FilmFestGuy
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,120
- Reaction score
- 1,244
- Location
- Nashville, TN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
What a sad little thread. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a new employee asking when his benefits will kick in. I think that is a question most of us would have when we start a new job.
According to Glenn Thrush of Politico, Harris created a stir at the orientation meeting by demanding to know why he had to wait a month after he was sworn in in January for his government-subsidized health care to kick in. After responding in a huff, he even asked if there was some way he could buy into the government care in advance, seemingly thinking there might be a government program similar to the so-called 'public option' championed by progressive Democrats in 2009.
According to an unnamed congressional staffer quoted by Thrush, Harris stood up at the meeting "and asked the two ladies who were answering questions why it had to take so long, what he would do without 28 days of health care."
If it really happened as described then this guy needs to come back down to earth. Most jobs require a waiting period before your healthcare kicks in.
But, this was some anonymous staffer and I try to never take those kinds of accusations seriously...
you are correct, except when that new employee wants to deny others healthcare.
Except he's not wanting to deny people health care in a similar way to what he's asking. To my understanding this congressman isn't for disallowing employee's from offering health care to their employees. More than that, I don't believe he's come out against the federal government offering federal employee's health care. What he's against is the federal government offering citizens health care simply for being citizens or involving the government further into the health care business itself.
This is like saying that the guy couldn't ask "Where's the bathroom" because he's against people going to the bathroom because he's in favor of laws that don't allow you to piss in the middle of the street.
Except he's not wanting to deny people health care in a similar way to what he's asking. To my understanding this congressman isn't for disallowing employee's from offering health care to their employees. More than that, I don't believe he's come out against the federal government offering federal employee's health care. What he's against is the federal government offering citizens health care simply for being citizens or involving the government further into the health care business itself.
This is like saying that the guy couldn't ask "Where's the bathroom" because he's against people going to the bathroom because he's in favor of laws that don't allow you to piss in the middle of the street.
but he does want to deny healthcare to citizens, the very people he is supposed to work FOR.
and of COURSE he won't come out against the federal gov't providing HIS healthcare, how silly would that be?
he just wants to limit the options of the people he works for
he has indoor plumbing, his constituents have outhouses, and he'll be damned if they get to use toilet paper instead of the good old sears and roebuck.
Right, and those people he works FOR probably elected him to deny that ability. Just giving **** to people doesn't = doing what's best for them in all cases. So what if he wants to deny healthcare to citizens from the government? That has nothing to do with asking his employer about health care benefits. They're not the same thing.
Not about HIS health care.
Find me any quote by him suggesting federal employees in general shouldn't be given health care options similar to private enterprise? Find me quotes of him suggesting that postal workers be denied having health care offered to them. Or FBI agents? Or administrative staff for the General Service Administration.
Not wanting the government to supply health care to everyone != not wanting employers to help supplement health care cost of employees
And guess what, they likely voted for him to limit that option. I know I voted for my guy to limit my option. Actually, most of the recent votes I've cast was to limit my options that the government provides. Because I think that would be BETTER for me and the country than the alternative.
No, he has an employer that offers health insurance. Some of his constitutents have employers that offer health insurance. If he didn't have an employer, he wouldn't have someone helping with health insurance, just like his constituents.
You're trying to compare the government providing insurance for everyone to employers helping subsidize a persons health care plan. Those things are as different as employees offering bathrooms to their employees to use and people just being allowed to piss in the streets.
actually, zyph, you are taking this far too seriously. it started out as something kinda funny, at least to me.
actually, zyph, you are taking this far too seriously. it started out as something kinda funny, at least to me.
There really is nothing funny about it, unless you stretch the facts beyond all recognition. He was a new employee inquiring about his health care benefits. That's standard practice for anyone taking on a new job. His stance on creating a massive new entitlement program is irrelevant. As Zyph said, if you can find a campaign statement where he said he was in favor of repealing health care benefits for federal employees, then, yes, he would be a hypocrite of the highest degree.
As for the people he works for, the Republicans have been openly against Obamacare since day one. The people who elected him knew this and apparently agreed with him, but I'm willing to wager they didn't elect him with the expecation that he decline his benefits as a federal employee. The only people who find this "amusing" or "hypocritical" are the ones so blinded by partisanship that they can't look at the facts objectively.
you are correct, except when that new employee wants to deny others healthcare.
Yes.. GOPers want to deny everyone health care... yup.. you sure know what you're talking about alrighty.
actually, zyph, you are taking this far too seriously. it started out as something kinda funny, at least to me.
you are correct, except when that new employee wants to deny others healthcare.
now, now, did i post EVERYONE? of course not.
but he does want to deny healthcare to citizens
Of course he is.. one of his heros got caught with his pants down, so he has to defend him with what ever means necessary.
As for the OP post... typical right wing hypocrite.
but he does want to deny healthcare to citizens, the very people he is supposed to work FOR.
or just possibly, some people really don't give a **** and just think it's funny. everything isn't life or death, you know.
It's funny that TPM linked to the Politico article and repeated all the stuff that made him look hypocritical, but didn't repeat the part concerning what his office said -- that he was making a point about the inefficiency of government-run health care.
That's one of the dumbest statements (from a political office) that I've ever heard. He's making them look "inefficient" by pointing out that there's a 1 month period where you aren't covered? I've never applied for a job, worked at a job or known anyone that worked at any job that starts your health insurance the second they hire you. My father in law works for AT&T, they make you wait 3 months, my fiance works as a vet tech, she had to wait a little over a month, I had to wait a month at my current job. If he was trying to make a point then he's half a tard and should hire a few extra staffers to spoon feed him regularly and to keep any and all press away from his dumb ass.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?