# GOP members offer amendment to force Congress to participate in public option



## The T (Nov 4, 2009)

*GOP members offer amendment to force Congress to participate in public option*
By Tony Romm - 11/04/09 01:42 PM ET 

Five House Republicans hope to add to Democrats' healthcare reform bill an amendment that would *automatically enroll members of Congress in the public option program.
*
The effort, spearheaded by Reps. John Fleming (La.), Joe Wilson (S.C.), Wally Herger (Calif.), Phil Gingrey (Ga.) and Steve Scalise (La.), would bar lawmakers from participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which they currently use for health insurance. Instead, members would have to rely on the Health Insurance Exchange and the public option plan House Democrats are proposing in their latest healthcare reform effort.

_If Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi [D-Calif.] and her Democratic counterparts truly believe that their government insurance option is the best way forward for healthcare in the United States, then they should be fully supportive of amending the bill to ensure that every single member of Congress, both in the House and Senate, is enrolled in it," explained Rep. Gingrey, who is leading the new campaign._

________________________

Sounds sensible to me. Last time I checked? Members of Government were citizens too. If it's good for US, then I'ts good for them too.

Pretty gutsy amendment if you ask me.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 4, 2009)

The T said:


> *GOP members offer amendment to force Congress to participate in public option*
> By Tony Romm - 11/04/09 01:42 PM ET
> 
> Five House Republicans hope to add to Democrats' healthcare reform bill an amendment that would *automatically enroll members of Congress in the public option program.
> ...



An excellent idea.


----------



## The T (Nov 4, 2009)

bodecea said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > *GOP members offer amendment to force Congress to participate in public option*
> ...


 It's an idea who's time has come. Will it be included? I hate to be a pessemist, but all signs point to NO in the current climate.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Nov 4, 2009)

hopefully it will kill the enter bill though.


----------



## The T (Nov 4, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> hopefully it will kill the enter bill though.


 That's something I hadn't considered. Thanks. I had heard that Harry Reid has said that Healthcare will NOT be done this year...Still looking for stories on this.

Now this is pertinent because Obama has been quoted as syaing that if it doesn't happen THIS year, it won't be done.

Perhaps this will be a setback if it isn't considered?


----------



## Rozman (Nov 4, 2009)

Beautiful man,like totally coooool.


----------



## JenyEliza (Nov 4, 2009)

Now we're talking.....if it's good enough for "We, the People", it's good enough for Congresscritters.

*They* should be forced to participate in anything they want to *force us* to participate in.


----------



## JenyEliza (Nov 4, 2009)

> &#8220;If Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi [D-Calif.] and her Democratic counterparts truly believe that their government insurance option is the best way forward for healthcare in the United States, then they should be fully supportive of amending the bill to ensure that every single member of Congress, both in the House and Senate, is enrolled in it," explained Rep. Gingrey, who is leading the new campaign.



I *love* Phil Gingrey!  

BTW....if I'm not mistaken, he is also an OB/GYN or some such MD.


----------



## Ringel05 (Nov 4, 2009)

Yup, if you're gonna sell it you better be willing to wear it.  Old marketing adage I heard decades ago.


----------



## Meister (Nov 4, 2009)

We all know that this amendment will be dead in the water.  No congressman, or congresswoman would be stupid enough to to lower down to our level of coverage. Just sayin...


----------



## American Horse (Nov 4, 2009)

Ringel05 said:


> Yup, if you're gonna sell it you better be willing to wear it.  Old marketing adage I heard decades ago.


That wouldn't change anything at all; within a few years or sooner they would change their own status leaving ours intact.  Would anyone trust _THESE_ people to honor an obligation like that one? How naive! Theres too much at risk to trust them.


----------



## Ringel05 (Nov 4, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, if you're gonna sell it you better be willing to wear it.  Old marketing adage I heard decades ago.
> ...



Naive?  Just rechecking my post...... nothing about them not implementing it for themselves....... nothing about them not switching back after implementation............ nothing about trusting them in any way shape or form.  Uuummmm...........


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 4, 2009)

Meister said:


> We all know that this amendment will be dead in the water.  No congressman, or congresswoman would be stupid enough to to lower down to our level of coverage. Just sayin...



It's one of those _let's-see-how-much-time-we-can-waste-today _offerings. For one thing, a public option that would be satisfactory to Congress would be a cadillac plan, and that will never get passed.


----------



## Dante (Nov 4, 2009)

The T said:


> [...Instead, members would have to rely on the Health Insurance Exchange and the public option plan House Democrats are proposing in their latest healthcare reform effort.
> 
> _If Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi [D-Calif.] and her Democratic counterparts truly believe ...
> 
> Pretty gutsy amendment if you ask me._


_


There they go again...wasting American taxpayer dollars and time with gimmics and gamesmanship. Fuckin' turds._


----------



## Dante (Nov 4, 2009)

The T said:


> Sounds sensible to me. Last time I checked? Members of Government were citizens too. If it's good for US, then I'ts good for them too.[/COLOR]
> 
> Pretty gutsy amendment if you ask me.



I thought the public option was going to be optional?

There you go again supporting the use of force against those who disagree with you politically. 

Fuckin' fascisti!


----------



## The T (Nov 4, 2009)

DevNell said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds sensible to me. Last time I checked? Members of Government were citizens too. If it's good for US, then I'ts good for them too.[/color]
> ...


 
LOL! I think those that fronted this Amendment are trying to FLUSH OUT those that think they are above you and I...

We'll see if this thing grows legs, or is killed in the womb...

(NO! I just didn't TYPE THAT)?


----------



## Dante (Nov 4, 2009)

The T said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



I still don't see the point. It is a waste of time, energy and tax payer dollars. a game of one upmanship on the dole. fuckin' GOP losers.


----------



## Maple (Nov 4, 2009)

The T said:


> *GOP members offer amendment to force Congress to participate in public option*
> By Tony Romm - 11/04/09 01:42 PM ET
> 
> Five House Republicans hope to add to Democrats' healthcare reform bill an amendment that would *automatically enroll members of Congress in the public option program.
> ...



What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I am all for it.


----------



## xotoxi (Nov 4, 2009)

The T said:


> Sounds sensible to me. Last time I checked? Members of Government were citizens too. If it's good for US, then I'ts good for them too.
> 
> Pretty gutsy amendment if you ask me.


 
If it passed unanimously...would you then suddenly support the public option?


----------



## The T (Nov 4, 2009)

DevNell said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...


 
The WHOLE premise is? Are Congresscritters Citizens or NOT?

If it is OK for us out here PAYIN' the fuckin'; BILL for this, then CONGRESSCRITTERS should Man-UP (or Woman-UP) as the case may be and OPT for what they are SELLING US.

And this is wrong...._HOW Exactly? _(In your estimation)? Or do you side with the ELITES that think their shit doesn't _stink?_


----------



## The T (Nov 4, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds sensible to me. Last time I checked? Members of Government were citizens too. If it's good for US, then I'ts good for them too.
> ...


 
Depends *WHAT* is the '_Public'_ Option...emphasis on 'PUBLIC'...But YOU XO, know as well as *I* they think that they aren't the *_public_*. Let us be realistic here, eh?


----------



## Terry (Nov 4, 2009)

Well pray there is a big turn out tomorrow in DC and the Blue Dogs get the message and kill the entire BILL until after 2010.


----------



## Maple (Nov 4, 2009)

DevNell said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



Don't you think that if this plan is soooooooooooooooooo good for the American public that it would be good enough for the people who are forcing it on us. They wrote it afterall, and they are sure selling it, maybe they should beleive in their own plan enough to sign onto it.

Do you think it's because they know it's a disastor in the making and they don't want themselves and their families under a government controlled health care system.

The best way for them to sell this plan to the American public is sign onto it. They won't!!

They wrote this monstrosity only to take care of all the peon's who voted them in there and that's you. You peon.


----------



## xotoxi (Nov 4, 2009)

The T said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


 
I am not asking how you think they will vote...I'm asking that if they voted for it and voted to take the public option for themselves, would *you* accept it.


----------



## The T (Nov 4, 2009)

Terry said:


> Well pray there is a big turn out tomorrow in DC and the Blue Dogs get the message and kill the entire BILL until after 2010.


 
I think this the case. Even Dingy _Harry Reid_ has stated that it isn't coming this year, and even Obama is fretting over it.

A few folks had something to say last night, and perhaps a few more will that are joining Michelle Bachman in DC on Thursday to roam the halls of Congressional Office buildings for a "Meet-N-Greet" with their repsective critters to tell them again (as if this Summer wasn't enough?)..."NO"! [Again]


----------



## Dante (Nov 4, 2009)

The T said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


The game is wrong. 

What eactly would be so bad about the public option? You keep inferring the Congress would fear being part of the public option? Red herrings are not an appetizer


----------



## Dante (Nov 4, 2009)

Maple said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...




A government controlled health plan? WTF are you talking about? All the government would do is pay the fucking bill as they already do. They would N-O-T run hospitals or hire and fire doctors and nurses.


----------



## Dante (Nov 4, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



ditto:   if they voted for it and voted to take the public option for themselves, would *you* accept it.


----------



## The T (Nov 4, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...


 
They DO? What of the PRIVATE plans out there for people NOT on Medicare/Medicaid, and those out here working?

YOU need to rethink a bit. They DO NOT pay the entire bill. And it isn't government's MONEY to begin with...this is the fallacy of your statement. The MONEY belongs to the people.


----------



## The T (Nov 4, 2009)

DevNell said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...


 
Then WHY haven't they signed on to it? WHY isn't this story in the forefront? Why isn't this amendment being embraced by Pelosi? Reid?

I'll tell you why...because again? They have THIER plans at OUR expense apart from what they wish to foist on the rest of us. Because they THINK they are better than US...you know the ones who PAY them to be there?

Can you THINK at all?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 4, 2009)

DevNell said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



and you are avoiding the question Dev....would they give up what they have and join us?.......and if not.....Why?


----------



## Dante (Nov 4, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



it is what is called a red herring. If we ended up with a national health insurance plan...they would be part of it. many members support a national plan. so saying 'they' you really need to say who exactly 'they' are and what 'they' support and do not support---exactly


----------



## The T (Nov 4, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


 
Maybe the question was too simplistic for him, and therefore he couldn't see behind his blinders?


----------



## Dante (Nov 4, 2009)

The T said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...


then using your theme, the government is the people. see?


----------



## The T (Nov 4, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...


Are they, or or they NOT citizens?

Simple question...

Answer it...

YES...or NO?


----------



## Dante (Nov 4, 2009)

it's the people's money and we have a government by and of and for the people, so WTF are you crazies yapping about? lol


----------



## The T (Nov 4, 2009)

DevNell said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...


 
Answer my question.


----------



## The T (Nov 4, 2009)

DevNell said:


> it's the people's money and we have a government by and of and for the people, so WTF are you crazies yapping about? lol


 
Fine, and BY that LOGIC they are Citizens as well, are they NOT? What makes them so special that they cannot SUBSCRIBE to that LAW which they wish to foist on the rest of us?


----------



## Dante (Nov 4, 2009)

The T said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


you are arguing with yourself.


all Americans are citizends and under a national health plan all citizens would be covered (by payment) by teh government. 

when our government builds a road is it not in the name of the people? when our government goes to war is it not in the name of the people? when we give our money to the government in the form of taxes,....oops. we give them the money. 

so how is the money ours (individually)?

so many questions when you follow your logic and argument to it's logical end.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 4, 2009)

DevNell said:


> *A government controlled health plan*? WTF are you talking about? All the government would do is pay the fucking bill as they already do. They would N-O-T run hospitals or hire and fire doctors and nurses.



there have been a few Dems and pro UHC people who have said those words Dev.....including Pelosi....it seems its getting to be interchangeable with all the other terms being used.....and i have never heard anyone say they would run the hospitals......


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 4, 2009)

Facts people facts. And I'm not going to dig back into this and look it up.

This was introduced into Committee over a month ago,

It came to a vote in committee.

It was voted down by a straight party line. Democrats defeated it in committee.

You didn't truly expect them to allow this to get to the floor did you?


----------



## Dante (Nov 4, 2009)

The T said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > it's the people's money and we have a government by and of and for the people, so WTF are you crazies yapping about? lol
> ...



they are n-o-t foisting a law on us.  they are not exempt from laws they pass. you are making things up.


----------



## Dante (Nov 4, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > *A government controlled health plan*? WTF are you talking about? All the government would do is pay the fucking bill as they already do. They would N-O-T run hospitals or hire and fire doctors and nurses.
> ...



words can and are often misunderstood, misused. misquoted and taken out of context.

nobody is rational who says the Democrats in government are making up laws to which they themselves are exempt.


----------



## The T (Nov 4, 2009)

DevNell said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...


 

No I am NOT arguing with anyone but a blind person.

The MONEY we pay in taxes still belongs to US. *WE* the people EXPECT and DEMAND that they spend it WISELY.

That being said? Are they or are they NOT citizens? WHO hires them US (The people), or some other group?

They are No better than us, and THEY pay taxes as well (Well Most of them do, Wrangle, and the Treasury Chief notwithstanding)...


But it's Still OUR MONEY that they're playing with...My sweat equity...and yes even YOURS...

WHY then don't they or wouldn't they make themselves SUBJECT to that which they wish to make LAW of?

Are they NOT citizens? Or are you taking an Elitist view that their SHIT doesn't stink?

Again? Are they or are they NOT coitizens. is this our MONEY they are playing games with or NOT?

Government does NOT create wealth...WE DO...<<HINT

They only TAKE it from us.

I seriously think you need some serious CIVICS lessons.


----------



## The T (Nov 4, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...


 

Who said a THING of Democrats? It applies to ALL Lawmakers irrespective of PARTY.


----------



## The T (Nov 4, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > *A government controlled health plan*? WTF are you talking about? All the government would do is pay the fucking bill as they already do. They would N-O-T run hospitals or hire and fire doctors and nurses.
> ...


 

It was a deflection HD...and meant to throw us off track.


----------



## Dante (Nov 4, 2009)

The T said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


 so 'we' are the government? 



The T said:


> That being said? Are they or are they NOT citizens? WHO hires them US (The people), or some other group?
> 
> They are No better than us, and THEY pay taxes as well (Well Most of them do, Wrangle, and the Treasury Chief notwithstanding)...


 many a conservative politician has been caught failing to pay their taxes. If you want to do a tit for tat bring IT on. 

that said, congress does not enact laws that they are exempt from where everyone else is subject to.




The T said:


> But it's Still OUR MONEY that they're playing with...My sweat equity...and yes even YOURS...
> 
> WHY then don't they or wouldn't they make themselves SUBJECT to that which they wish to make LAW of?


 they would be subject to the public option. who says they will not be? how will the public option work? you are arguing with make believe scenarios, ghosts of political battles not yet alive and with red herrings.


The T said:


> Are they NOT citizens? Or are you taking an Elitist view that their SHIT doesn't stink?
> 
> Again? Are they or are they NOT coitizens. is this our MONEY they are playing games with or NOT?
> 
> ...



wealth? wealth is a myth. just ask the wealthy from a few years ago where their so-called wealth went.    


ltr, I gotta get home.


----------



## The T (Nov 4, 2009)

DevNell said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...


 

Get home SAFE...but think of this? Your arguemnt of the facscimile thereof rings HALLOW...It's still OUR MONRY...and WE Demand that it be speant wisely. It isn't the Government's Money. Learn your CIVICS sport...

Until then? I cannot logically carry on a converstaion with you until YOU learn this fact. And YES it *IS* our money.


----------



## potter 58 (Nov 4, 2009)

hey it should have been that way from the begginning, if we the people can't afford health care, we can't afford to buy for those a$$wipes on both sides of fence


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 4, 2009)

DevNell said:


> it is what is called a red herring. *If we ended up with a national health insurance plan...they would be part of it. *many members support a national plan. so saying 'they' you really need to say who exactly 'they' are and what 'they' support and do not support---exactly


ill believe it when it happens.....and dont be surprised if they come up with a reason why they should NOT be a part of it.....


----------



## Meister (Nov 4, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > it is what is called a red herring. *If we ended up with a national health insurance plan...they would be part of it. *many members support a national plan. so saying 'they' you really need to say who exactly 'they' are and what 'they' support and do not support---exactly
> ...



It sounds like that politicians are part of the 85% of Americans that are happy with the health insurance that they have. 

Oh...and for old Rocks...The politicians are part of the *VAST MAJORITY* of Americans happy with their health insurance.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 4, 2009)

> GOP members offer amendment to force Congress to participate in public option.



I fully support this amendment.


----------



## Darkwind (Nov 5, 2009)

They already have answered this.  They still claim that the health care bill allows for everyone to keep their current insurance.  So, they said that they were opting out.

Its just the rest of us that can't keep our own doctors.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

The T said:


> Sounds sensible to me. Last time I checked? Members of Government were citizens too. If it's good for US, then I'ts good for them too.
> 
> Pretty gutsy amendment if you ask me.



Sure, why not? It would increase the client base just that much more.

In fact, they should take it one step further and make it single payer for everyone.


----------



## Claudette (Nov 5, 2009)

So right. If its good enough for "We the People" and its so damned great then I would think our elected officials and Govt workers would be the first in line to partake of this marvelous new Govt Entitlment. 

Lets get real. The first thing the clowns did was to exempt themselves and Govt workers from this "wonderful" public option. Apparantly its good enough for us taxpayers who provide the money but not good enough for those employed by us. Funny how that works. The clowns and Govt workers all have goldplated bene's and retirement packages provided by the taxpayers. Who would want to give that up to jump on the public option?? Should be required. Wonder how long they would fight for that same public option if they had to use it???


----------



## American Horse (Nov 5, 2009)

Claudette said:


> So right. If its good enough for "We the People" and its so damned great then I would think our elected officials and Govt workers would be the first in line to partake of this marvelous new Govt Entitlment.
> 
> Lets get real. The first thing the clowns did was to exempt themselves and Govt workers from this "wonderful" public option. Apparantly its good enough for us taxpayers who provide the money but not good enough for those employed by us. Funny how that works. The clowns and Govt workers all have goldplated bene's and retirement packages provided by the taxpayers. Who would want to give that up to jump on the public option?? Should be required. Wonder how long they would fight for that same public option if they had to use it???


A huge part of the problem is that once they are elected, even as a congressperson, and even for a single two year term, they are _ENTITLED_ for the rest of their lives to health-care benefits and a huge cumulative pension as a reward for their _public service._  How could we ever expect to get them to give those perks up? Could they change perks earned in the past by earlier people? Or would any new batch of people accept less than those who've gone before?  They truly are a class apart from the rest of us.  And any public exposure of what they give themselves only spurs a like desire by a large part of the population as justification for equal goodies.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 5, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > So right. If its good enough for "We the People" and its so damned great then I would think our elected officials and Govt workers would be the first in line to partake of this marvelous new Govt Entitlment.
> ...



Well that's bullshit right there and should be changed.  They are_ entitled_ to diddly squat.   These clowns need a real-world job and experience; they're living in a delusional cocoon.


----------



## Claudette (Nov 5, 2009)

Your so right Horse. Elitist is the word.These Congressmen and Senators only have to serve one term and they and their spouses are set for life. Oh yes, it is good to be a member of Congress or a Govt worker. 

As for we taxpayers who fund the good life for all Govt employees, funny how that worked. They work for us and make out way better than we who supply the money. Talk about upside down.


----------



## American Horse (Nov 5, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > A huge part of the problem is that *once they are elected, even as a congressperson, and even for a single two year term, they are ENTITLED for the rest of their lives to health-care benefits and a huge cumulative pension as a reward for their public service.*  How could we ever expect to get them to give those perks up? Could they change perks earned in the past by earlier people? Or would any new batch of people accept less than those who've gone before?  They truly are a class apart from the rest of us.  And any public exposure of what they give themselves only spurs a like desire by a large part of the population as justification for equal goodies.
> ...



The closest an ordinary citizen comes to their ''windfall" is winning the lottery.  
I would be for paying them more for each term of service, but eliminating their ridiculous retirement completely; they should be a part of SS, and their medical benefits should end with their term in office.  If they were paid more (hell, double their present salary) they would be more subject to inflation pressures being imposed on their savings accounts like ordinary people.

It would require them to be true "statesmen" to push for and pass those changes.


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 5, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds sensible to me. Last time I checked? Members of Government were citizens too. If it's good for US, then I'ts good for them too.
> ...



Aargh!!! I tried to find that pic of Kramer to use as a Thanksgiving avatar and turned up empty! The only one I found wouldn't let me copy it. (The real younguns here won't even know what that is!)


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 5, 2009)

Terry said:


> Well pray there is a big turn out tomorrow in DC and the Blue Dogs get the message and kill the entire BILL until after 2010.



You'd better hope a whole bunch of folks attending aren't carrying the H1N1 virus. If it spreads through large crowds like that, it will be up to existing private health care facilities to deal with it. A worst case scenario (for Teabaggers Redux) would be their desire for the status quo would be proven not such a viable solution after all.


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 5, 2009)

The T said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...



The "government" also subsidizes private insurance companies by way of massive tax deductions in the billions so that they can bring the same type of benefits as Medicaid/Medicare.


----------



## Claudette (Nov 5, 2009)

Excellent idea Horse. I wonder how long it would take for things to get "fixed" if our elected officials and Govt workers lived in the same world we taxpayers do?????

I sure ain't holdin my breath for it to happen though. After all, they are the ones who voted in all the perks for themselves. Just think, they call corporate CEOs greedy and self serving. Corporate CEO's ain't got nothin on these guys.


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



I think some would, just on principle. Some would just for political grandstanding. But most would not give up their own government sponsored insurance. But keep in mind that Congress (government employees) also have several plans to choose from because it isn't ALL "free." There are deductibles and co-pays that vary. It's pretty much the same concept as the public policy "exchanges" proposed to be offered, and we really don't know at this point *what* those would cover.


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 5, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Facts people facts. And I'm not going to dig back into this and look it up.
> 
> This was introduced into Committee over a month ago,
> 
> ...



Those are hardly the facts. The health care reform bill is proceeding from start to finish in exactly the same manner as any other bill. It's now in the final conference stage (one bill emerging between the House and Senate versions), and then it will go to the Senate floor for debate.


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 5, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > So right. If its good enough for "We the People" and its so damned great then I would think our elected officials and Govt workers would be the first in line to partake of this marvelous new Govt Entitlment.
> ...



I happen to agree that they should not be entitled to these benefits for life, but I also think that they ARE entitled to more than your basic man on the street because they represent government leadership. Isn't this how it works in the private sector? The boss usually earns more than his secretary, the company will pay for his/her benefit package but not the secretary's, and ah those bonuses.


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 5, 2009)

Claudette said:


> Excellent idea Horse. I wonder how long it would take for things to get "fixed" if our elected officials and Govt workers lived in the same world we taxpayers do?????
> 
> I sure ain't holdin my breath for it to happen though. After all, they are the ones who voted in all the perks for themselves. Just think, they call corporate CEOs greedy and self serving. Corporate CEO's ain't got nothin on these guys.



Well I can't really think of any Congressperson who's a billionnaire, nor any that reap bonus checks paid by the taxpayers in the millions. 

It's all well and good to criticize their perks, and even their term limits, but if it makes you feel better, then knock yourself out. But nothing like that will change anytime soon because you'll never get a simple majority of 535 people to reduce their own benefits, and the latter would require a Constitutional amendment.


----------



## Claudette (Nov 5, 2009)

Thats why I said not to hold your breath. 

You should check your facts though. No Billionairs but at least 40 of the 100 US senators are millionaires, some many times over, according to financial disclosure filings submitted last month. Republicans on the list outnumbered Democrats by a narrow margin of 22 to 18. However, Democratic senators hold the top five spots on the list and eight of the top ten, according to an analysis of the forms by CNN.

No they ain't doin bad at all.


----------



## KMAN (Nov 5, 2009)

*Where is jillian and you other liberals on this????*  What do you want to bet that they will be for Republicans going on public option but not Democrats....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 5, 2009)

Claudette said:


> Your so right Horse. Elitist is the word.These Congressmen and Senators only have to serve one term and they and their spouses are set for life. Oh yes, it is good to be a member of Congress or a Govt worker.
> 
> As for we taxpayers who fund the good life for all Govt employees, funny how that worked. They work for us and make out way better than we who supply the money. Talk about upside down.



so go get a govt job....


----------



## lakepot (Nov 5, 2009)

hey Kman, I'm all for it, but the blowhard knows it will never pass even on the red side of fence, can you say strawman bullshit hits again LOL


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Your so right Horse. Elitist is the word.These Congressmen and Senators only have to serve one term and they and their spouses are set for life. Oh yes, it is good to be a member of Congress or a Govt worker.
> ...



Don't worry Harry.  The CEO's of the world will still make millions.  And just because you lived thru a great depression, doesn't mean we should all have to as well.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...





you live in Deeeetroit city no? Here's that latest,,, Deeeetroit city is in a great depression..


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 5, 2009)

KMAN said:


> *Where is jillian and you other liberals on this????*  What do you want to bet that they will be for Republicans going on public option but not Democrats....



How bout we do this..

Allow them the CHOICE of which policy provides the best option for their families

The same as the current bill does for ALL Americans

Why do you insist on denying people a choice?  You don't want Americans to have a choice of a public option and you don't want Congress to have a choice of a private option


----------



## alan1 (Nov 5, 2009)

The T said:


> *GOP members offer amendment to force Congress to participate in public option*
> By Tony Romm - 11/04/09 01:42 PM ET
> 
> Five House Republicans hope to add to Democrats' healthcare reform bill an amendment that would *automatically enroll members of Congress in the public option program.
> ...



Congresswoman Sue Myrick : Press Releases : Myrick Health Care Amendment Fails In Committee
snip,


> Myrick Health Care Amendment Fails In Committee
> *07/31/09*
> 
> (Washington, D.C.)  The amendment to automatically enroll the President, Vice President and all Members of Congress in the public option created by HR 3200, the Americas Affordable Health Choice Act, failed along a party-line vote last night.


----------



## Meister (Nov 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Where the hell have you been?


----------



## elvis (Nov 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



he was finally told to stop playing on the internet on company time.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...


you got me mixed up with Old Rocks Teabag Boy.....


----------



## elvis (Nov 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



I think he teabagged chris.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 5, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



thats why i heard Bobo has been gone so long.....Chris gagged and bit Bo's Balls off....they tried to reattach them but couldnt find his Balls....you know what that meant.....


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 6, 2009)

DevNell said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



How is it waste of tax payer dollars? It doesn't cost un anything for congressman to propose an amendment. 

How can you disagree with the notion that if the public option is suppossed to be so great congress ought to be more than happy to adopt it themselves?

Me thinks you are a partisan hack and can't think objectively is why.


----------



## Claudette (Nov 6, 2009)

Horse. I'll let you know if I wine the lottery or the Powerball down here in Florida. Pary time on me.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 6, 2009)

The T said:


> *GOP members offer amendment to force Congress to participate in public option*
> By Tony Romm - 11/04/09 01:42 PM ET
> 
> Five House Republicans hope to add to Democrats' healthcare reform bill an amendment that would *automatically enroll members of Congress in the public option program.
> ...



I'm fine with that, of course it is nothing more than the usual hyperbole, and notice which states the honorable gentlemen represent.  If I were a member I would simply add this rider - 'No state may receive more in federal revenue sharing than that state contributes to the Federal Revenue'.


----------



## Meister (Nov 6, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > *GOP members offer amendment to force Congress to participate in public option*
> ...



Wow!  That's calculating. 
Wyoming will just have to suck it up in your world.


----------



## Polk (Nov 6, 2009)

Another round of bullshit. If people were forced until the public option, the arguments would make sense. The fact of the matter is they aren't.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 6, 2009)

Does anyone have a copy of this amendment??

From what I heard it is just a resolution which doesn't "force" anyone to do anything.

More BS grandstanding by the Pubs......


----------



## Claudette (Nov 6, 2009)

No one will be forced into the PO. Not at first.

1. Insurance Companies will have to compete with the Fed Govt. Backed by the taxpayer dollar. Govt doesn't have to make a profit. Insurance companies won't be able to compete with them.

2.Companies will opt out and then the option will be PO. 

The insurance companies will most likely go out of business so that leaves the lovely PO just like they have in Europe. If you have a cold or a hangnail your okay. Catastrophic illness, forget it. You may as well jump in the hole now cause your dead. 

The real kicker for me is that those clowns in DC think they know whats best for us dimwitted, ignorant taxpayers. We couldn't possibly have enough sense to know what we need or want. Thank god for the Clowns in DC and Obama with that shinning light of his showing us the way. Whatever would we do without him???? God, gag me with a spoon.


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 6, 2009)

So, since the question posed in the OP is whether Congresspeople would choose the public option over their own cadillac plans (paraphrased), I wonder if THESE guys have answered that question. Or if the question was posed to any of them (the House Republicans) by any of the attendees at their "press conference" yesterday.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann Countdown with Keith Olbermann


----------



## Claudette (Nov 6, 2009)

Heard a Congresswoman asked at a teaparty. Her answer." We all have the option to opt out of the PO". She advised that she would be keeping her plan. Of course her goldplated plan is payed for by you and me and every other taxpayer. Such a deal.


----------



## The T (Nov 6, 2009)

Claudette said:


> Heard a Congresswoman asked at a teaparty. Her answer." We all have the option to opt out of the PO". She advised that she would be keeping her plan. Of course her goldplated plan is payed for by you and me and every other taxpayer. Such a deal.


 
Of course the _Principled _course is to ABIDE by LAW that they foist upon the rest of us. A great REVOLT is coming via 2010 Elections should this pass.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 6, 2009)

Claudette said:


> Heard a Congresswoman asked at a teaparty. Her answer." We all have the option to opt out of the PO". She advised that she would be keeping her plan. Of course her goldplated plan is payed for by you and me and every other taxpayer. Such a deal.



What is goldplated about the healthcare plan enjoyed by Congress?

Do you have any details or are you just spouting wingnut nonsense?


----------



## The T (Nov 6, 2009)

rightwinger said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Heard a Congresswoman asked at a teaparty. Her answer." We all have the option to opt out of the PO". She advised that she would be keeping her plan. Of course her goldplated plan is payed for by you and me and every other taxpayer. Such a deal.
> ...


 
In the off-chance *I* Should embarass your ass, or leave it _alone?_

Guess what *I* choose dipshit?

*Health Care for U.S. Congress*

*Politicians Receive the Countrys Best Care - at Taxpayers' Expense*



Read more: *http://public-healthcare-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/health_care_for_the_us_congress#ixzz0W8Ft0DS5*

Few would deny that a health care crisis looms large in the U.S. In a country with millions of *uninsured *and underinsured citizens, health care has become more a privilege than a right. Indeed, the United States remains the only industrialized country in the world that doesnt guarantee health care to all its citizens.
But this isnt the case for members of the U.S. Congress. Representatives and Senators alike receive some of the best health care benefits in the country, much of it paid for with taxpayer dollars. Yet these same members seem unable - or unwilling - to extend similar protections to the rest of America.
*Federal Employees Health Benefits Program*

As soon as members of Congress are sworn in, they may participate in the *Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)*. The program offers an assortment of health plans from which to choose, including fee-for-service, point-of-service, and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). In addition, Congress members can also insure their spouses and their dependents.
Not only does Congress get to choose from a wide range of plans, but theres no waiting period. Unlike many Americans who must struggle against precondition clauses or are even denied coverage because of those preconditions, Senators and Representatives are covered no matter what - effective immediately.
And heres the best part. The government pays up to 75 percent of the premium. That government, of course, is funded by taxpayers, the same taxpayers who often cannot afford health care themselves.

_____________________--

Educate yourself...or would you rather try to admonish someone for SOMETHING even YOU hadn't read?

Lotta GUTS you have...Don't you?


----------



## The T (Nov 6, 2009)

So tell us RW? WHY won't the MEMBERS of Congress sign ON to what they wish to _IMPOSE_ on their Subjects?

I expect NO straight answer from you.


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 7, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> So, since the question posed in the OP is whether Congresspeople would choose the public option over their own cadillac plans (paraphrased), I wonder if THESE guys have answered that question. Or if the question was posed to any of them (the House Republicans) by any of the attendees at their "press conference" yesterday.
> 
> Countdown with Keith Olbermann Countdown with Keith Olbermann



I see there was stunned silence over that ^^ comment. Must be the cons here so dead set against a public option think that only congressional Democrats have "goldplated" insurance plans paid for by taxpayers. The hypocrisy of those idiot House Republicans standing in front of an adoring audience and making their silly just-say-no speeches was astounding. Even more astounding was the stupidity of the people who actually thought *they* were the good guys.


----------



## Yurt (Nov 8, 2009)

good idea


----------



## The T (Nov 8, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > So, since the question posed in the OP is whether Congresspeople would choose the public option over their own cadillac plans (paraphrased), I wonder if THESE guys have answered that question. Or if the question was posed to any of them (the House Republicans) by any of the attendees at their "press conference" yesterday.
> ...


 
It goes for ALL members of Congress. What of this don't you understand? You'd rather listen to that jackass Keith Overbite.


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 9, 2009)

The T said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



---->WHOOSH---->

The Olbermann *video* simply showed how out of touch the Republicans are, and also the audience who showered them with hoorahs. Those very same Republicans ALSO have the benefit of health care insurance *PAID FOR BY THEM*. Duh.


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 9, 2009)

The T said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



And by the way, I don't normally watch Olbermann because I'm doing something else at that time. HOWEVER, I would watch him over any asshole conflicting on FAUX because at least Olbermann consistently backs up his statements with either direct quotes or, in this case, the video itself.


----------



## Claudette (Nov 9, 2009)

Jeeze. Can't be the same Olberman I watched a few times. Talk about a walking talking breathing liberal. Boy. The only thing fair and balanced about his show is possibly his dick. I have strong reservations about that also. He's almost as bad ad Rachel Madow. If you only want to hear one side of an issue by all means listen to Olberman and Madow. You'll get your liberal fix for sure.


----------



## Dante (Nov 9, 2009)

The T said:


> So tell us RW? WHY won't the MEMBERS of Congress sign ON to what they wish to _IMPOSE_ on their Subjects?
> 
> I expect NO straight answer from you.



What exactly are they imposing on teh nation?


----------



## Meister (Nov 9, 2009)

DevNell said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > So tell us RW? WHY won't the MEMBERS of Congress sign ON to what they wish to _IMPOSE_ on their Subjects?
> ...



Less than what the politicians are offered.


----------



## Dante (Nov 9, 2009)

Meister said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



There you have a point, because the GOP and the right will fight a single payer system. Under a single payer system we would all have equal access. Introducing a private component would probably be the way around treatment options...for those that could afford it.


----------



## Meister (Nov 9, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



Your assumption is wrong, Dev. Politicians wouldn't be covered under the single payer system.  They will have plenty of options that aren't offered to you, or I.
Most of the politicians don't want the single payer system for their coverage...that does mean Dems, also.


----------



## Dante (Nov 9, 2009)

Meister said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Wrong? If we had universal coverage and a single payer system,w e would all be part of the same plan...excepting any private insurance people add on. 

I think the GOP is playing games with a life and death issue and the Dems are trying to get simething passed...anything, that can be built on later. We in America need health care reform and we need universal access to care. We are a wealthy society and the dog eat dog attitude of many is reprehensible and un-American. 

I do not begrudge others a plan that would cover extras, whatever that would be, but there must be a standard of access that assures people in this great and wealthy nation do not die because of denial of access to health care or go bankrupt because they get ill.


----------



## The T (Nov 10, 2009)

Meister said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


 
Correct. The Amendment that was fronted by Republicans that spoke to this wasn't even allowed on the FLOOR by the Statist Leadership (Pelosi).


----------



## The T (Nov 10, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...


 

WHY was the Republican Amendment not even allowed? Why was it defeated?


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 11, 2009)

Claudette said:


> Jeeze. Can't be the same Olberman I watched a few times. Talk about a walking talking breathing liberal. Boy. The only thing fair and balanced about his show is possibly his dick. I have strong reservations about that also. He's almost as bad ad Rachel Madow. If you only want to hear one side of an issue by all means listen to Olberman and Madow. You'll get your liberal fix for sure.



Neither Olbermann nor Maddow profess to be anything BUT liberals. That said, I usually find bigger dickheads if I happen to turn on FOX.


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 11, 2009)

The T said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



Because it was a joke. One you apparently didn't get.


----------



## Claudette (Nov 12, 2009)

Really Maggie. If this public option is so great then I should think those pushing it, Pelosi and her looney left crew, would be the first in line to take advantage of this primo plant. Kinda funny that they aren't. 

As for dickheads. Can't find two better ones that Olberman and Maddow. What a pair of liberal idiots. Personally I'll take the "dickheads" on Fox anyday and if rating are any indication, so will millions of other viewers.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 12, 2009)

Meister said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



But why not?  Otherwise it is what you guys call, "socialism"?   

just playing devil's advocate here....but, if you do not believe in taking the money of others to use towards those who were or are not as successful or prosperous, then you should not be taking other people's money for those in wyoming?  Unless i misunderstood your point Meister?

Can you see what i am trying to say?  Hurting states should not be supported by prosperous states, not if you do not believe in taking from others that "have" and giving it to those of the "have nots", no?


----------



## Care4all (Nov 12, 2009)

In the Bill, is the Public Option FORCED on to anyone in the usa?

The answer is NO, it is not...it is just an option, another choice, for people to choose from, isn;t it?

Why oh why, would they want to force congress to go on this plan option when they give everyone else the OPTION to choose it...shouldn't congress be like all other citizens?

Why would these guys want to separate congress from all other citizens on this?

I don;t understand the point of these dudes trying to do this?  

AGAIN, are people being FORCED in to the public option in any of these bills?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Nov 12, 2009)

> AGAIN, are people being FORCED in to the public option in any of these bills?



Yes.  There are provisions that once your private coverage changes in ANY way, you are forced to move onto the public option or national health insurance or whatever monniker they hang on it.  It is the biggest cluster fuck of the American public in history.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Nov 12, 2009)

In other words, you can keep your private insurance so long as the premium never changes and the coverage never change.  Loosely translated - FUCK YOU.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 16, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> > AGAIN, are people being FORCED in to the public option in any of these bills?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  There are provisions that once your private coverage changes in ANY way, you are forced to move onto the public option or national health insurance or whatever monniker they hang on it.  It is the biggest cluster fuck of the American public in history.



There are no such provisions...

Nice try though


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 23, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> > AGAIN, are people being FORCED in to the public option in any of these bills?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  There are provisions that once your private coverage changes in ANY way, you are forced to move onto the public option or national health insurance or whatever monniker they hang on it.  It is the biggest cluster fuck of the American public in history.



That is...like... TOTally crap.


----------



## oreo (Nov 24, 2009)

The T said:


> *GOP members offer amendment to force Congress to participate in public option*
> By Tony Romm - 11/04/09 01:42 PM ET
> 
> Five House Republicans hope to add to Democrats' healthcare reform bill an amendment that would *automatically enroll members of Congress in the public option program.
> ...




Great Idea--doubt it will make it to the floor though--Nancy Pelosi will cut off that micro-phone so fast--you won't even see it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 24, 2009)

oreo said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > *GOP members offer amendment to force Congress to participate in public option*
> ...




Of course it won't this is the "Do as we say not as we do" Congress.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 28, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Congress will have the same "Option" the public does.
Thats what "Option" means


----------



## Polk (Nov 28, 2009)

Care4all said:


> In the Bill, is the Public Option FORCED on to anyone in the usa?
> 
> The answer is NO, it is not...it is just an option, another choice, for people to choose from, isn;t it?
> 
> ...



Exactly, but they're going to spin their wheels trying to figure out a retort.


----------



## Polk (Nov 28, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> > AGAIN, are people being FORCED in to the public option in any of these bills?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  There are provisions that once your private coverage changes in ANY way, you are forced to move onto the public option or national health insurance or whatever monniker they hang on it.  It is the biggest cluster fuck of the American public in history.



That's not true.


----------



## blu (Nov 28, 2009)

The T said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



because it was stupid and showed that republicans didn't even understand the point of the public option


----------



## anakin (Dec 6, 2009)

The Dems are showing their outright hypocrisy here.  Sen. Charles Grassley is pushing this amendment.  They want to force this health bill on the rest of the country, but will not subject themselves to it.  It's disgusting.


----------



## Meister (Dec 6, 2009)

blu said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



Or maybe the democrats thought it was stupid, because it doesn't have a public option.  I think most Americans, not including you do understand the "public option."
That's what the survey says, anyways.


----------



## amrchaos (Dec 6, 2009)

Bad idea!!

BAD BAD BAD!!!

The nation is too deep in debt to take care of Pelosi's face!!  

Bad idea.


----------

