But if you think that somehow traps me into some sort of “aha gotcha yas!” moment, ya gotcha nother thing coming.
See, if I decided to pay for all the uninsured all on my own, I’d have no opportunity to sign my entire paycheck over to the toll operators seeing as I’m the only person in America to use its highway system. And then where would I get the money to pay for the entirety of my school district’s budget for a kid I don’t have to not attend?
This is fun. I could go on like this all day.
[sub]* In fact, under the current system, I pay both directly and indirectly for each and every uninsured person that seeks medical treatment in this country. What I’d prefer is a much more sane system.[/sub]
Personally, I’m interested in paying for it out of your pocket. Mine too, as well as everyone other taxpayer’s.
You know, if the weakness of socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money, then the strength of liberalism is that you see to it that you never do.
"I saw on the news that you were upset about the 28 day waiting period to get health insurance. You said you had never been made to wait before.
You do realize that most people have to wait 90 days to get insurance, don’t you?
The “no wait” you have received in the past and the “only” 28 day wait you are getting now is because you are a doctor and now a politician and get special treatment.
Nurses, for example, and regular working folks, must wait 3 months before their insurance kicks in."
Not really. We don’t know what he actually said, as there isn’t a direct quote. The reporter states that he “demanded” to know, but the quote we have from someone else simply said he “asked”.
And then, ragged little Andy Harris, his eyes brimming with tears, held forth his empty bowl and simpered “Please, sir, might I have my health care?” Whereupon, he was belabored sharply with a rolled up blog to cries of “Bad! Bad! Go lay down by your water dish!”.
Your error is thinking that “the rich”, which in Doperland is the source of all evil, benefit more than the poor from UHC. So making the rich pay “a proportional percentage of taxes” for the benefit would result in the poor paying more. I don’t see anyone suggesting we do that. Thus, the rich will pay a disproportionate share, and thus, it’s unfair. It’s really not that hard to understand.
How is that hypocritical? He demands a solution for himself, but not for others. He’s against others getting the benefit, but he wants it for himself. Agreed. Now, how does that mean he says one thing and does another? At no point in time did he say he wants others to have health insurance. Now, he’s acting in accordance with that belief. Where’s the hypocrisy?
That’s like saying:
“I’d like a turkey sandwich on wheat, extra mustard, hold the tomato.”
“Here’s a sandwich where everyone gets to eat and NO ONE has to EVER go any time without a turkey sandwich.”
“Uh…I don’t want that. That’s not what I asked for. I want a sandwich for me, and just me.”
“Hypocrite!”
Well - I guess it’s possible that this whole story is made up. Manufactured. An invention of someones overactive imagination. It’s possible, in fact, that he never gave any impression whatsoever, that he was unhappy or disappointed with the 1-month lag time.
Of course - if that were the case, we’d probably hear him pointing that out, wouldn’t we? I mean - if someone completely invented a story that misrepresented my position, I might say that. I might point out what was wrong with the story. But that’s just me. Turns out that Harris, instead of disavowing these falsehoods, instead agrees with them. See - he doesn’t deny the characterization of what he said, he simply disagrees with the interpretation.
Basically, Andy doesn’t believe that wanting to get his government healthcare sooner is hypocritical. It’s simply his way of pointing out how grossly inefficient government healthcare really is. That’s all . . . . .
That’s by no means universally true. It depends on how your employer has their benefits set up. I’ve worked for places where there’s a one-month lag, and one where my benefits started immediately.
The *entire country *benefits from universal health care. Rich people often own companies or invest in them; companies that no longer have to pay for health care, which is a massive financial burden, will perform much better, especially in a global market.
Just because there is no *direct and immediate personal benefit *doesn’t mean that there isn’t a benefit.
Also: “fair” doesn’t always mean “equal,” unless you’re four years old and can’t understand anything more complex than, “She got a bigger slice than meeeeeeeeeeee!!! :(:(:(:mad:”
I suppose it’s possible for you to mischaracterize my post. If fact, you did. I never implied that the “whole story” was just “made up”.
No, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. We don’t know what he said afterwards, or whom he said it to. Not everything a person says gets published. And all you did was link back to the original article which, as I noted above, contains no direct quotes from him.
Got it - my mistake. What exactly did you imply, then? Because it sure sounds like you questioned what he said - which by my estimation is pretty much the entire story. In fact, if he hadn’t said anything, I struggle to understand how there is a story at all.
So you question the quote, but not the “whole story”. Does that sum it up?
Yep, I was involved in an offshoring project to move jobs to … Canada. The reason - we didn’t need to pay for health care. Cheaper for us to hire Canadians (who generally speak English well, are generally well educated, and work in the same time zones - all sometimes issues with Asia) than Americans, even though the salaries are very comparable.
It’s hard for me to understand how you got that idea, because all I questioned was the tone he used. Did he “ask” or did he “demand”? The reporter says he “demanded”, but that’s pretty subjective unless there’s something in a quote from him that let’s us see that for ourselves. There isn’t. All of the quotes given (and none of them are actually from the Congresscritter himself) are pretty innocuous.