• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

GOP freshman: Where's my health care?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fern said:
I said "re-elected".

When they are re-elected, it's a new term, a new job. When the Congressperson's 2 years is up, they are automatically terminated and must win an election to be 'hired back'.

Fern
Click to expand...

Well, I don't see it that way. It's a continuation of what they already started. That would be the same as saying that my wife must start over every year when she re-signs her contract with the school for the next year. If she doesn't get a contract (not re-elected) then she would be starting over. She gets contract and starts next school year with benefits as usual.
 
Fern said:
It seems to me that "Fred the janitor" might be someone trying to 'hit and run' just for medical benefits.

A Congressperson OTOH, no. You don't campaign for 18 months just to hope to win and then get benefits and quit.

As a self-proclaimed conservative I'm obviously not any kind of 'pro-government' person, nor do I worship politicians like some of the more extremem progessives around here seem to. Yet I can see a perfectly understandable reason for providing newly elected Congress person with coverage on day 1 (see question below). If my elected representative doesn't have coverage and gets ill and can't get medical help I may be left without representation. If they get expensive medical care yet have no coverage does it benefit me, the constutuent if they go bankrupt? Or feel the need to seek bribes etc? So I can see it as a benefit to us constituents, instead of being just a benefit to the Congressperson. So, 'Yes', I guess they are "special" to some extent.

Do members of each (new) Congress have to wait 30 days every time they are re-elected? (I'm guessing 'no', even though I don't see any good reason why not)

Fern
Click to expand...

As a supporter of the free market, you should have no problem with Congressmen purchasing private insurance for 30 days. They certainly make MORE than enough to cover even a top of the line policy. What's more, a 30 day waiting period would have no impact on whether someone chooses to run. So there is no need to use that as an incentive to retain them.

It's my opinion that the more little perks we give these people, the more indispensable and special they think they are. And they're not.
 
CycloWizard said:
Right. The UK's NHS has nothing to do with their economic problems. Germany's moving away from a similar system has nothing to do with their success. That's reality? I'll have what you're having.
Click to expand...

You should really do some very pedestrian research before you spout off about things that you know very little, if anything at all about:

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_health_care_spending_10.html#ukgs302

They spent 15.5% of their total spending last year on their NHS and that covered every man, woman and child in the country!

We, on the other hand, still spent spent 16.2% of our total GDP on health care and we don't even cover a fraction. And that is just the government spending, that doesn't include any private spending on health care either.

https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf

But I guess you could be right....it is probably that £119.8 billion being spent on health care that is looming large over their economy instead of the £850 billion bank bailouts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...fficial-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html
 
Double Trouble said:
OP, did you have a point with this, or just posting a link?

Seems pretty reasonable to me: you start a job it shouldn't take a month for your coverage to begin. It's not that he wants socialized / government health care, it's that he wants coverage that's part of his benefits package and is surprised that it takes a month to kick in. Issue not found.
Click to expand...


for around 40% of the population no healthcare ever actually arrives.

Walmarts policy is to have their employees files for mediciad and state assistance.

Many companys are to small to buy into a group and if you have one person who is chronically ill your policy is so outrageously priced you can't afford to offer it as a employer.

what needs to happen is that Insruance needs to fuck off and we need to setup private co-ops.

Fuck this whole for profit scandal. Some things in life have to be sacred and health is one of them.
 
Fern said:
It seems to me that "Fred the janitor" might be someone trying to 'hit and run' just for medical benefits.

A Congressperson OTOH, no. You don't campaign for 18 months just to hope to win and then get benefits and quit.

Fern
Click to expand...

Hell no you don't. Not when there are millions to be made by selling out to every corporation under the sun to get your wife and kids on some boards of directors so that they can and will funnel even more money into your "campaign" coffers.
 
JD50 said:
It hasn't been mine. Maybe different BU's do things differently.
Click to expand...

Possibly if you are corporate vs on an active contract. Both of my gigs with DCs have been on active contracts in IT and I've had to wait for both to kick in after a grace period.
 
RightIsWrong said:
Possibly if you are corporate vs on an active contract. Both of my gigs with DCs have been on active contracts in IT and I've had to wait for both to kick in after a grace period.
Click to expand...

I've been in IT on active contracts the entire time, maybe different customers, I dunno.
 
ModestGamer said:
for around 40% of the population no healthcare insurance ever actually arrives.

Walmarts policy is to have their employees files for mediciad and state assistance.

Many companys are to small to buy into a group and if you have one person who is chronically ill your policy is so outrageously priced you can't afford to offer it as a employer.

what needs to happen is that Insruance needs to fuck off and we need to setup private co-ops.

Fuck this whole for profit scandal. Some things in life have to be sacred and health is one of them.
Click to expand...

Doctors don't deserve to make a profit? Why don't you become a doctor and then you can give away your services. You could even start an insurance company and cover everyone for free, come on now, it'd feel great wouldn't it?
 
JD50 said:
I've been in IT on active contracts the entire time, maybe different customers, I dunno.
Click to expand...

Yeah, me either. I'm glad that you've had it a little better on that front but my experience has been good with both of them as far as the pay and benefit packages overall although the current insurance offering here sucks b/c of the location (high rate of older/long-term employees mean costs are way up while what is covered is cut).
 
xj0hnx said:
Doctors don't deserve to make a profit? Why don't you become a doctor and then you can give away your services. You could even start an insurance company and cover everyone for free, come on now, it'd feel great wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Are police departments for profit? Sure they all get payed for their service but they are a non for profit entity. Do firemen show up to a burning house and ask for a credit card?


Should the military be for profit? Should we just outsource the entire military to Halliburton or whatever they call themselves now?
 
manimal said:
Are police departments for profit? Sure they all get payed for their service but they are a non for profit entity. Do firemen show up to a burning house and ask for a credit card?


Should the military be for profit? Should we just outsource the entire military to Halliburton or whatever they call themselves now?
Click to expand...

Uh, reference the fire department that watched a house burn down because the guy didn't pay his year fire department fee of $75.

And there are more civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan than military personnel.
 
manimal said:
Are police departments for profit? Sure they all get payed for their service but they are a non for profit entity. Do firemen show up to a burning house and ask for a credit card?


Should the military be for profit? Should we just outsource the entire military to Halliburton or whatever they call themselves now?
Click to expand...

They don't need to make a profit because their financial needs are met by taking from the public in the form of taxes. Do you think that new fire station was built by someone's good looks?

Practices need to make a profit in order to hire staff, equipment and supplies. It doesn't all dance into the office by magic.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
They don't need to make a profit because their financial needs are met by taking from the public in the form of taxes. Do you think that new fire station was built by someone's good looks?

Practices need to make a profit in order to hire staff, equipment and supplies. It doesn't all dance into the office by magic.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. Purchasing and paying doesn't come out of your profit. It comes out of your income. Your profit is what you made after paying for the crap your company needs.

However, the logic that follows that is highly flawed. One might as easily argue that there's no reason car companies should make a profit. Or any other company for that matter. It quickly leads down the road to socialism.
 
xj0hnx said:
Doctors don't deserve to make a profit? Why don't you become a doctor and then you can give away your services. You could even start an insurance company and cover everyone for free, come on now, it'd feel great wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

For profit INSURANCE, dipshit.
 
stupid gop tea bagger the only way to get free health care in america is by being a congress or house member.
 
Pulsar said:
Uh, no. Purchasing and paying doesn't come out of your profit. It comes out of your income. Your profit is what you made after paying for the crap your company needs.

However, the logic that follows that is highly flawed. One might as easily argue that there's no reason car companies should make a profit. Or any other company for that matter. It quickly leads down the road to socialism.
Click to expand...


"Profit" means (to many of the whiners) that which exceeds salary. People with a brain realize that money needs to be had to cover other operating costs.

So what happens if the practice needs to expand or buy new equipment? The "extra" money pays for it. Having spare cash is evil.

Yeah I know that it's not insurance per se, but the ignorance of how things work is staggering. Everyone who looks at a pill is supposed to be Mother Theresa.
 
ericlp said:
stupid gop tea bagger the only way to get free health care in america is by being a congress or house member.
Click to expand...

He's getting a benefit for his job.

And what kind of idiot thinks there's free health care? It's not him and it's not me.

So this guy sees there's a LAW which prevents Congressmen from getting benefits immediately, not any necessity and he's a stupid GOP tea bagger who isn't asking for free anything. He's working for it.

Then we have Charlie Wrangler, who used his power inappropriately for decades for personal gain. Yeah you bitched about that right? Sure. What's going to happen to him? Someone is going to say he's a bad boy and he's going to continue to act with no real consequences selling his power to whoever bribes his ass.

Well Charlie isn't stupid is he? No he's a perfect politician.

Speaking of stupid- "being a congress OR house member"?
 
Why do I continually see a given side of an argument use purely anecdotal evidence against statistical evidence?

"Here are the series of studies that show that this is how X works."

"That's not how X works for me, so clearly that's not how X works. Period." [sound of brain closing]
 
CycloWizard said:
Are you arguing that my statement is incorrect, or are you complaining that I'm not going to sit on my ass all night and write a report about the failure of single-payer healthcare systems? Sounds like the latter. Failure to address your complaint is hardly a backpedal - it's recognizing you for a lazy idiot who isn't interested in reality, only in creating busywork for someone else. You should be a congressman.
Click to expand...

Both actually. You made a claim in your post and you were just hoping no one called you on it. Back it up or move on to the next argument where you'll do about the same thing. Happens every time. Its not my job to waste my time trying to find links to back up information that is pretty obviously just pulled out the thin air that is your talking points of the day.
 
RightIsWrong said:
You should really do some very pedestrian research before you spout off about things that you know very little, if anything at all about:

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_health_care_spending_10.html#ukgs302

They spent 15.5% of their total spending last year on their NHS and that covered every man, woman and child in the country!

We, on the other hand, still spent spent 16.2% of our total GDP on health care and we don't even cover a fraction. And that is just the government spending, that doesn't include any private spending on health care either.

https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf

But I guess you could be right....it is probably that £119.8 billion being spent on health care that is looming large over their economy instead of the £850 billion bank bailouts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...fficial-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html
Click to expand...
Nothing you posted in any way refutes what I said. Did you really think it would? The UK bank bailout is temporary debt thrown into the economy, not taken from it. The NHS is the largest portion of the UK government's budget (with welfare a close second), regardless of the fraction of GDP it represents. Its rapidly rising costs are generating uncertainty in the political and economic climates. I lived in the UK during the last election there, but I suppose a couple of minutes of Googling makes you the resident expert on the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top