Edwards: Cut off healthcare benefits for Congress and the Presidency

[Care4all]

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....

Good morning Write, Alpha, Bravo!

I am uncertain how it makes it difficult for individuals to get health insurance other than what I have heard from many on the "right" in the past... Which is that having companies cover it does not allow the free market work....meaning if employers are just going to "buy it" without the individual "resistance to price" then the price of health care would continue to rise.

As far as laws that advantage employers and NOT the INDIVIDUAL, our income tax structure allows employers to write off health insurance COMPLETELY as a cost to doing business while with the individual, we can not deduct any healthcare expense under 7% of our yearly income and only if we are using the long form filing our taxes can this be done....

So tax laws are what hurts the individual

Care

 

[gonzojournals]

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

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

First of all, because most of them were already MILLIONAIRES (I can also use BIG LETTERS) before they got into office.

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.

First of all, the land of opportunity is just as great for anyone who bothers to fulfill the tasks necessary in order to achieve whatever level of greatness he desires. I would also imagine that they get the best jobs because they are among the most qualified for those sorts of positions. There isn't anything much more impressive on a resume than running a nation.

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

They aren't "lining their own pockets with gold"-- they are performing a very time-consuming job to continue the operation of the most powerful country on the Earth, and they are paid only a little more than my father, who is a USPS employee (obviously fairly high up, but still paid about the same as a Congressman).

I still cannot understand this liberal obsession with telling the poor that they can do anything, and telling the rich that they should be punished for taking that advice when they were poor.

Why are you so obsessed with punishing success?

 

[Care4all]

First of all, because most of them were already MILLIONAIRES (I can also use BIG LETTERS) before they got into office.


First of all, the land of opportunity is just as great for anyone who bothers to fulfill the tasks necessary in order to achieve whatever level of greatness he desires. I would also imagine that they get the best jobs because they are among the most qualified for those sorts of positions. There isn't anything much more impressive on a resume than running a nation.



They aren't "lining their own pockets with gold"-- they are performing a very time-consuming job to continue the operation of the most powerful country on the Earth, and they are paid only a little more than my father, who is a USPS employee (obviously fairly high up, but still paid about the same as a Congressman).

I still cannot understand this liberal obsession with telling the poor that they can do anything, and telling the rich that they should be punished for taking that advice when they were poor.

Why are you so obsessed with punishing success?

So getting back to the point of this thread and my post regarding Watermark implying that our congressional public servants don't make that much and can not afford paying their own health insurance gonzo?

Can they or can they not afford to pay their own healthcare?

Care

 

[Cypress]

So getting back to the point of this thread and my post regarding Watermark implying that our congressional public servants don't make that much and can not afford paying their own health insurance gonzo?

Can they or can they not afford to pay their own healthcare?

Care

I think those Bush healthcare savings accounts are a great idea.

Congresspersons should give up their government-financed socialist healthcare, and use bush's private savings accounts to pay for their healthcare.

 

[Care4all]

I think those Bush healthcare savings accounts are a great idea.

Congresspersons should give up their government-financed socialist healthcare, and use bush's private savings accounts to pay for their healthcare.

Good morning cypress!

I am not really for them losing their health benefits, but I understand the Edward's position. Let them feel the heat of having to front and find their own health insurance and see how quick they start figuring out what can be done to help the average family that makes $42k a year combined, pay for it....

yeah, make them take Bush's Health savings account and buy their own, let them be the test to see if it really works....

Care

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

So getting back to the point of this thread and my post regarding Watermark implying that our congressional public servants don't make that much and can not afford paying their own health insurance gonzo?

Can they or can they not afford to pay their own healthcare?

Care

Why don't we just not pay them?

It's common to give out health benefits as part of a payment package.

 

[Care4all]

Why don't we just not pay them?

It's common to give out health benefits as part of a payment package.

Really? Then how come 47 million working Americans do not have it?

37 million poor have been given healthcare access through Medicaid because they are below poverty level, but the 47 million are the working class with some of their children from what I have read....?

care

 

[Damocles]

Good morning cypress!

I am not really for them losing their health benefits, but I understand the Edward's position. Let them feel the heat of having to front and find their own health insurance and see how quick they start figuring out what can be done to help the average family that makes $42k a year combined, pay for it....

yeah, make them take Bush's Health savings account and buy their own, let them be the test to see if it really works....

Care

Maybe it will make them realize that we need to do something about the spiraling cost before it becomes invisible and a corporate handout by the government.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Really? Then how come 47 million working Americans do not have it?

37 million poor have been given healthcare access through Medicaid because they are below poverty level, but the 47 million are the working class with some of their children from what I have read....?

care

Yeah. That means the vast majority get healthcare as part of a payment plan.

 

[Care4all]

Yeah. That means the vast majority get healthcare as part of a payment plan.

not necessarily, I did not add in the millions of senior citizens that get healthcare from Medicare watermark.... I don't know the actual number of those seniors and it is growing by the minute, but I know it has to be a pretty big BLOCK of people.

Care

 

[theMAJORITY]

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).

You want to see the highest labor costs in the world? How about adding up all the government employees wages and benifits. yep--big government will do that--but they don't add any value to a product--they are non productive people that live off of our backs. Lets take it one step further. Our elected officials sold the American worker down the river, because rich shareholders wanted to join the world for making their products over seas with slave labor, and very very low cost of doing business. Thats right folks--the rich elected officials did not care about us--again.

Now---how about we outsource our elected officials and government workers (which now surpass manufacturing workers in the manufactuing mecca of Michigan). Why not? We could save a lot of money---and
they are not really working for us anyway.

Naw---that would not work--all we have to do is elect people that care about us---but they can't afford to run, and will not be allowed to debate.

How does it feel to be owned like a slave guys?