Tea party congressmen sacrifice staff's health for political statement

Posted in the Minneapolis Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 15 of15
ScHmahl is IgnoranT

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 26, 2013
 

Judged:

21

20

19

Two tea party congressmen, both with net worths well in excess of $1 million, have announced that they will forego having the government help pay for their insurance, and one of them has decided his staff can, too. Easy for them to decide. Maybe a little harder for an average staffer.

According to the Hendersonville Times News, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who is leading the conservative effort in the House to oppose legislation to fund the government unless it includes a rider zeroing out money for Obamacare, told constituents that he and his staff would decline federal subsidies to purchase insurance on the exchanges, which open for enrollment in October.

Meadows joins fellow North Carolinian Rep. Robert Pittenger, who announced late last week that he too will decline federal premium support to help him purchase insurance on the exchanges, and that hes cosponsoring legislation that would prohibit any member of Congress from receiving such assistance.

Meadows, according to OpenSecrets.org , had a net worth in 2011 somewhere between $1,674,034 and $12,017,998. And Pittenger's is between $18,615,005 and $48,551,997. Obviously this is a huge sacrifice on their part. Nice of Meadows to commit his staff to that political statement, too.

Here's the deal. Members of Congress and their staff have always received health insurance with a very healthy subsidy from the federal government. We didn't see any big principled opposition to that use of taxpayer dollars. No, it's only a problem now that it will be under the umbrella of Obamacare. But when those staff members see what their new insurance premiums are without that subsidy, they might just change their tune. Or go uninsured. Because Freedom!

There should be one pre-existing condition insurers are allowed to discriminate against: being a teabagger.
LIbEralS

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 26, 2013
 

Judged:

14

13

13

ScHmahl is IgnoranT wrote:
Two tea party congressmen, both with net worths well in excess of $1 million, have announced that they will forego having the government help pay for their insurance, and one of them has decided his staff can, too. Easy for them to decide. Maybe a little harder for an average staffer.
According to the Hendersonville Times News, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who is leading the conservative effort in the House to oppose legislation to fund the government unless it includes a rider zeroing out money for Obamacare, told constituents that he and his staff would decline federal subsidies to purchase insurance on the exchanges, which open for enrollment in October.
Meadows joins fellow North Carolinian Rep. Robert Pittenger, who announced late last week that he too will decline federal premium support to help him purchase insurance on the exchanges, and that hes cosponsoring legislation that would prohibit any member of Congress from receiving such assistance.
Meadows, according to OpenSecrets.org , had a net worth in 2011 somewhere between $1,674,034 and $12,017,998. And Pittenger's is between $18,615,005 and $48,551,997. Obviously this is a huge sacrifice on their part. Nice of Meadows to commit his staff to that political statement, too.
Here's the deal. Members of Congress and their staff have always received health insurance with a very healthy subsidy from the federal government. We didn't see any big principled opposition to that use of taxpayer dollars. No, it's only a problem now that it will be under the umbrella of Obamacare. But when those staff members see what their new insurance premiums are without that subsidy, they might just change their tune. Or go uninsured. Because Freedom!
There should be one pre-existing condition insurers are allowed to discriminate against: being a teabagger.
Translation: Congressional staff will be forced to pay the same amount that middle class tax payers will have to pay.
Romney 54 Obama 46

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 26, 2013
 

Judged:

13

13

13

LIbEralS wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: Congressional staff will be forced to pay the same amount that middle class tax payers will have to pay.
Why should they pay anything? Health care like food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and some entertainment should all be free.
LIbEralS

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 26, 2013
 

Judged:

13

13

13

Romney 54 Obama 46 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should they pay anything? Health care like food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and some entertainment should all be free.
They shouldn't! NOBODY should have to pay for any food, shelter, clothing, transportation, entertainment etc.

The trouble is that sooner or later (and it looks like sooner) you will run out of other people's money to redistribute.
LIbEralS

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 27, 2013
 

Judged:

11

11

11

background noise wrote:
<quoted text>
Taxes now are a lower percent of the GNP than they have been in decades.
You'll need something better than Faux News talking points to convince America.
Maybe just open your eyes and look around. Has ANYTHING gotten cheaper in the last 5 years? Better yet, has your buying power increased? I think not.
background noise

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Aug 27, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

background noise wrote:
<quoted text>
Taxes now are a lower percent of the GNP than they have been in decades.
You'll need something better than Faux News talking points to convince America.
Total crap, especially if you include corporate taxes.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displ...

Next time you want to spread your unsubstantiated lies, use your own moniker, you coward.
The Real Truth

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Aug 27, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

The Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you have the balls to call me a liar???
Yeah, because you are one. You are a parasite and a liar.
LIbEralS

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

background noise wrote:
<quoted text>
Taxes now are a lower percent of the GNP than they have been in decades.
You'll need something better than Faux News talking points to convince America.
So, what do these numbers really mean?
Awful Truth

Grantsburg, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

LIbEralS wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what do these numbers really mean?
1. The numbers mean Nothing

2. The Poster copied/pasted statistics that he does not understand to make a point that he lacks the ability to make

3. Numbers do not lie, but liars use numbers.

4. 10% of the GDP in 1950, is equal to about 90% of GDP in 2008 (Pre-Messianic Days)

5. Economic Activity in a Capitalist Free Market is the ONLY measure that matters. Playing with numbers to Hood Wink the Sheeple goes back to the beginning of time when Grod, ripped off Trog for an animal skin......Lesser Peoples are still falling for the big Lies in Amerika Today!
Awful Truth

Grantsburg, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Consistent Deleted wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO!!!!
This is INCREDIBLY funny and the perfect example of illiterate right wing extremists not having a clue what they are talking about.
Let's take this one:
"10% of the GDP in 1950, is equal to about 90% of GDP in 2008"
The Gross Domestic Product is the sum total of all goods and services produced during a given time period (you would have learned this in Economics 101 had you attended college).
So what our drunken extremist is saying is that ten PERCENT of all goods and services produced in 1950 equals ninety PERCENT of all goods and services produced in 2008.
Huh?
Remember, the numbers that prove my point were posted by another illiterate right winger, not me.
Speaking of numbers not lying, how is that "54% Romney 46% Obama" set of numbers working out for you?
All this proves that right wing extremists CLEARLY do not have a grasp on reality.
Rational Moderate Sheeple,

"illiterate right wing extremists"i
Setting aside the Ignorance that you magnify in this Post, lemme aks you, is this the sort of Bigotry that you find acceptable from your Racist/Ageist/Sexist/Hetrophob 'ic Perspective?

What makes you any different than the Seattle Sociopath....or are you the Slewblomkin?
LIbEralS

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Consistent wrote:
<quoted text>
Pointing out that many right wing extremists are functionally illiterate - a point that you make quite well, by the way - is not bigotry or racist or ageist.
No, just off topic.
Awful Truth

Grantsburg, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

1

Consistent wrote:
<quoted text>
Pointing out that many right wing extremists are functionally illiterate - a point that you make quite well, by the way - is not bigotry or racist or ageist.
Poster of no Integrity,

Once again you tuck tail and run to the Playground Lady!

The point that you ignored, or were unable to literate from my post, was that YOU are the kind of Poster that needs to be banned for your bigotry, and failure to follow Topix rules.

YOU have zero "wit", and the only engagement in the conversation that you make, is to toss out "Racist" to the Grown Ups that you cannot understand, because you have not reached Adulthood in your old age.
Just Wait

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

If they think they got problems now, when they turn age 65 and are put on Medicare, they may pay the ultimate sacrifice.
Democrat Equals Hypocrit

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Consistent Deleted wrote:
<quoted text>
The majority of America, along with Topix, seems to think that YOU are the racist here, not me, hence the reason you are hiding behind another posting name.
Wrong again, Percy. You are the racist. Everyone knows that.
LIbEralS

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Consistent Deleted wrote:
Look at the figures on the page you quoted:
In 2012, taxes were 15.8% on the GNP
In 2011, taxes were 15.4% on the GNP
In 2010, taxes were 15.1% on the GNP
Compare that to:
In 1952, taxes were 19.0% on the GNP
In 1953, taxes were 18.7% on the GNP
In 1954, taxes were 18.5% on the GNP
In ALL of the 1970's, taxes were over 17.0% of the GNP
You are so dumb that you can't even see that YOUR figures prove that I am correct and you are wrong!
OK, I'll ask again, WHAT do any of these figures really mean? Just point are you attempting to "prove" to anyone?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 15 of15
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

28 Users are viewing the Minneapolis Forum right now

Search the Minneapolis Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
University calls the amount of white people on ... 21 min Capt Crunch 16
Mpls. considers plastic food containers banMpls... 57 min Sangelia 3
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 1 hr Fair Game 29,877
Will Michelle DUMP Barak 1 hr Ouch 18
Woman's head stepped on by Rand Paul supporters (Oct '10) 2 hr redeemer 25,971
Review: State Wide Protective Agency (Jul '11) 2 hr travis 65
Team Obama behind IRS Scandal (May '13) 2 hr LIbEralS 94
•••
•••
•••
•••

Minneapolis Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••