Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 09:44 AM Apr 2012

House Resolution: Members who vote for public option should give up their Federal insur. coverage.

What an interesting resolution.

Introduced:

H.Res. 615: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, Federal Government run health insurance option
are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health.

Sponsor: Rep. John Fleming [R-LA4]

Status: In Committee

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hres615

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
House Resolution: Members who vote for public option should give up their Federal insur. coverage. (Original Post) dixiegrrrrl Apr 2012 OP
Should be the opposite. JoePhilly Apr 2012 #1
+11347 Angry Dragon Apr 2012 #3
Shouldn't it be exactly the opposite? Ian David Apr 2012 #2
You are thinking like a Dem. dixiegrrrrl Apr 2012 #4
Republican vs Democratic Thinking ieoeja Apr 2012 #9
I'm sure a conservative sees EC Apr 2012 #12
Tell those lazy ass SOB's to nykym Apr 2012 #5
And those who vote against assuring that every American have health care should give up health care Fresh_Start Apr 2012 #6
What's the point of introducing this resolution now?? subterranean Apr 2012 #7
where are the jobs Boner? warrior1 Apr 2012 #8
And punish them for voting as per their constituency? no_hypocrisy Apr 2012 #10
I feel like the United States has become Opposite Land. Arugula Latte Apr 2012 #11

Ian David

(69,059 posts)
2. Shouldn't it be exactly the opposite?
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 09:50 AM
Apr 2012

Members who vote AGAINST a public option should give up THEIR socialist coverage?

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
4. You are thinking like a Dem.
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 09:57 AM
Apr 2012

A Repug introduced this bill.
So any House member who votes FOR the option is being pressured to use it and give up the obviously better Federal insurance.
Sorta of a "put your money where your mouth is" deal
with the implication being no one would choose to give up their Fed. bennies.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
9. Republican vs Democratic Thinking
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 10:45 AM
Apr 2012

Joke as related to me in a bar....

"A person who speaks two languages is bi-lingual. A person who speaks more than two languages is multi-lingual. What do you call a person who speaks only one language?"

...

"An American."

{everyone laughs} Then the teller and I speak at the same time:

Him: "And can you believe the guy who actually told me the joke was a Mexican!"
Me: "You don't hear a joke about Americans too often."

Both: "Huh?!?"


To him (and, sadly, everyone else in the bar at the time) this joke makes fun of bi-lingual immigrants. To me (and probably almost everone at DU) this joke makes fun of "English only" Americans.

The real problem this illustrates is, where many issues are concerned, we will never be able to agree because we don't even understand one another. I "know" that is how they see this joke. But I 100% fail to "understand" how they can interrupt that joke in that manner.


For that matter, I once found myself in agreement with a pro-lifer's definition of Conservative and Liberal. He defined Liberals as individuals who feel that people are generally good and want a government that helps them. He defined Conservatives as individuals who know that all people are inherently evil and need government and God's law to control them.

So even in agreement, we move away from each other. Because, as a Conservative, he believes this definition makes Liberals look bad. To me, it makes Conservatives look bad.

For that matter this somewhat implies that evil people are usually Conservatives as would an evil person believe that most people are generally good? For instance, I once read a poll that claimed most murderers believed that 90% of people will kill at least one human being in their life.

This meaning certainly explains Conservative opposition to gov't helping people. If you believe all people are inherently evil then would you really want to help all of them? Charity may still be okay, particularly conditional charities like the Salvation Army where you will have to listen to God's law in exchange.


EC

(12,287 posts)
12. I'm sure a conservative sees
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 11:57 AM
Apr 2012

Cotton Mather as a god send. Whereas I saw him as a nasty foul man.

Fresh_Start

(11,330 posts)
6. And those who vote against assuring that every American have health care should give up health care
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 10:21 AM
Apr 2012

for themselves and their families.

subterranean

(3,427 posts)
7. What's the point of introducing this resolution now??
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 10:42 AM
Apr 2012

As far as I know, there's no Federal public option up for a vote in the foreseeable future.

no_hypocrisy

(46,231 posts)
10. And punish them for voting as per their constituency?
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 10:58 AM
Apr 2012

That's not democratic at all . . . . . oh, wait a minute . . . . . .

 

Arugula Latte

(50,566 posts)
11. I feel like the United States has become Opposite Land.
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 11:14 AM
Apr 2012

If there's something commonsensical that should happen, the exact opposite position will be pushed by the rightwing and the media.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»House Resolution: Members...