• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Freshman GOPer: Hey, Where's My Health Care?

Even if it's a stupid comparison (which I'm not conceding, because if a company defers coverage it's to make the sure the employee is actually going to stay, and there's no question of that here), it's still not the hypocrisy that TPM, the OP, and other posters imply it is.

I think it's a stupid comparison but I also think that calling him a hypocrite here is stretching it. There's a difference between being against government run insurance for all and the government offering insurance to employees.

Do you really think that pointing out how inefficient the government is by pointing out that they have extremely similar policies that most private companies have was a smart move? I don't understand how that isn't an extremely dumb comparison. Hell, my company knows I'm not going anywhere but after my fiance and I get married I have to wait a month to add her to my plan and take her off of hers.
 
Ok then... which people do the GOPers want to deny health care to? Care to be specific?

for starters, those who have pre-existing conditions
otherwise why deny those with pre-existing conditions from being able to qualify for health insurance to be able to obtain the necessary health care
 
for starters, those who have pre-existing conditions
otherwise why deny those with pre-existing conditions from being able to qualify for health insurance to be able to obtain the necessary health care

Oh, I see. They voted against Obamacare in toto and by this, they all specifically want to deny health insurance to everyone with a pre-existing condition.
 
I think it's a stupid comparison but I also think that calling him a hypocrite here is stretching it. There's a difference between being against government run insurance for all and the government offering insurance to employees.

Do you really think that pointing out how inefficient the government is by pointing out that they have extremely similar policies that most private companies have was a smart move? I don't understand how that isn't an extremely dumb comparison. Hell, my company knows I'm not going anywhere but after my fiance and I get married I have to wait a month to add her to my plan and take her off of hers.

Like I said, whether or not it's stupid doesn't make it hypocrisy.
 
for starters, those who have pre-existing conditions
otherwise why deny those with pre-existing conditions from being able to qualify for health insurance to be able to obtain the necessary health care

Please show me a list of GOP Senators and Congressmen that have said they do not want people with pre-existing conditions to get any health care coverage.

You're making the same error (knowingly I suspect) that most liberals do... You seem to feel that if someone is against the Obamacare Monstrosity, they MUST by definition be against everything in it. A partisan error, which is simply not the case.

People CAN indeed be against the Obamacare Monstrosity, but still want certain provisions in it to eventually become law... perhaps in a health care bill that is less wasteful, more concise, and one that will not destroy the current system? naaaaaaaaa... makes too much sense... can't have that, now can we.
 
Please show me a list of GOP Senators and Congressmen that have said they do not want people with pre-existing conditions to get any health care coverage.

You're making the same error (knowingly I suspect) that most liberals do... You seem to feel that if someone is against the Obamacare Monstrosity, they MUST by definition be against everything in it. A partisan error, which is simply not the case.

People CAN indeed be against the Obamacare Monstrosity, but still want certain provisions in it to eventually become law... perhaps in a health care bill that is less wasteful, more concise, and one that will not destroy the current system? naaaaaaaaa... makes too much sense... can't have that, now can we.

It's not an error. It's deliberate.
 
Freshman GOPer: Hey, Where's My Health Care?

Maryland physician Andy Harris (R) just soundly defeated Frank Kratovil, one of the most endangered Democrats on Capitol Hill going into the November election. And he did it in large part by railing against 'Obamacare' and pledging to repeal Health Care Reform. But when he showed on Capitol Hill today for an orientation for incoming members of Congress and their staffs, he had a different question: Where's my government health care?

Oh, no...what's he going to do without insurance for a month?

What I want to know is why we have to pay their healthcare in the first place. If these "small government" candidates want to put their money where their mouths are, the first thing they need to do is eliminate healthcare coverage for all Representatives and Senators.

Let them purchase it on the market, like they want everyone else to.

I have a MUCH better idea...ALL elected officials should recieve medicare/medicaid as their ONLY insurance source. Mandatory...no supplemental insurance.
 
Please show me a list of GOP Senators and Congressmen that have said they do not want people with pre-existing conditions to get any health care coverage.

You're making the same error (knowingly I suspect) that most liberals do... You seem to feel that if someone is against the Obamacare Monstrosity, they MUST by definition be against everything in it. A partisan error, which is simply not the case.

People CAN indeed be against the Obamacare Monstrosity, but still want certain provisions in it to eventually become law... perhaps in a health care bill that is less wasteful, more concise, and one that will not destroy the current system? naaaaaaaaa... makes too much sense... can't have that, now can we.

i missed any show of GOP support when the health care bill was enacted ... even after the legislation was watered down to try to achieve an element of concensus
have not seen the republican approach to health care which ends the pre-existing provision for those seeking health insurance
being unable to prove a negative, maybe you can point those GOP congressmen out to me together with the legislation they introduced eliminating the pre-existing limitation
 
Please show me a list of GOP Senators and Congressmen that have said they do not want people with pre-existing conditions to get any health care coverage.

You're making the same error (knowingly I suspect) that most liberals do... You seem to feel that if someone is against the Obamacare Monstrosity, they MUST by definition be against everything in it. A partisan error, which is simply not the case.

People CAN indeed be against the Obamacare Monstrosity, but still want certain provisions in it to eventually become law... perhaps in a health care bill that is less wasteful, more concise, and one that will not destroy the current system? naaaaaaaaa... makes too much sense... can't have that, now can we.

So how would you go about ending the pre-existing conditions exclusions?
 
i missed any show of GOP support when the health care bill was enacted ... even after the legislation was watered down to try to achieve an element of concensus

have not seen the republican approach to health care which ends the pre-existing provision for those seeking health insurance

being unable to prove a negative, maybe you can point those GOP congressmen out to me together with the legislation they introduced eliminating the pre-existing limitation

you're not for real, are you?

Why on Earth would you expect the GOP to support Obamacare, in any incarnation? The watered down version still sucked big time, whether your partisan blinders let you see it or not. You're still equating NOT supporting Obamacare in all it's glory, with NOT wanting people to have insurance. It's VERY partisan, and simply incorrect.

Then you never bothered to look. This took me all of 5 seconds to GOOGLE...
http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf

PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to take meaningful steps to lower health care costs and increase access to health insurance coverage (especially for individuals with preexisting conditions) without—
raising taxes
cutting Medicare benefits for seniors
adding to the national deficit
intervening in the doctor-patient relationship
instituting a government takeover of healthcare.
That last part is WHY the Dems wouldn't sit down with the GOP, and anyone not with their head in Dempocratic sand knows it.

Had the Dems been REMOTELY interested in a bi-partisan effort at reforming healthcare, you'd have seen this.
 
Question, what the heck does pre-existing conditions, and the forcing of private business to accept people with them completely antithetical to the entire notion of what "insurance" by definition, have to do with this congressman wanting to know when his employers subsidized healthcare will kick in and his supposed hypocrisy?

Would somehow he NOT be able to gain access to the health care currently if it was under the old rules because he has a pre-existing condition? If not, then what is the point of discussing it in this thread other than to derail it from the topic to instead a debate back and forth about the health care bill, of which we have dozens of threads already covering it?
 
Question, what the heck does pre-existing conditions, and the forcing of private business to accept people with them completely antithetical to the entire notion of what "insurance" by definition, have to do with this congressman wanting to know when his employers subsidized healthcare will kick in and his supposed hypocrisy?

Would somehow he NOT be able to gain access to the health care currently if it was under the old rules because he has a pre-existing condition? If not, then what is the point of discussing it in this thread other than to derail it from the topic to instead a debate back and forth about the health care bill, of which we have dozens of threads already covering it?

i was simply answering a question put to me. I have no issue with these post being moved into any one of the health care threads, assuming moving just posts is possible.
 
for starters, those who have pre-existing conditions

really? care to point us to the particular legislation where Republicans wanted to legislate that those with pre-existing conditions be denied healthcare?

otherwise why deny those with pre-existing conditions from being able to qualify for health insurance to be able to obtain the necessary health care

yup; and would love to see where Republicans want to deny these people from qualifying for health insurance?




oh WAIT; that's right. you people equate "not giving someone something" with "taking that something away".

why do you deny black people the right to be a millionaires? have you given every black person a million dollars? why are you so racist?
 
really? care to point us to the particular legislation where Republicans wanted to legislate that those with pre-existing conditions be denied healthcare?



yup; and would love to see where Republicans want to deny these people from qualifying for health insurance?




oh WAIT; that's right. you people equate "not giving someone something" with "taking that something away".

why do you deny black people the right to be a millionaires? have you given every black person a million dollars? why are you so racist?

I see points in your future
images
 
Back
Top Bottom