Congress Gets Tax Payer Funded Healthcare Why Don't They Want The Rest Of Us To

1. 70

   vveaseyposted 11 years ago

   Congress Gets Tax Payer Funded Healthcare Why Don't They Want The Rest Of Us To Get It?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 79

   vrdmposted 11 years ago

   Good question.  I think it's because they are basically corporationists.  They believe health care should accrue to high ranking executives as a "perk" or reward for their high ranking services. 
   If we all had publicly funded health care, it would diminish their "differential", their added privilege for serving the public as selflessly and magnificently as they do.  If we erode this differential, what incentive would they have for trying to achieve high office?

   replyreport
   1. 70

      vveaseyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      vrdsm
      You said "for serving the public as selflessly and magnificently as they do. If we erode this differential, what incentive would they have for trying to achieve high office" Hilarious!

      replyreport
3. 80

   Wayne Brownposted 11 years ago

   Ironically, they claim that a "single-provider plan" is not achieveable at the moment and, if you could get them to be truthful, they would tell you that the country cannot afford it.  The point is...ObamaCare is not about healthcare...never has been.  It is about gaining control over and into our lives using a single tool.  One only has to list the built in "booby-traps" like tax on real estate sales, mandatory penalties, Care-Review panels who give a thumbs up or down on certain care for certain age groups.  This is not about a concern for healthcare but more a case of "giving up handouts" in order to buy voter loyalty.  The vote of those who cannot afford to pay carries more weight today apparently than the vote of those who will pay for it does.  My Congressman showed us his healthcare card at a local town hall meeting.  He is covered under Blue Cross Blue Shield like all federal employees.  His deductible on major medical is $350 per year.  I do not believe he is not of pocket for the cost of the coverage which is huge...$6000 or more per year.  Much of the woes of our current medical costs could be addressed by resolving issues associated with frivilous lawsuits.  Since Congress is filled mostly with lawyers, you can figure out why there is no action in that regard.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      M. T. Dremerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Such conspiracy theories imply the government has some level of competency. There's corruption, sure, but not in a "lets pass a healthcare bill that secretly controls peoples' lives" kind of way.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      In my last job I was in a PPO with virtually no out of pocket expenses. My share of the premium was about $1,000 per month. I am paying that much for "wannabe" insurance that covers hardly anything.  There are many problems to address.

      replyreport
4. 63

   PhlebotomyAdviserposted 11 years ago

   We elect congress so technically we don't want it for ourselves. In the end tax payer funded Healthcare comes out of your pocket anyways! Obamacare is already on it's way so let us just see how it turns out.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      JON EWALLposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      ''so let us....out.'' 9/20/13
      Obama's big debt limit deception
      http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/19/opinion/g … index.html OBAMACARE MUST BE REPEALED  POTUS says ''TRUST ME'' don't be STUPID?

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I do not agree with you. That is my right. I think you are incorrect. For me, a 62-year-old man with prior health conditions who cannot buy health insurance. Obamacare is needed. I resent the implication that people who disagree with you are stupid.

      replyreport
5. 0

   Larry Wallposted 11 years ago

   I previously worked for a former Congressman. He said that he had to pay a portion of the premium. While the insurance he had in Congress was great, the policy we had at our office, was better, but it cost a lot. Unfortunately, when I was discharged after 22 years, I was denied retirement coverage but had a year of company-paid  COBRA--could not convert because the group policy, we had does not write individual policies in my state. Thus at age 62 and with a medical history that is not stellar, I cannot buy real insurance. Therefore, I do support Obamacare--not all parts--but the part that will assure me the right to buy real insurance will cause me to accept the rest of the plan. Call me selfish if you wish. I spent eight days in the hospital in July. On the fourth day the bill was $19,000. I have not seen the final bill.  If someone wants to pay the bill, I can provide the account number and hospital address. Obamacare is not going to solve that problem for me, but with my history, I expect more visits. It's tough getting old.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      patchofearthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I feel you Larry.  I'm in favor of universal health care for pretty much the reasons you describe.  I am healthy at the moment but we are all getting older. What's going to happen then?

      replyreport
6. 0

   TXSasquatchposted 11 years ago

   Because that would be "SOCIALISM!"
   
   I'm being sarcastic, of course, but it's still a serious answer.  Many people--i.e., voters--have this notion in their heads that a government health care plan would be "socialism."  They have no qualms about driving their cars on the "socialist" public highways or sending their kids to the "socialist" public schools or calling the "socialist" public fire department when they see smoke, but for some crazy, wholly inexplicable reason, health care is different.  It's really pretty mind-boggling.  Regardless, the politicians aren't about to push for us to have taxpayer-funded health care because they perceive that it would be political suicide, and they may be right about that.  Their survival instinct trumps their desire to do the right thing.
   
   I believe that Obamacare is a step in the right direction, but ultimately a single-payer system ("Medicare for all") will be the only way to ensure that everyone has coverage.  Moreover, it's something that we the people should demand.  Health care is a basic human right--not a privilege or commodity.  The profit motive has no place in health care.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      vrdmposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Funny how "socialism" has come to be such a dirty word.  I wonder if it's anything to do with media owned and controlled by capitalists?  ))
      http://vrdm.hubpages.com/hub/Sneaking-Socialism

      replyreport
   2. 70

      vveaseyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed!

      replyreport
   3. 0

      TXSasquatchposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, very true.  I guess it's somewhat comforting (and simple) for folks to think of the whole capitalism versus socialism issue as a dichotomy, but clearly it's not.  Neither exists in pure form.  By necessity, we've always had a hybrid system.

      replyreport
7. 70

   vveaseyposted 11 years ago

   Just want to apologize to to Jon Ewall for accidentally deleting your post. Re post it if you will.

   replyreport