whining about going with medical insurance for a month. Well, boo hoo. May I introduce you to people with NO insurance and medical bills that will drive them into bankruptcy. Oh, wait, you are a Tea Gagger. You don't care.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 12 years ago
I guess he never heard of Cobra.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9526) 12 years ago
And hopefully he never finds out what the "R" in COBRA stands for. The horror, the horror....
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 12 years ago
One of these days it's going to be your guys who find out what that "R" is really all about.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9526) 12 years ago
I'm going to chalk the fact that that makes no sense up to it being late and all.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5104) 12 years ago
Racism?

Help me out, Rickenhawk.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5104) 12 years ago
I think everyone found out what the "R" was all about during 8 years of Bush/Cheney.

Your boy Bush was an excellent President, wasn't he, Rickenhawk?
Top
Posted by Tracy Walters (+300) 12 years ago
...so much for civility again.


I'm sure you could read about anything you wanted into that article. If you read it all the way though, it seems he was trying to prove a point. Businesses are able to provide health care from day one, but the government can't do it.

And we want to turn the whole health care management over to them for everyone? Not me, thank you very much.

I'll say it once again...my wife is Crow Indian, and if you want to see how dysfunctional the government can be when it tries to run health care, just look at the Indian Health Service....it's an embarrassment.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12754) 12 years ago
He has tried to spin that he was "proving a point." He didn't claim that until well after the fact. He came off as greedy and whiny and no amount of spinning will change that.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5104) 12 years ago
Tracy:

My private sector employer doesn't provide health care insurance from day 1.

Just sayin'
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9526) 12 years ago
Nor does mine.
Top
Posted by Mary B. (+199) 12 years ago
Nor does mine.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4458) 12 years ago
6 freakin' months here!
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+18634) 12 years ago
Well, mine does (had to look it up).
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12754) 12 years ago
Actually, most businesses have anything from a 90 to a 180 day waiting period. I don't know of a single company that provides from day one. For one thing, you have to pay in advance so the first month can't be covered even if some incredibly nice company wanted to provide it.

And. . . Many people don't have any insurance. Not in 30 days. Not in 90 days. So his whining about a whole month off is particularly offensive.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1668) 12 years ago
Neither of my last two employers had insurance coverage from day "one".

Unfortunately, during that lapse in coverage from old employer to new employer, I had to have emergency gallbladder surgery in Miles City, and a subsequent emergency surgery in Billings for a missed gallstone. Although the COBRA coverage was ridiculously expensive, it beat the $30,000.00 between the two procedures.

Perhaps, like Maryann, Tracy should be thankful he is not personally familiar with lapses in insurance coverage.
Top
supporter
Posted by Mike Wallick (+171) 12 years ago
The true problem is that while we are scrapping about our guys vs. your guys bickering over trivial details with the current coverage system, the current coverage system rolls along.

Some of what I see as the real problems are:

1. The expenses for health care are outrageously expensive and unrealistic. Due to- Malpractice insurance rates? Lawsuits? Legal teams? Bloated bureaucracy?

2. A huge amount of the expense is automatically written off JUST BECAUSE you are insured. If you or I go into the doctor's office without insurance we have to pay full price. If you carry insurance, a usually substantial portion is immediately written off.

I think the goal should be to eliminate health insurance entirely except for catastrophic care for everyone, in the event of a major illness or incident. For the run of the mill flu runs or strep checks, get the costs down to where they should be and let us pay as we go.
Top
Posted by Tracy Walters (+300) 12 years ago
I don't think his statement was spin...I think it was a calculated move. But we'll probably argue that forever and neither of us will agree.

On the company providing insurance... my company, and the last three I have worked for, pay all of my health care premimum from day one. I have a copay for visits, but it's minimal....my employer doesn't want me sick and not working.

I have to pay for my family members...and it's not cheap .. $500 a month for my just my wife, or $850 a month for my wife and grandson.

Mike,
I like some of what you said...For some folks catastrophic health insurance would be enough. Others would like to have more coverage...my employer is a case in point. Most of my company travels a lot...depending on the employee, it's 50-90% of the time on the road. We're in airplanes, motels, strange work environment, eating restaurant food, etc... for us, having really good insurance helps, because we are exposed to everything new that comes along.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1668) 12 years ago
my employer doesn't want me sick and not working.


And ours do?
Top
Posted by Tracy Walters (+300) 12 years ago
Denise,

Did you honestly take my statement:

....my employer doesn't want me sick and not working.


to imply:

And ours do?
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+18747) 12 years ago
Tracy, do you see the irony in the thread title... FYIGM?
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1668) 12 years ago
You can't blame me for asking Tracy. That claim doesn't seem any more outlandish than the claim that Congressman Harris' comments were calculated to prove a point.
Top
Posted by Tracy Walters (+300) 12 years ago
Yes, David...I see what was intended as the irony in the title. It's only irony if you choose to believe that the man would campaign so strongly on an issue, and then make a ludicrous contrary statement as has been implied here.

Of course, that all fits in with the idea that anyone who believes that the Federal government should be smaller, more efficient, less intrusive and spend less money, or any one of those issues is a 'teabagger' and therefore 'stoopid'

I don't necessarily know the man, but based on what I've seen so far, he's not an idiot and made the statement for a valid reason, to prove a point. Some people will deliberately choose to portray the statement in the worst light possible, and it's why so many people no longer trust the media in this country.

...and just to take their side a bit, it's I think anyone running for public office may very well have a screw loose.

Why subject yourself to the kind of insane treatment that nearly anyone gets in the media? <--rhetorical question, for those that just can't resist answering.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9526) 12 years ago
Of course, that all fits in with the idea that anyone who believes that the Federal government should be smaller, more efficient, less intrusive and spend less money, or any one of those issues is a 'teabagger' and therefore 'stoopid'

The only thing "stoopid" here is the belief that the people running the teabagger show actually care about any of the above. Otherwise, where were all these people six to eight years ago, when the feds were creating the Dept. of Homeland Security, illegally wiretapping everything under the sun and running two wars on credit? Wetting their beds because Saladin Osama bin Laden had put out another youtube video and rubbing one out to any number of homoerotic Jack Boweresque fantasies.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 12 years ago
How's that KSM trial coming along, Bridgier?
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1668) 12 years ago
It's only irony if you choose to believe that the man would campaign so strongly on an issue, and then make a ludicrous contrary statement as has been implied here.


Tracy, just so I'm clear, would Tea Partiers on Medicare motorscooters be considered ironic, or clearly calculated?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 12 years ago
No more ironic than a government-healthcare supporter accepting employer-based insurance.

Probably less so, actually.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (11/17/2010)]
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+596) 12 years ago
So you are again saying that our healthcare system is without fault? Perfect fantasy world you live in Rick. Guess you really believe in FYIGM..
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 12 years ago
Hmmmm... you might want to read what I said again.

My point was that when you hold a gun to someone's head and force them into a system, you can't read their participation in that system as an endorsement of it.

I've always been told that the progressive perspective was compelling. I just never realized until now that y'all meant that very literally.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9526) 12 years ago
How's that KSM trial coming along, Bridgier?

Well, that's two for two now that I don't understand. I've lost my secret Rick decoder ring. Is this you going back to pretending that you suddenly care about civil rights and whatnot? See also, "where the procreate where all these screaming poop-flinging monkeys six years ago?"

Although, it does appear that the system of justice which is the supposed lifeblood of the American experience does seem to work: http://www.nytimes.com/20...ss&emc=rss

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (11/17/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 12 years ago
I guess my point was that you can't gauge how much someone cares by how shrill they're willing to be.

Their silence then shouldn't be judged any more harshly than the silence we're hearing today.

http://www.washingtonpost...=rss_world
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1668) 12 years ago
I don't know. You could be like the girl, um, I mean young woman, who insisted to me that she will not enroll in Medicare when it comes time because she doesn't believe in government intrusion and doesn't want to be a hypocrite. When I told her that she would be forfeiting her right to Social Security if she refuses Medicare, she insisted to me that this presented no problem because she has a good job and her company's retirement plan will be more than adequate.

I'm going to try to follow through on this one in 40 years to see if she truly has the conviction of her words. I'm thinking once she sees the cost of private health insurance at the age, and the cost of living, she will sing a slightly different tune.

The wisdom of youth...
Top
Posted by Elizabeth Emilsson (+795) 12 years ago
Just wondering, Tracey, if Indian Health is so bad, why do you use it? I know people who use Indian Health so they can get Medications that would otherwise take up their whole income. I love people who voted Republican/tea bagger and then cry, "Don't touch my medicare."
Top
Posted by Mathew Schmitz (+281) 12 years ago
Personally, I would like a re-inbursement of all monies I have paid into social security, with interest of course, to invest in the health insurance plan of my choosing. I am quite certain that I would be money ahead at the end of the game. The chances of me seeing any of the 10's of thousands I have put in to the system, as it stands, are nearly null and void. Give me my damn money back, and leave me alone. I can handle it from here.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12754) 12 years ago
Actually, if you live a long life, you will get more out of Social Security and Medicare than you paid in. If you die young, then you win.
Top
Posted by Tracy Walters (+300) 12 years ago
I see a lot of effort to send this discussion down different paths, probably because it's not going where some people like.

The discussion was about Health Care, not the Department of Homeland Security (just for the record, in my opinion, they are a useless, bureaucratic waste of money, time and a tool to beat Americans into the idea that they are subjects, not citizens)

Just wondering, Tracey, if Indian Health is so bad, why do you use it? I know people who use Indian Health so they can get Medications that would otherwise take up their whole income. I love people who voted Republican/tea bagger and then cry, "Don't touch my medicare."


We don't use it much...only when we are down on the rez and the IHS clinic is the closest. I agree that a lot of people get their medications that way...but it could be so much better. In my opinion, if IHS just obtained Health Insuranced (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) for every tribal member, it would cost much less money, they'd get better care, and I bet they'd even find doctors and nurses to operate some of these clinics in the remote areas.

As it is...my wife can try to make an appointment, which can be pushed to at least a month out, show up on the appointed day (notice I didn't say time, because they want everyone to show up at 8am, then sit around until they get to you), and sometimes find the doctor didn't even show up. No one will have bothered calling, and sometimes the clinic is even locked up.

Another example, my wife cut her hand on a broken glass while washing dishes...it was a bad, deep cut. I rushed her to Crow Agency to the clinic...she got right in...was seen by three different people (two different people tried to give her the tetanus shot...it's a good thing I was there to stop it). None of the people that saw her was the doctor...he leaned in and said I'm the doctor on duty, then went back to his computer and browsed the Internet. I know, because I could see what he was doing from where I was in her room. This happened some months ago...we're going to take her to the clinic in Billings now because the cut didn't heal right, and it hurts her all the time.

I believe they'd get much, much better care from a commercial provider, and I fear greatly that this is kind of crap we're going to see if the government becomes the provider.


...and, one of her aunts went into the hospital for hip surgery some years ago, during which she contracted an infection that no one saw or diagnosed, despite several trips back due to pain. She went on a trip to Oklahoma, experienced great pain and went to the hospital...the doctors immediately diagnosed the issue, but it was too late...the infection had spread, her blood was toxic, and she died three days later.

You can take IHS and shove it, along with any other kind of government health care. I have horror stories about military health care too, although it's the best of the gov't run stuff.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5104) 12 years ago
Tracy: Does Medicare meet your definition of government health care?
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1668) 12 years ago
I have to pay for my family members...and it's not cheap .. $500 a month for my just my wife


As it is...my wife can try to make an appointment, which can be pushed to at least a month out


[Read as non-emergent, which could be scheduled at a non-government bankrolled facility.]

You can take IHS and shove it


Perhaps you should do just that.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12754) 12 years ago
The IHS is the result of 100 years+ of bigotry and underfunding. I don't count it as true "health care" but the VA is true socialist medical care. Has the highest reported satisfaction among its users of any form of medical care available.

So, why hasn't it be dissolved? Or expanded? It is either A) evil because it is government run or B) the solution to the problem.
Top