Putting property over people

Putting property over people

There are 36 comments on the Evening Sun story from Oct 25, 2009, titled Putting property over people. In it, Evening Sun reports that:

What's more important, property or people? I'd say people. However, some in Congress believe property is more important.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Evening Sun.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Dan

Harrisburg, PA

#1 Oct 25, 2009
Check your facts. Congress has to buy private insurance. Their insurance falls under the Federal Employees Health Benifits program and they have the same options to pick from as any federal employee. Its not government run. They buy from private insurance companies just like us. They pay a share of their premium the same way any federal employee does, or for that matter any one whose company offers insurance to their employees. Congressmen just can afford a more expensive plan than a janitor. There is not some big all-encompassing free of charge Senator only health plan.
sarcasm man

Newville, PA

#2 Oct 25, 2009
Question; is Ms. Bennett a shill for the Dems or a moron? I don't get Obama's newsletter to tell his kool-aid drinkers what to write to the papers. Had she done her own research she would have noticed the NFIP was formed in 1968. And like everything DC tries is a failure. First its supposed to be self-supporting. However it costs the taxpayer over 200million per year. Notice how they never get it right? Also it helps either the wealthy that want beach front property, or slum lords that use flood prone properties for section 8 housing. You'll also notice she wrote "which would have authorized NFIP insurance" because it was defeated, because some real statesmen in DC realized this was wrong! Ms. Bennett is right about one thing: "A public option is not free health insurance". It isn't. I pay, you pay, employers pay, people with health insurance pay, but more importantly our children and grandchildren pay for years to come. If this bill passes you have put shackles of debt on future generations of Americans.
sarcasm man

Newville, PA

#3 Oct 25, 2009
Dan wrote:
Check your facts. Congress has to buy private insurance. Their insurance falls under the Federal Employees Health Benifits program and they have the same options to pick from as any federal employee. Its not government run. They buy from private insurance companies just like us. They pay a share of their premium the same way any federal employee does, or for that matter any one whose company offers insurance to their employees. Congressmen just can afford a more expensive plan than a janitor. There is not some big all-encompassing free of charge Senator only health plan.
Dan's right. In fact they get over a hundred insurance companies to choose from. However if a congressman or senator wait till they are in session they can see the Doc in the house for free. Kinda like a school nurse. But more importantly as you can see they believe in competition and choice when it comes to themselves, just not with us!
Laila

Minneapolis, MN

#4 Oct 25, 2009
Well, first of all, 151 members of Congress are already on a public option. It's called Medicare. If they are so against a government-run health system, why don't they give up their Medicare.

Second, you're right they do buy private insurance, but they have a lot more policies to pick from. You're right "They pay a SHARE of their premium the same way any federal employee does" -- who do you think pays the other part? It's the federal government. We pay it just like you complain will be the situation with a public option. The most popular program picked by members of Congress, according to Consumer Reports (though I'm sure you'll call that a Democratic rag), is the national Blue Cross and Blue Shield Preferred Provider Organization plan. Employee contributions for that plan are $152 per person, or $357 per family, per month. Deductible of $300 per person and $600 per family. Preventative care, including immunizations, is covered. Now, let me tell you what I pay for a single person for my Capital Blue Cross insurance:$381.52/month (more than the congressional plan for a family); my deductible is $1,500 (5 times more than the congressional plan) and it does NOT include preventative care or immunizations.

If Medicare is good enough for 151 members of Congress, why not extend it down to other people. If the congressional Blue Cross and Blue Shield plan is good enough for members of Congress, why not extend it down for others to access. I would be ecstatic to have access to such a plan. My deductible would be 60% lower, my deductible 80% lower and I'd have much better coverage.

Sounds like a deal to me. Also as Ms Bennett, said, if this had occurred under President Bush or a Republican Congress, you'd be all for it. Where was your screaming about burdening future generations when Bush spent a surplus and ran up the deficit, give outrageous non-bid contract to Haliburton, and did the first bailout. I did't hear complaining then
sarcasm man

Newville, PA

#5 Oct 25, 2009
you obviously were too busy protesting the war to hear conservatives screaming about Bush's spending. I would have been just as upset if Bushcare was being talked about. As of right now because of our national debt every person owes 300k! And what does DC do? Keep spending and printing more money. BTW I was against Bush's stimulus checks...why cause it was just a way to print money we didn't have, to give to people to spend more instead of saving more.
sarcasm man

Newville, PA

#6 Oct 25, 2009
One more thing those "ridiculous" profits you guys are always screaming about(in regards to health care providers) averages about 2.5%. In fact their credit ratings have gone from stable to negative. However tupperwear's profits exceed 7%! Will Obama be upset about that companies profits next?

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#7 Oct 25, 2009
This letter is so asinine as to defy comment.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#8 Oct 25, 2009
Laila wrote:
My deductible would be 60% lower, my deductible 80% lower and I'd have much better coverage.
More fairy tales from Lai-La land, where rainbows adorn the clear skies and unicorns prance in the lush meadows.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#9 Oct 25, 2009
sarcasm man wrote:
you obviously were too busy protesting the war to hear conservatives screaming about Bush's spending. I would have been just as upset if Bushcare was being talked about. As of right now because of our national debt every person owes 300k! And what does DC do? Keep spending and printing more money. BTW I was against Bush's stimulus checks...why cause it was just a way to print money we didn't have, to give to people to spend more instead of saving more.
Absolutely correct. Most of us were railing loudly against Bush's spending spree, but that never registers in these threads.
sarcasm man

Newville, PA

#10 Oct 25, 2009
Jonah Hex wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely correct. Most of us were railing loudly against Bush's spending spree, but that never registers in these threads.
The best part is they scream about talk radio. If they had listened the past 8 years they would have heard conservatives screaming bout how Bush and Republicans were spending money like drunken sailors. In fact I would be interested if they found one show that applauded his economic prowess.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#11 Oct 25, 2009
sarcasm man wrote:
<quoted text>
The best part is they scream about talk radio. If they had listened the past 8 years they would have heard conservatives screaming bout how Bush and Republicans were spending money like drunken sailors. In fact I would be interested if they found one show that applauded his economic prowess.
Precisely!
Laila

Minneapolis, MN

#12 Oct 25, 2009
Jonah Hex wrote:
<quoted text>
More fairy tales from Lai-La land, where rainbows adorn the clear skies and unicorns prance in the lush meadows.
Are you saying the my premium dropping to $152 from its current $381 is not a 60% deduction or that my deductible dropping to $300 from $1,500 would not be an 80% reduction. Plus, I'd get preventative care and immunizations, which I don't have now, under the plan Congress has access to? I don't know what is fairy tale about that, Jonah. It is just pure mathematical fact. Oh, but then I know you don't deal with facts.
sarcasm man

Newville, PA

#13 Oct 25, 2009
You do realize Laila the reason it's cheaper for them is the insurance company can go across state lines...which we've been saying this whole time!
R U Kyddingme

Dahlonega, GA

#14 Oct 25, 2009
I spent most of my life in one of four states that give insurers a free for all and I have seen first hand their abuse including paying their employees big bonuses for denying and delaying legitimate claims like the kid run over by a drunk driver on a sidewalk. High time these scumbuckets are held accountable for their big profits at human costs. Aside from that it just boils down to sheer meanness. People don't give a rodent's behind for their fellow human beings and don't care if they can get help if they are sick or injured. Guess what--it does cost us all anyway. Get a soul, you haters. And yes, I have insurance and I pay for it. And while I am low income, I care enough to want everyone to have it.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#15 Oct 26, 2009
Laila wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying the my premium dropping to $152 from its current $381 is not a 60% deduction or that my deductible dropping to $300 from $1,500 would not be an 80% reduction. Plus, I'd get preventative care and immunizations, which I don't have now, under the plan Congress has access to? I don't know what is fairy tale about that, Jonah. It is just pure mathematical fact. Oh, but then I know you don't deal with facts.
All imaginary numbers.

If you want true examples of what a National government run health care program would encapsulate, then look no further at the Veterans Administration and the U.S. Indian Health Service, both of which are bloated bureaucracies, waste billions of $$$$, and provide only marginal, rationed health care to their constituencies, dependent upon the whims of Congress and the bitter reality of constrained annual fiscal year budgets.

Since: Aug 08

Hanover, Pa

#16 Oct 26, 2009
sarcasm man wrote:
One more thing those "ridiculous" profits you guys are always screaming about(in regards to health care providers) averages about 2.5%. In fact their credit ratings have gone from stable to negative. However tupperwear's profits exceed 7%! Will Obama be upset about that companies profits next?
Those damn greedy insurance companies.. 2% profit is unacceptable. I mean one insurance company (Health Spring, the top performer)had the audacity to earn 5.4%. Greedy capitalist pigs... I mean how dare them. Although ironically, they didn't make quite as much as Yum brands who owns/operates KFC and Taco Bell, their profit margin was 8.5%. Oh well don't let the rhetoric get in the way of the truth.
sarcasm man

Newville, PA

#17 Oct 26, 2009
Since our prez hates profit, I'm sure he's serious about Tort reform. Since lawyers profits are at 14%.
Tippy

Hilton Head Island, SC

#18 Oct 27, 2009
The reason we are in the mess that we are today is illustrated by this lady. The public has no idea what has been transpiring in the government, did not give a "flip".. still do not have a clue, but have an opinion on everything. As long as they think someone else will pay for their "free whatever" they keep yelling loud and long. Get a grip lady, when the companies shut down, no one has a job there goes the money for for all the "free stuff"! The government does not make money, they take it from the working public and redistribute it ignorant voters, who tell them lies to get elected and stay in office!
Tippy

Hilton Head Island, SC

#19 Oct 27, 2009
R U Kyddingme wrote:
I spent most of my life in one of four states that give insurers a free for all and I have seen first hand their abuse including paying their employees big bonuses for denying and delaying legitimate claims like the kid run over by a drunk driver on a sidewalk. High time these scumbuckets are held accountable for their big profits at human costs. Aside from that it just boils down to sheer meanness. People don't give a rodent's behind for their fellow human beings and don't care if they can get help if they are sick or injured. Guess what--it does cost us all anyway. Get a soul, you haters. And yes, I have insurance and I pay for it. And while I am low income, I care enough to want everyone to have it.
There are NO states allowed to have free market(interstate competition to market health insurance across state lines) That is a Federal mandate and what keeps the free market for operating as it should to keep premiums lower. Hershey's Candy Co. makes more profit than health insurance companies. Now, vendors for Medicare and Medicaid (motorized chairs, lifts, special bathtubs ... that is another story.
Sarah P

Minneapolis, MN

#20 Oct 27, 2009
So, none of you morons here have yet to address:

(1) Why, if Medicare (a public option government run program) is good enough for 151 current Members of Congress, why is it not good enough to pass down to other citizens?

(2) Why, if Members of Congress can have a health plan that has a $157 monthly premium for a single person and a $300 deductible, why is it not good enough to pass down to other citizens, such as Laila.

(3) If you wackos here believe that members of AHIP are truly making only 2% or 3% in profits -- is that before CEO pays and bonuses --, then I really do wish you would buy the rental properties I own and I'll give you a fantastic price on them.

Have you noticed that you seem to have a very small mutual admiration society here. You used to have several people commenting here on these comment pages, but you idiots are so enamored in your pea brained egos and the nonsense you believe that people have just said, there is absolutely no use attempting to discuss things with them -- they are idiots with their heads in the sand.

Finally, have you notice that you are, as usual, in the minority and out of touch with mainstream normal Americans. Polls show that a majority of people support a public option.

Oops, but you guys here are all white middle class guys who have what you need and the heck with anyone else. What you are truly afraid of is that while white middle class men used to be a majority, you will in a few short years, be a minority. HA, HA

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Trent Lott Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Senate rejects proposal banning lobbyist gifts (Mar '06) Dec 29 Lotteries Abandon... 28
News Paul Ryan taps lobbyist David Hoppe for top job (Oct '15) Oct '16 Randee Cabbage Se... 2
News Conservatives, Steve Scalise, and the Endless R... (Dec '14) Sep '16 trumans treason 2
News Anti-Nazi PAC to defeat David Duke includes ex-... Sep '16 zionism is racism 1
News Lott criticizes decline of deal-making during T... (Feb '16) Feb '16 Invited Crook 6
News Expect the Unexpected in Mississippi Special El... (May '15) May '15 Gary 2
News Two more to join congressional race (Mar '15) Mar '15 Lost hope 1
More from around the web