Tea Party Electee "where's my health care?"
 

Freshman Maryland Rep who ran on anti-gov. health care wants to know "where's my health care"-

Source

To me this is another example of the tea party folks (I'm about to go back to calling them tea baggers) expressing "I want mine, screw you."

His office came out with some excuse that he was just pointing out the government system is ineffective. I don't buy that, do you? He also asked "what's my family suppose to do for the month I don't have health care. This mans ran on a anti-health care platform and doesn't know about COBRA? Don't buy that either. I mean the guy is a doctor and he doesn't know how the system works?

Thoughts

Sounds like something Rachel Maddow MSNBC, would make a big deal about. My response is, what about people against air pollution, but drive? Using her logic they should be riding bikes, oh wait, even people emit global warming CO2. Oh, I guess the point is that if you put enough effort into it, you can always find something wrong with people you don't like very much.

The man campaigned against gov. provided health care and wants to know why he has to wait for his, your response has something to do to with CO2 and riding bikes.

Honestly Ace I try to understand your position but it's getting harder and harder to follow them.

The connection is in the logical (in this case fallacious) argument. Was it really that hard to follow? Is it still not clear, do I need to elaborate?

Tully, I think he means to say that you can oppose something and still be a part of the problem.

It makes perfect sense here.

No it's not clear. If someone campaigned against child porn and then wanted to know how to get child porn it would be just as ridiculous.

---------- Post added at 01:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------

Ok, how?

Harris opposed health care reform and now is complaining about not getting his in time (a mere month), when there are people who don't get any at all.

He's opposed to something and he's a part of the problem. He raises a stink over a fucking month, but after that, everything is a-ok for him and his. Meanwhile, there are thousands of kids whose families can't afford basic care.

This is like those who oppose pollution but continue to pollute. They're supportive of something in principle, and have ideals, but they are actually a part of the problem.

As long as Harris gets his, he won't care about others getting theirs.

Yeah, I said it before and I'll say it again. The tea bagger motto ought to be "I got mine, fuck you."

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
—John Kenneth Galbraith

[I recently posted this on Facebook regarding an article about low-income earners in Arizona who now face life-and-death situations regarding organ transplants. ‎(Arizona just cut their budget.)]

Isn't that the motto of most people in general. Warren Buffet is a billionaire, yet talks about how his tax rates are lower than those who work for him, he could give his money to the government, pay his people more, or even lower the prices on the goods and services he sells. Pres. Obama has millions spent on his inauguration with no benefit to poor people but he "fights for the poor". Speaker Pelosi wants to control Wall St. wages but flies in a private jet, has a chauffeur, is filthy rich, takes a government paycheck - and I bet would vote herself a raise in pay.

---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 PM ----------

Interesting. Again, I am curious, do you really believe the above quote only applies to conservatives?

When you say Arizona cut their budget, don't you really mean that Arizona cut its budget? Is the suggestion that because there was a budget cut that "Arizona" wants people to die? Is it possible that the state just does not have the money to address all budget items and had to make difficult choices? Is the cut in the AZ budget being off-set by some other source? Is it possible that the costs have gone down, or the need? What will you say if Canada has to make a similar budget cut?

one person, lied about his anti gov healthcare campaign to marylanders, and is now exposed.....how is that 'one more example' of TEA party candidates?

well, i guess a broad brush can be appropriate to some people.

---------- Post added at 02:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

like i said, broad brush and all. :orly:

Not universally, no, but I tend to see patterns.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Not sure. I don't think so.

Maybe, but it doesn't appear that this is the case here. I doubt it.

I usually don't like to do "what-ifs." In Canada, we don't seem to have this kind of shortfall. Our concern is that we often don't have enough organs. Otherwise, I think there is enough funding. We just need to raise more awareness about the importance of organ donation.

I've never heard (read) this quote before. It's quite brilliant. :thumbsup:

I agree. This guy is complaining about the delivery of his employer provided healthcare. The fact that his employer is the government doesn't enter into the debate. He isn't getting government run health care, he's getting health care from a private insurer that is subsidized by his employer.

Shit like this is the reason we got our asses handed to us in November.

Yeah, and the goatfucker motto ought to be "Do as you're told because we said so!"

I don't see the issue here. I don't like paying for bureaucrats/legislator's health-care either, but the bottom line here is that in his case, as an employee of the FedGov, the health-care he's asking about is an employment benefit provided by his employer, as opposed to a benefit that someone else's employer is forced to provide for him. It's no different that any other employer-provided job benefit, and nothing like the same as demanding (in goatfucker fashion) that people who are not your employers provide a benefit that your employer declines to, or that employers be forced to provide a benefit that was not part of the originally-negotiated employment agreement.

Somebody really should remind him that he doesn't officially start -being- an employee, and therefore eligible for this employment benefit, until he's sworne in and starts doing his job. He really should have thought of that.

Right, what he's doing is asking where his employment benefits are. How is that any different then what any of us would do? Sure most of us wouldn't be dumb enough to demand our benefits before we even begin working, but never the less it doesn't sound like he's doing anything wrong/hypocritcal.

If he had lost the election and was sitting around his house with a broken arm wondering why the govt won't pay for HIS hospital bills, then you'd have a whole heap of hypocrisy going on. This doesn't really seem like a big issue to me.

Close, but not quite. It's more like "We're trying to make everything better for everyone, including you. This is how [evidence, evidence, evidence, and more evidence]. Please stop standing in the way."

Fixed that for you.

Yeah Dunedan I'm sure the rest of the first world outranking us in virtually every (positive) measurable category really has nothing to do with the fact that literally every one of them is further left than our left wing. The right today is further right than the guy that added "under god" to the pledge, and they're deliberately and voluntarily ignorant enough that they refuse to even believe he was the guy that stuck it in there in the 50's.

Who gets the kids when you divorce yourself from reality?

The fact that taxes are higher in Europe pretty much negates everything else.

That's without considering significantly higher fuel prices. Then there's things like blatant, government sanctioned discrimination against Muslims in France, chronic unemployment among youth in several countries thanks to the way the labor market works. Riots seem to be a way of life in France. Street crime seems to be a major problem in parts of Europe. When I was on vacation in southern Europe I was warned about gypsies and pickpockets. Subways seem to be a major crime problem in some parts of Europe. When I was in Rome, just about every car on one street that looked like it was in a middle class neighborhood had some variation of the club installed. The UK seems to going down the 1984 path with street cameras on every street corner to monitor the citizens.

I spent time in just about every major American city, including spending time in some pretty seedy areas. Even in the seedy areas I felt generally safe and never felt the need to watch out for pickpockets or other street criminals.

But hey, marijuana is legal in Amsterdam. Woo hoo. I think I'll just stay in the US.

---------- Post added at 06:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 AM ----------

Maybe you or one of the other socialist types here could let us know how that works. After all, the government assistance programs here in the US for the last 40 or 50 years have hardly been a success.

It's not like one tea bagger had this thought. Miller up in Alaska and Angle in Nevada both received or are receiving federal medical health care and in some cases other federal assistance. So I don't think you can call it a "broad bush" issue. Plus this guy just wants his right now, haven't read any stories where these newly elected anti-governmental health care folks are declining the benefit. I can hear it now "Oh no thanks, I don't agree with the government providing health care to people. I won't be needing those forms. But thanks."

They remind me of actor Craig T. Nelson who once said "I was on welfare, I was on food stamps... no one ever gave me any government hand outs." Hey dumb ass, those are government hand outs.

I thought the tea bagger comments weren't allowed here any more. As one of those who has sort of 'got his' and who has spent both significant amounts of his own money on charity as well as significant amounts of time helping out others, I find that offensive.

I'm willing to help people who are disabled or who are willing to put forth effort themselves. I've helped a couple people with training that helped them get a better job but expected them to do most of the work themselves.

The benefits I get from helping people who expected me to 'give them things'? I had one person tell me that since I had a job and she didn't that it was my responsibility to give her things. I felt like telling her that was fine as long as I started with a good kick to her ass. Another gets quite irate when my wife won't driver her to the grocery store on her schedule, even though she hardly ever offers to pay for gas. These aren't isolated instances, and kind of sour my attitude to helping out people.

When I was in high school, there was a group of kids who took the 'high' in high school a little too literally. It was no surprise to find that if they had a job at all after high school, that it was in McDonalds. I see no reason why the government should confiscate money from me to pay people who won't put forth the effort to support themselves.

Finally, I find it interesting that you take exception to someone trying to claim his employer-provided benefits. What's he supposed to do? Go on Obamacare and let the government pay his health care expenses?

I'm unaware of any ban on the term "tea bagger." But I'll look into it.

As for the rest of your post personal experiences are poor inductors as to what's going on in the nation as a whole. Here's a report from the CDC detailing how many US citizens do not have health insurance. Which shows most people do in fact have health insurance but many do not.

From the report-

As to my taking "exception to someone trying to claim his employer-provided benefits. What's he supposed to do? Go on Obamacare and let the government pay his health care expenses?" I don't take exception to them accepting their federally funded health care, I take exception to them fighting finding a solution to provide health care to those who don't currently have it while gladly expecting theirs.

If tea party members call themselves tea-baggers, I don't see why the term should become taboo here.

Well, let's see: This week, I will go to the store and buy Christmas gifts for the 5 orphans I personally "adopted" through Angel Tree for Christmas. On the way, I will pick up the venison from the deer I shot and paid to have processed so the lady down the street will have meat to eat all winter (32 lbs) - her husband left her and she can't afford groceries. Saturday noon, I start my shift working on the Habitat House. Next week, I spend a day working for the United Way to feed people on Thanksgiving. Oh, and then there is that Tea Party meeting at the coffee shop on Saturday morning that I will probably attend. So, forgive me if I tell you both, "Fuck you."

I forgive you, but I expected more from you.

While I commend you and your Christan charitableness in the lead-up to Christmas, I don't see how that applies to the comments you quoted.

I think you've taken it too far out of context and made it personal.

Unless, of course, this somehow ties into how you hope that thousands of children will have access to adequate health care some day soon. Have you looked into charities related to health care?

Fuck me? No thanks, I prefer my sex partners to be less intellectually challenged. But thanks for the offer.

Your personal acts of charity have nothing to do with the overall objectives of the tea party movement.

just curious, but why do you think that the rest of the first world countries outrank us in nearly every measurable category?

---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 AM ----------

like Dune said, other than this guy demanding his federal employee health care benefits right fucking now, he actually is entitled to them by being an elected federal representative. maybe it's people like you and I that are responsible for that.

You guys are so myopic in your views of people who think differently than you that you have chosen, in this thread, to make this guy the poster child for the millions of people who think the government is not the solution to our problems.

You also can't seem to bridge the gap to why my saying, "I probably think a lot like him and I am not selfish, and I don't seek out keeping mine. I just want to give - rather than have it taken" is relevant to you making this guy the poster child for ALL people who think like him (tea part members). Isn't it convenient that "HE" is always the poster child, not the millions of people like me who give far more than most, and happen to share some of his beliefs.

You guys, in your intellectually challenged (sorry, just borrowing phrases here) view of people who don't think like you, probably honestly believe that these acts I have listed are "Christian charitableness leading into a Christian holiday". Being as intellectually challenged as you seem intent on being, it will probably be a huge disappointment to read that my immediately family has logged just over 500 hours of charity work this year - time which was literally STOLEN from your beloved government's opportunity to do its belevolent work - along with...well....let's just say "tens of thousands" of dollars given to charity around the nation and world, including health care for children.

Undoubtedly, in your ignorant portrayal of the "greedy tea baggers", these acts will HAVE to be correlated to...what was it....scrolling..."the lead up to Christian holidays"...as the only reason one of us greed tea baggers would actually do something nice - you know, scoring points for the judgement day and all. But, since I DO believe in the sky ghost, I suppose one could just correlate them to "the Sabbath" and get off the hook. That's it, I'm going to build that house on Saturday as a lead up to my Christian holiday on Sunday.

So, you guys put your heads together and spend the next 10 or so posts trying to justify why it is perfectly fair to say ALL people who believe "that government can't and shouldn't solve our all our social problems" are really just greedy people who want theirs and say "Fuck you" to all the rest of the people. Those of us who willingly give as much as we can to help those in need AND believe the government should leave it to us, find your statements offensive and...intellectually challenged.

Am I intellectually challenged or am I ignorant of your position?

I'll take my end of the responsibility, will you take yours?

You are the one that posted the Galbraith quote immediately following, Tully's "fuck you" comment. Clearly, you were concurring that all tea baggers "...got mine. Fuck you." My post was a crystal clear objection to your assertions. So, you can answer your own question as to whether it was willful ignorance or intellectually challenged. From my experience with you, I'd call it the first. However, your persistence at painting such a vividly unfair picture of people with my political views does teeter on the latter, at times.

I am not seeking any sort of validation by bringing up my charity work. I bring it up because, frankly, I am sick and fucking tired of the way you guys speak about "me."

Well, maybe I should clarify then. I posted that Galbraith quote as applying to Tea Partiers within the context of health care.

They want to repeal the health care legislation that was passed—legislation that was aimed at making health care more accessible to those who need it. It was passed because health care was due for a reform. America has the most expensive health care system in the world, and people are going without.

The Tea Party movement wants to repeal it. I haven't heard of what they want to do to replace it. As it is, it's a watered-down version of other health care systems out there—publicly funded systems that grant access to every citizen. As far as I know, the Tea Party movement demonizes this as "socialized medicine" and opposes this.

I see this as selfish. Why? Because this appears to me as a lack of consideration of others (those who can't afford health care) and a concern for one's own situation (the spending of their own personal taxes). I don't see them presenting or suggesting solutions to what is essentially a health care crisis for thousands of Americans. All I see is a libertarian counterstrike to whatever the Dems have done to do something about it.

Now, we can have a discussion about that, or you can continue to take things personally. I don't want to continue the way we've been going because it's counterproductive.

Your initial rebuttal was "fuck you." I think that's actually a retort. Are you willing to move beyond that?

How does any one person's charity define the policies of a movement? Makes no sense.

And if you're tried of the way people are responding to your posts here, Cimarron29414, why keep posting here?

then congratulations are in order, for democrats passed a healthcare reform bill in a nation with the most expensive medical care, that raised healthcare costs.

Well, maybe the focus should then shift to how to reduce those costs.

not to play all hindsight here, but a whole bunch of us mentioned controlling the costs first, before implementing some cockamamie mandatory health insurance enrichment scheme, so maybe that should have been the first focus.

Actually by providing preventive care and standard care, thus keeping uninsured out of the ER for basic health care needs, the HCR reduces health care costs nation wide.

Also-
Source

So, yes- thank-you democrats.

---------- Post added at 11:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------


I have heard that.. a lot. What I haven't heard is how to reduce those costs.

So what are your ideas?

Not to pull the irony card, but the dude in the OP couldn't even wait a month for his health care.

What do the Republicans oppose more, the access to the health care or the cost of the health care?

Canada's own system went through a number of revisions over the decades.

and i'm not trying to excuse the idiot for that. what I'm NOT doing is portraying him as the poster child for TEA party people or candidates.

you'd have to ask a republican.

what did they focus on first?

---------- Post added at 12:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 PM ----------

what should be a logical choice, but won't be for those that think only the government can provide fair regulation, is to remove some of the monopolistic power that state governments have over the medical and health insurance industry. When these companies realize that they would actually have to compete fairly with smaller companies, then these costs will go down.

i'm sure that doesn't work for your ideology though.