General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHouse 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
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Ian David
(69,059 posts)Members who vote AGAINST a public option should give up THEIR socialist coverage?
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)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)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)Cotton Mather as a god send. Whereas I saw him as a nasty foul man.
nykym
(3,063 posts)Get Back To Work and stop all this foolishness.
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)for themselves and their families.
subterranean
(3,427 posts)As far as I know, there's no Federal public option up for a vote in the foreseeable future.
warrior1
(12,325 posts)Talk about wasting taxpayer's money.
no_hypocrisy
(46,231 posts)That's not democratic at all . . . . . oh, wait a minute . . . . . .
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)If there's something commonsensical that should happen, the exact opposite position will be pushed by the rightwing and the media.