Edwards: Cut off healthcare benefits for Congress and the Presidency

C

Cypress

Well-known member
1) healthcare: Edwards is doing what he needs to do: getting buzz-bang for his media buck. His new ad cites his plan to push Congress to pass a law that would cut off its own health care coverage unless it passes a bill that covers everyone.

On the first day of Edwards' administration, he will submit legislation that ends health care coverage for the president, all members of Congress, and all senior political appointees in the legislative and executive branches of government on July 20th, 2009 -- unless Congress has enacted universal health care reform.

Edwards will require Congress to pass universal health insurance that meets four principles: (1) It must be truly universal; (2) Anyone who has health care must be able to keep it and pay less for it; (3) Anyone who doesn't have health care must get it, with help if they can't afford it; (4) Doctors and patients, not insurance companies and HMOs, must have control of health care decisions.

http://johnedwards.com/iowa/20071113-health-care-ad/
Click to expand...


2) Trade: Edwards (like Ron Paul) opposes any more NAFTA-style phony trade agreements. Edwards opposes the Peru "free" trade deal. Clinton and Obama support the Peru Trade Deal.


3) Iraq: Edwards - all combat troops out of Iraq. Clinton, Obama: leave some combat troops in Iraq; i.e., continue the occupation
 
Right...sure...Edwards the ambulance chaser....

Cypress said:
1) healthcare: Edwards is doing what he needs to do: getting buzz-bang for his media buck. His new ad cites his plan to push Congress to pass a law that would cut off its own health care coverage unless it passes a bill that covers everyone.




2) Trade: Edwards (like Ron Paul) opposes any more NAFTA-style phony trade agreements. Edwards opposes the Peru "free" trade deal. Clinton and Obama support the Peru Trade Deal.


3) Iraq: Edwards - all combat troops out of Iraq. Clinton, Obama: leave some combat troops in Iraq; i.e., continue the occupation
Click to expand...


Don't you have a doggie or kitty that needs attention?:rolleyes:
 
They should buy their own health care--just like everybody else. Why should we (the productive members of society) provide health care for them? They are rich and very able to afford it on their own.
 
theMAJORITY said:
They should buy their own health care--just like everybody else. Why should we (the productive members of society) provide health care for them? They are rich and very able to afford it on their own.
Click to expand...

It's just a benefit. Under that logic, why should we pay them at all? It's not expensive compared to the other functions of government, and it at least insures that someone doesn't HAVE to be rich to serve. If we stopped paying them, only retired people and people who make a few hundred K a year would be able to go to congress and take part in the full-time continous legislative session.

Some of them aren't "very rich". That's like in New Hampshire, they stopped paying the member of the house of representatives, and now the chamber has an average age of 60, because only retired people can afford to run, it's full of old farts who block any progressive legislation (which is, BTW, probably the main reason it's the most conservative state in the NE).
 
Watermark said:
It's just a benefit. Under that logic, why should we pay them at all? It's not expensive compared to the other functions of government, and it at least insures that someone doesn't HAVE to be rich to serve. If we stopped paying them, only retired people and people who make a few hundred K a year would be able to go to congress and take part in the full-time continous legislative session.

Some of them aren't "very rich". That's like in New Hampshire, they stopped paying the member of the house of representatives, and now the chamber has an average age of 60, because only retired people can afford to run, it's full of old farts who block any progressive legislation (which is, BTW, probably the main reason it's the most conservative state in the NE).
Click to expand...

Live Free or Die!

NH motto....

They are Libertarian for the most part, not conservative in today's world as far as I know.

no state income tax, no high cigarette taxes, no high liquor taxes, no state sales tax.....

But in most of the State, property taxes are through the roof.
 
Last edited:
Care4all said:
Live Free or Die!

NH motto....

They are Libertarian for the most part, not conservative in today's world as far as I know.

no state income tax, no high cigarette taxes, no high liquor taxes, no state sales tax.....

But in most of the State property, taxes are through the roof.
Click to expand...

Well, my point was that it's kind of alarming whenever the average age of a house becomes 60. Poor or young people either run for the senate or stay out of politics.
 
I understood your point Watermark, and edwards is only suggesting this because he wants congress to take action and do something about the rest of america...and thinks one way to do it is to show them what it is like to have to find one's own health insurance and how much it hits the pocketbook.

btw, he is not in Congress now so he can't do anything now either on it.

Also, I don't think a congressman making $150,ooo plus all the fringe benefits like a retirement plan and a matched 401k something to squawk about watermark.....it's pretty good money!

Care
 
Care4all said:
Also, I don't think a congressman making $150,ooo plus all the fringe benefits like a retirement plan and a matched 401k something to squawk about watermark.....it's pretty good money!

Care
Click to expand...

Not compared to actual executive jobs in companies.

Either way, I don't see how Edwards is going to do this, considering Congress itself would have to make the decision.
 
gonzojournals said:
Not compared to actual executive jobs in companies.

Either way, I don't see how Edwards is going to do this, considering Congress itself would have to make the decision.
Click to expand...

For most congressman, the amount they get from the government is trivial, and if they thought they could make political hey out of it they would because they don't really care about the money, they care about the power (like Edwards). For some, it's crucial, and they'd probably step down from the job.
 
before long he'll be as funny as Ross Perot.
He's heaving up longshot halfcout types because he's so far out of it now he's reaching for straws. Just like King strawman Cypress.:clink:
 
gonzojournals said:
Not compared to actual executive jobs in companies.

Either way, I don't see how Edwards is going to do this, considering Congress itself would have to make the decision.
Click to expand...

In theory, a President Edwards could cut off healthcare benefits to congresspersons. Evidently, congress has to pass an annual bill that pays for compensation and benefits for the legislative branch. Edwards could veto it. Although, that would be pretty harsh, and I don't think he would do that.

I think he's doing this as a rhetorical tool: To make the point that congresspersons are enjoying excellent, well managed, cost effective government-financed health insurance, even while some of them lecture the rest of america that government-financed health insurance is a horrible thing.
 
They get "government-financed" healthcare because the government is the EMPLOYER. Cypress, do you want to make the government the EMPLOYER of everyone?
 
bravo said:
Really ? Just what legislation was that ????:confused:
Click to expand...

There's just a very clear favoritism in the law for employer-provided healthcare. People think they're "getting back" at employers by forcing them to pay for healthcare, but all that happens is that you have less individual choice and they chop your salary down some.
 
Watermark said:
There's just a very clear favoritism in the law for employer-provided healthcare. People think they're "getting back" at employers by forcing them to pay for healthcare, but all that happens is that you have less individual choice and they chop your salary down some.
Click to expand...


Yes, employers get favorable tax treatment for giving a healthcare benefit to employees....but its not mandated by any law....what law are you talking about, huh?

And this somehow makes it very difficult for individuals to purchase insurance for themselves ?

Tell me...how does my neighbors employer provided healthcare benefit, have any effect on my ability to purchase insurance....
 
bravo said:
Yes, employers get favorable tax treatment for giving a healthcare benefit to employees....but its not mandated by any law....what law are you talking about, huh?

And this somehow makes it very difficult for individuals to purchase insurance for themselves ?

Tell me...how does my neighbors employer provided healthcare benefit, have any effect on my ability to purchase insurance....
Click to expand...

I'm talking about that law that means your a fucking idiot.
 
gonzojournals said:
Not compared to actual executive jobs in companies.

Either way, I don't see how Edwards is going to do this, considering Congress itself would have to make the decision.
Click to expand...

So tell me Gonzo, WHY are most senators and congressmen MILLIONAIRES?

If not when they enter Congress, by the time they leave Congress?

The Land of opportunity is MUCH, MUCH greater for THEM than it is for the average "Joe Citizen" out there because they are in the "know" and they are given the opportunities to make it bigtime that the average executive are not necessarily given with their power and connections. And when they leave congress they also get the best jobs in the best places to make millions more imo.

Also, we should in my opinion elect Public Servants, servitude I always thought meant sacraficing something for the better good of the country, not to line their own pockets with gold?


Care
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top