New GOP rep demands his government health care

Riot · #1 11-16-2010, 02:50 AM

Oh, the blind hypocrisy is just too hilarious for words. This next House is going to be two years of political fun

Quote:

A conservative Maryland physician elected to Congress on an anti-Obamacare platform surprised fellow freshmen at a Monday orientation session by demanding to know why his government-subsidized health care plan from the government takes a month to kick in.

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.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

No, Congressman - there isn't a public option for you to buy in. Be strong! You are being protected from socialized medicine! Don't worry, you can probably continue your present plan via COBRA ....

dellinger63 · #2 11-16-2010, 09:39 AM

Similar to John Kerry wanting to raise taxes on the rich (those making 250K or more) yet docking his YACHT outside of his home State to avoid taxes?

If it's blind hypocricy you want simply take a look a Jesse Jackson's bastard child that no one ever mentions. Talk about leaving a child behind!!!!!!

miraja2 · #3 11-16-2010, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63

take a look a Jesse Jackson's bastard child that no one ever mentions.

Whether we agree with Riot's take on whether Mr. Harris's actions constitute hypocrisy or not, I'm sure we can ALL agree that dellinger63 makes his typical insightful and extremely relevant point here.

Personally, I'm not so sure Mr. Harris's actions do constitute what Riot calls "blind hypocrisy." I assume that most people who opposed health care reform still wanted those people actually employed by the government to receive their health care - in one way or another - from the government. I did not agree with those who opposed health reform, but wasn't their basic argument for retaining employer-based health care? If the government is a person's employer (as is now the case with Mr. Harris) then doesn't almost everyone on all sides of the debate agree that the government should provide him with health insurance in some form?
I thought that the opponents of health care reform said a lot of crazy things during the debate over health care, but I don't remember them saying that people who actually work for the government should stop getting their health care through them.

Riot · #4 11-16-2010, 12:26 PM

Nobody is saying the guy shouldn't get government health care.

The laughable, hypocritical thing is that the guy is indignant there is no public option he can take advantage of when he finds himself without insurance for a month.

The very same type of public option he campaigned against, what he called "a gateway to socialized medicine".

Guess it's only a denouncable socialistic gateway if it's not something you personally want.

He can pay COBRA rates like everyone else to hold over his old healthcare until the new job healthcare kicks in. If he doesn't have insurance now, looks like he's screwed for 28 days, like 40 million other uninsured Americans.

But at least now he cannot be denied insurance for his pre-existing conditions. Until he votes to overturn that, as he swore to do on the campaign trail.

miraja2 · #5 11-16-2010, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Nobody is saying the guy shouldn't get government health care.

The laughable, hypocritical thing is that the guy is indignant there is no public option he can take advantage of when he finds himself without insurance for a month.

The very same type of public option he campaigned against, what he called "a gateway to socialized medicine".

Guess it's only a denouncable socialistic gateway if it's not something you personally want.

He can pay COBRA rates like everyone else to hold over his old healthcare until the new job healthcare kicks in. If he doesn't have insurance now, looks like he's screwed for 28 days, like 40 million other uninsured Americans.

But at least now he cannot be denied insurance for his pre-existing conditions. Until he votes to overturn that, as he swore to do on the campaign trail.

Well, I think he's right that it is ridiculous that he won't be covered until 2/1. It seems as if he was surprised by it, and started asking what his options were. That doesn't seem that bad to me. It just doesn't strike me as that unreasonable for him to think that perhaps there was something that "the two ladies who were answering questions" could tell him about where he should buy healthcare, or what his options were in the interim.

Or maybe, it wasn't any of that. Perhaps he was just trying to score points against single-payer and/or the public option by saying "look, the government can't even provide healthcare to its own workers, how is it going to provide healthcare for everyone!?!?" I don't know what the point to that would be given that single-payer is beyond buried, but maybe he was trying to be cute.

Either way it just doesn't strike me as all that hypocritical. Personally, I'm a single-payer supporter. But if a person who starts working for the post office starts asking their new HR person about when coverage begins and what they should do if there is a gap, I don't think that necessarily makes them a hypocrite, even if they loudly denounce single-payer or the public option as policy measures.

Nascar1966 · #6 11-17-2010, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miraja2

Whether we agree with Riot's take on whether Mr. Harris's actions constitute hypocrisy or not, I'm sure we can ALL agree that dellinger63 makes his typical insightful and extremely relevant point here.

Personally, I'm not so sure Mr. Harris's actions do constitute what Riot calls "blind hypocrisy." I assume that most people who opposed health care reform still wanted those people actually employed by the government to receive their health care - in one way or another - from the government. I did not agree with those who opposed health reform, but wasn't their basic argument for retaining employer-based health care? If the government is a person's employer (as is now the case with Mr. Harris) then doesn't almost everyone on all sides of the debate agree that the government should provide him with health insurance in some form?
I thought that the opponents of health care reform said a lot of crazy things during the debate over health care, but I don't remember them saying that people who actually work for the government should stop getting their health care through them.

I think the new health care bill is a crock of horse manure. Glad I wont have anything to do with this bill that the American public didnt want. Maybe the voters put the message out on election day as to what they think of the bill.

Riot · #7 11-17-2010, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

I think the new health care bill is a crock of horse manure. Glad I wont have anything to do with this bill that the American public didnt want. Maybe the voters put the message out on election day as to what they think of the bill.

You are against children being able to stay on their parents insurance policies until they are 26?

You want to repeal ill children (cancer, kidney, etc) no longer having lifetime caps of what their insurance has to pay? You want to go back to children being uninsurable for the remainder of their lives?

What else in the bill do you think is a crock of horse manure?

Riot · #8 11-17-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miraja2

Well, I think he's right that it is ridiculous that he won't be covered until 2/1.

Many jobs don't have insurance that starts the day you do - many wait until 3 or 6 months have passed before you get benefits.

dellinger63 · #9 11-17-2010, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Many jobs don't have insurance that starts the day you do - many wait until 3 or 6 months have passed before you get benefits.

Can you give us a list of exemptions under Obamacare not for 3 or 6 mos but forever or must I? Hint McDonalds is one of them...........and there are maaaaaaannnnnnny more.

dellinger63 · #10 11-17-2010, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Can you give us a list of exemptions under Obamacare or must I? Hint McDonalds is one of them...........and there are maaaaaaannnnnnny more.

But not a single SMALL BUSINESS!!!!!!!!

Riot · #11 11-17-2010, 11:58 PM

Dell, I think you, personally, should concentrate on the exemption involving Sharia law and Muslims!

Nascar1966 · #12 11-18-2010, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

You are against children being able to stay on their parents insurance policies until they are 26?

You want to repeal ill children (cancer, kidney, etc) no longer having lifetime caps of what their insurance has to pay? You want to go back to children being uninsurable for the remainder of their lives?

What else in the bill do you think is a crock of horse manure?

Let me rephrase it I am against certain parts of the bill:

If an unemployment person isnt seeking work and spending thier benefits on drugs and alcohol why should my taxpaying money go to support them? Also I hope the worthless, despicable illegals dont get to have the insurance. They get just about everything else. What are the premiums going to be for this insurance? Is a healthy person going to have pay more for it than an unhealthy person.

Didnt the majority of the American public state that they dont want this insurance?

notyep59 · #13 11-18-2010, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Let me rephrase it I am against certain parts of the bill:

If an unemployment person isnt seeking work and spending thier benefits on drugs and alcohol why should my taxpaying money go to support them? Also I hope the worthless, despicable illegals dont get to have the insurance. They get just about everything else. What are the premiums going to be for this insurance? Is a healthy person going to have pay more for it than an unhealthy person.

Didnt the majority of the American public state that they dont want this insurance?

were you on jerry springer yesterday??