Montana Legislature identifies lawmakers receiving state health benefits

[Newsjock]

Source: Missoulian

Legislative officials agreed Friday to a Lee Newspapers request to release the names of all legislators accepting health insurance benefits from the state, revealing that all but seven of the 150 lawmakers chose to receive the health benefits, worth up to $733 a month.

Within hours of the information's release, the Montana House refused to consider a bill putting into state law that the information on lawmaker health benefits should always be made public.

... Rep. Ellie Hill, D-Missoula, who made the motion to bring the bill to the floor, said the public should have the permanent right to know which lawmakers are accepting taxpayer-funded health coverage.

"The same members of this body who introduced and voted for bills to overturn the federal health reform act are the same members who want to hide the fact that they get subsidized government health care from the very people who pay for it," she said. "I think the hypocrisy of this is thick."

Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_335d39de-5737-11e0-894b-001cc4c03286.html

[xchrom]

1. Thank you for trying ms hill. Nt

[Maine-ah]

2. KnR

and more WTF....

[snappyturtle]

57. Check this out for more WTF ---->

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Comparison_of_state_legislative_salaries

This is a great site....check your state out on the intial page and then click the state in the left had column for even more info! Here in IN senators and reps are paid the same base salary of $22,000+ SALARY, per diem when in session $138 (this year 68 days), also read on a different site that they get 50 some dollars per diem when not in session plus health care benefits! Came out to about $45,000 for 68 days....amazing. Now I know they spend a lot of time meeting with constituents, etc. but....appalled that these same people think teachers earn too much money!

[tsuki]

3. They work 4 months every two years? That's part time for sure. nt

[Maine-ah]

10. and people bitch about teachers with summers off

which really they don't have summers off.

The law makers work way less, and get a higher wage and benefits. Hmmm, perhaps it's time to strip them of this.

[No Elephants]

11. ? I taugt public high school briefly. I had the summer off. My husband taught

state junior college for quite a while. Still does. He's always had summers off. As division head, he has some duties, sure, but, essentially, he's had summers off, unless he chooses to teach as a summer job (for more pay).

Not "bitching" (ugh), just sayin'

[OkieDeadhead]

12. Teacher

I have been a teacher for the past decade and I can say that I do not have summers off. I am rewriting lesson plans, going to professional development workshops, and much more.

Please DO NOT COMPARE us to politicians, PLEASE! We actually help the country.

[Maine-ah]

19. welcome to DU, Okie!

:hi:

[jwirr]

27. Well said and welcome to DU.

[alfredo]

29. Welcome to DU

[Lifelong Protester]

32. I'm with you Okie, summers off my A***

I work all summer long, and I have taught for 28 years. That 'summers off' crock of sh** has got to be refuted at every chance.

Welcome to DU also.

[wordpix]

72. +1 & not to mention, teachers teach all day, do lesson plans & grade assignments all night &

much of the weekend, email/phone parents and colleagues and give extra help after school, average grades and write comments for often over 100 students 4 times/yr., go to endless meetings...yeah, it's a real cushy job. CEO's of corporations put in these kinds of hours and get paid millions/yr. Many teachers have to have a 2nd job, esp. during "summers off," to make ends meet.

[No Elephants]

35. Welcome to DU. My welcome is sincere, though I take issue with your reply to my post.

"Please DO NOT COMPARE us to politicians, PLEASE! We actually help the country."




First, the post of mine to which you are replying never compared teachers to politicians. In fact, I have never before in my life compared teachers to politicians. I only started a new sub-thread for the limited purpose of replying to a statement about teachers not having summers off, without saying a word myself about politicians. That does not make me responsible for all other posts on the thread.

Second, though, now that you raised the issue directly with me, I do agree with you that many teachers help our country. However, I know of politicians (and members of many fields) who also help our country.



"I have been a teacher for the past decade and I can say that I do not have summers off. I am rewriting lesson plans, going to professional development workshops, and much more."


As I said, I was a teacher in a public high school, albeit for a shorter time than you, and married someone who never did anything but teach, then teach and head a department, then teach and head a division. So, I am very familiar with the daily and annual shedule and duties of teachers, including during summers.

Additionally, however, I had three other careers and also am very familiar with quite a number of fields, including factory workers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, accountants and so on.

In a number of other fields, people are required by law to continue their education ongoingly with workshops, classes, etc. or lose their right to work in that field. And, many also have to prepare and take work home. However, they are expected to show up in a workplace for anywhere from 40 to 70 or more hours a week, with no bad weather days, spring breaks, winter breaks or summers off.

And I have myself worked at places like that as well. For just one example, I've attended worshops from 8 to 5, while still always being expected to show up at my place of work immediately after and finish every bit of work I would have finished that day if I had had no workshop at all.

And show up at my place of work by 9 am (at the very latest) on Christmas Eve and stay until 4 pm (practically considered half a day)--and show up at my place of work by 9 am (at the very latest) or earlier on December 26. Also, to show up at my place of work by 9 am (at the very latest, even if 18 inches of snow had just finished falling. And I also took work home and so on. But, my very worst schedules were when I worked for myself.

So, in light of all the above, do teachers have a hard job? Yes. (So do others.) Do they have heavy stress and responsibility? Lord, yes. (So do others.) Do they have the toughest work day or work week or work year? No. Should they? No, not in my opinion.

Do they basically have summers and other time off, despite having some duties during those times, that many others can only dream of? Yes.

If teachers don't get that, I have no idea why they don't, but, IMO, it's very sad for them if they don't see it.

[MedicalAdmin]

37. They also don't get paid for summers.

So unless you are suggesting that they volunteer? I don't know a single teacher who doesn't want to work year round IF they would get paid for it.

[No Elephants]

41. Yes and no. They get paid an annual salary. It may not be as much

as they need or deserve, but the salary is by the year. Please see also, my Replies 35 and 40.

[MedicalAdmin]

76. No - they get a 9 month salary.

That it can be amortized to a 1 year payout is irrelevant. Some districts will payout into 12 payments and some will pay out in 9 payments. Other districts allow for all options but it is a 9 month contract based on contact days. Usually around 180 contact days : 4 work weeks x 9 months.

It is NOT a yearly contract. Unemployment law had to be specifically modified to make it impossible for teachers to claim UI to accomodate this fact that you are incorrect about. They say a little knowledge is dangerous. Your post is proof of that statement.

[Critters2]

58. Thank you. I've defended teachers a lot in recent years.

Our high school teachers struck last year, and took a beating in the local media, but I defended them, their contract demands, their right to organize, their right to strike. But I do wish teachers also understood what the work lives of others are like. This morning, at an event at my church, two teachers were talking about how excited they are that they will spend most of the summer driving around the Pacific Northwest on vacation. That's nice for them, and I hope they enjoy it.

But I get 4 weeks of vacation a year, one, maybe two free evenings a week, one day off a week (unless there's an emergency or a funeral), and never have weekends off. 4 weeks off over the whole year...and I am keenly aware that some don't have that much.

And yes, with an annual salary, teachers are paid through their summers. And teachers retire here 12 years earlier than I can.

So, yeah, I'm a little envious of people who can take 2.5 months of vacation. There I said it.

[Plucketeer]

36. Welcome to DU

I'm married to a 30+ year public school teacher. The two months "off" are poor compensation for the long hours (without overtime compensation) and the extreme stresses of her occupation. It's NOT just a matter of standing at the head of the classroom and lecturing!

[Evolve_Already]

56. I certainly will NOT

compare you to a politican. Thank you for working with the kids. I couldn't do it for 8 or 9 months.

[ZombieHorde]

69. Welcome to DU! nt

[wordpix]

71. "DO NOT COMPARE us to politicians, PLEASE! We actually help the country" - LOL

:rofl:

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. I am a teacher and I can't afford to take summers off

Most of the teachers where I work are in the same situation. We are either working or in school every summer.

But the point is we work longer than state reps. That you can't argue against.

[Lasher]

25. Teachers get laid off during the summers.

That is a more accurate way to describe it than saying, "They get the summers off."

[PatSeg]

30. Excellent way to describe it

"Laid off" but unable to collect unemployment. We treat our teachers like crap.

[freshwest]

31. Yes, they have to save from their working months to get through the summer.

Most I know have other jobs to make ends meet. Some have to go to food pantries to feed their own kids. Those who are retired still have to work to pay their bills. This is a bunch of bull that's being pushed about teachers.

[PatSeg]

34. With all the republicans lies,

people just aren't buying this one. I remember when Arnold tried to go after teachers and nurses in California and the public and press let him know really quick that he'd gone too far.

[No Elephants]

40. I totally agree. However, the post to which I replied had used "summers off."

[Auntie Bush]

45. Beat me to it! Teachers are actually laid off every summer and

most likely can only find some crappy low paying job...just to keep their heads above water. My husband taugh for 25 years and NEVER had a summer off. In fact he sometimes had to take two jobs in the Summer to make ends meet because his school didn't pay during the summer.

[proud2BlibKansan]

54. That's not true in every district though

In most they still get paid even thought they are not teaching. It's hard to call it a layoff if you are still drawing a paycheck.

[Lasher]

74. There's a little history behind that.

Teachers used to get paid only during the months they taught. Then some of them started applying for unemployment compensation when they were off. State governments didn't like that, so they came up with the option to allow teachers to spread their salaries out over a 12 month period. Whether teachers exercise this option or not, the existence of it prevents them from drawing unemployment compensation during the summer.

There was never any extra money given to teachers for the time they are off during the summer. It comes from their own deferred salaries, saved up during the months while they are teaching.

[Critters2]

59. They have an annual salary. People who are laid off don't get paid. nt

[drmjg]

75. They are not year long salaries

Every school system in 4 states where I have taught, the salary is based on between 190 and 200 days. The reset of the time is NOT considered part of the contract. The fact that we could spread out the paychecks over 12 months did not change the nubbier of days we were paid for. Most states do not allow teachers to get any sort of unemployment compensation even though they are in effect, laid off. (IF we are paid for the summer, as is often suggested, why do summer school teachers get a new contract for the summer classes?) State laws are the reason, nothing contractual. In my last position, I had 10 preschool inservice days which were required but uncompensated.

In addition, most summers, teachers take CEU credits to allow them to continue to have a license to teach and few districts pay for any of this required education. The work day is often defined as 7am-4 pm. In reality, I need an additional 50+ hours a week, for which I am NOT compensated just to grade assignments. Add lesson planning, parent calls and the like, I am almost doubling my work hours JUST to meet the needs of the job. This is NOT to say that others do not have difficult, stressful jobs. I am only suggesting that people often think teachers have the same "off time" the students do.

[No Elephants]

39. In Reply 11, I mentioned my spouse both worked summers for add'l pay and, even if not

working another job, had some summer duties related to his main teaching job.

I do think pay can be a separate issue from whether you literally have summers off, although the two are very related for some purposes.

Some folks work 3 jobs all year round to make ends meet. That doesn't mean their main job doesn't give them Christmas off.

Maybe Reply 35 makes clearer what I mean, or maybe it only sounds worse, although that was not what I intended. However, I am in no way I'm not trying to attack teachers in the least. As stated, I married a teacher and I was a teacher. So was my sister.

[JDPriestly]

61. Would you have been able to get a second job during the summer months

when you were off?

Teachers are paid an annual salary that is cut into monthly payments. They get paid for the year.

It isn't the teachers who choose to take the summer off. It is the parents and students. I think it actually is a leftover from the days when a lot of school kids had to work on their family farms in the summer. We could extend the school year to continue through the summer.

[RayStar]

4. More states

should take this lead. Call them OUT!

[greymattermom]

5. so do part time

state employees in Montana get benefits? I'm a state employee of a different state, and you have to work 51% time all the time to get benefits.

[greymattermom]

6. one of the dems should introduce a bill

so that all state employees working that little can also get benefits, if they can't already.

[loudsue]

7. This, right here, is going to be the key that can bring things back into line.

And I believe both liberals and teabaggers would jump on this bandwagon. If people across the country start putting HUGE amounts of pressure, with a chorus of complaints, about the pay and benefits received by legislators of all stripes, we would have a little more balance in the types of laws that are being awarded to insurance companies.

INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE THE PROBLEM:

Insurance companies ARE the bureaucracy that is driving up health care costs.

[MedicalAdmin]

38. + 1 I run a medical clinic.

Insurance companies leach money from every part of the system, patients, doctors, clinics, public hospitals, etc. They add massive paperwork, overhead and human costs.

I fucking despise insurance companies. I recently called United on behalf of a patient, and I ended up talking to someone India. So much for HIPPA. It's only enforceable in the USA.

[loudsue]

43. No shit? You need to start a thread on that. That really sucks!!

And we are in total agreement about the insurance companies. They drive up the costs on all fronts and take from every piece of the pie all around. They also are the ones who have been doing the rightwing-mantra thing about driving up costs of liability INSURANCE that is the cause of all this rightwing legislation limiting lawsuits.

They are screwing us coming & going.

[freshwest]

63. They also scam you about coverage. Just a rant, an anecdote:

You sign up for some coverage, pay your premium, make all of your co-pays and deductibles. There are times when doctors decide you need tests, specialists, medications, treatments so you go for it.

At every single step of the way, all the parties agree and have you sign paperwork that says you're covered, all you owe is that huge premium, and the costs I listed above. Like a contract, huh?

Then you find out that they are screwing your doctors, who are waiting for months to get paid, but carrying the load. Now remember, you thought you had a contract. You live on a budget, like everyone else. You don't take on things that you know you can't pay for, huh?

But the insurance companies have your money and they can out wait everyone and exhaust the doctor's patience and finances, until he turns on you. He quite fairly, refuses to continue without being paid and all the doctors argue with you because you can't pay hundreds of dollars more than you thought you would. BTW, they tell you still need their help, why don't you want to get better?

Actually, you could have negotiated and gotten treatment with the same amount of money that went into the byzantine insurance system. But you can't pay what you paid them and pay the doctor again. Then, you are regarded as a beggar, despite the thousands that you paid out. Don't forget, you were sick enough to go to the doctor in the first place, so you're not healthy enough to fight.

Finally, you find out that the contracted covered treatments will not get paid without going to court, etc. Nothing works, and then there's a big whopping bill the doctors say you must pay, or not be seen. Or even if you're not going to be seen, you still must pay.

Then you end up with an attorney who spends his time and effort, you get screwed, the doctors and people who tried to help get screwed, your credit is ruined if you can't pay. Then you, the one who is paying out the nose, gets the bum's rush and you wonder if you should have just gone home and died or killed yourself.

I had one doctor who was upfront and talked about how people need medical help, but the doctor suddenly can't see it anymore. She called it 'failing the wallet biopsy.'

I'll never go to a mainstream health provider or doctor again. I do all I can to stay as well as I can, everything smart, but they can't have me to poke, prod, prick and humiliate one more time. I don't believe in the healthcare system, period.

:rant:

[MedicalAdmin]

77. I'm very sorry this happened to you

Our clinic is one of the many that are no longer billing insurance. I has allowed us to drop our costs to patients by 50%. Further if it is patients filing the claim the insurance companies are much less likely to try to screw the patient. If a doctors office complains to the states insurance commission they are not taken as seriously as a patient because of our fiduciary interest. But if a patient files a complaint the insurance commission starts crawling up the insurance companies ass with a pickax.

[freshwest]

79. I appreciate the reply and news that your clinic is doing the right thing.

I've heard of doctors doing the same thing, but they were ostracized for daring to break with the system.

In my case, being without insurance, having lost the ability to pay the premium, has been a blessing even though I've lost that feeling of false security and middle class comfort. I'm closer to where I really am in life, not in the fast lane anymore.

Paying hundreds of dollars a month keeps a person invested in a failed system and leads to a feeling of things being out of control, and the stress makes things worse. The 'insurance business' has made gamblers of us all, we pay and never know if we'll be covered. Because one has ceded the decisions to people who are profiting off one's misery.

Not because they are bad people as I'm sure you know, but they are heavily invested by education, employment and propaganda to believe it is the only way. Most of them really did get into the business of medicine to help others, to make the world a better place and are caught in that paradigm.

Terming healing as a business is the problem itself. Medical treatment should be simple and natural and rare, with each person taking charge as much as possible and living healthy. That is not a function of money, but one has to be grounded and think and learn that there are other paths

Sometimes low-tech is the way to go, seek the cause of the disease and treat that, not the symptoms. It's like scratching the outside of the shoe and never getting to the itch on the inside.

Keep up your good work, but know that some of us won't be back, even at the last resort. We need to re-think the causes of disease and the best way to treat injuries. Now, hospital ER's are the best for handling a crisis injury, like an accident. Sort of like plumbers, they stop the bleeding and save lives daily.

That part of medicine I have no problem with, even though I'm alienated from the system. More to the point, I'm not wanted by the system since I no longer have the money to pay and begging is a waste of my limited time to get something of dubious value.

The greater problem of how we're being done to death with bad medications, invasive or high-tech methods that cost a fortune but could be replaced with more labor intensive therapies rejected by conventional medicine, and the pollution of our food and water are not being addressed.

Not to mention what is happening emotionally to people who are so terrified of not being able to make that premium and feel they are killing their families if they don't have the money. They know that by going farther down the economic ladder from injury or illness, they will lose everything in bankruptcy because of the profit motivation in our health care industry here.

So many people would not be disabled, their families negatively impacted, if we did not have forced on us by media, industry, politicians and government that one size fits all. And that only with money to pay into the system comes health.

The true basics of health, clean air, water and food, shelter and community are neglected to feed the holders of paper wealth and psychopathic political philosophy, a recipe for death and disaster. While we yell at the doctors to help us, we avoid the bigger social issues of the disparity wealth and environmental disaster.

Thank you very much forthe person that you are and what you are doing to help people. I respect all well-intentioned people and those who respect the right of others to take another path.


:loveya:

[MedicalAdmin]

80. That and just so you know.

We now have acupuncture, therapeutic yoga, massage, Microcurrent, functional medicine and naturopathic medicine. Our director calls us resort doctors, as in the doctors of last resort for chronic disease patients as well as those with cancer, etc.

Ironically we are freed up by not working with insurance anymore. Our first decision isn't "what will the insurance company approve," but rather "what is best for this patient." we can now work with whoever we want to instead of who the insurance company says we have to. This frees us to make the brat decisions for patients. And best if all we have been able to lower our costs for those patients with noncoverage.

Did you know that for every doctor there are 3 full time clerks just to handle claims paperwork. So don't let anyone blow smoke up your posterior about how efficient insurance companies are.

Final comment re: gambling. Insurance is gambling (and so is wall street). The difference between an insurance company and a bookie is that bookie pay when lose the bet.

[MedicalAdmin]

78. America's health insurance companies. Turning America into a gonzo porn actress.

Getting fucked from every side.

I must admit that I was outraged a few years ago when some insurance companies started using prisoners but outsourcing offshore was a new one for me. It does explain why the insurance companies were pushing hard for electronic medical records.

Let me be clear. I am pretty sure that some DUers work for insurance companies. If you do, then you are part of the problem and the trend will lead to them offshoring your job. Get out while you can but please use your access to find and document their crimes. And when you leave burn their fucking crime house tothe ground if you can. You owe it to your own humanity to at least try.

[AllyCat]

8. It's all okay for them. Just not for us. Because I'm sure they work harder than us, right?

[AllyCat]

9. And how is their insurance only $733 a month? Nice price if you can get it.

[sorefeet]

13. They get 733

The state adds $733 to their pay check each month for health insurance. I live in Montana and we are calling them out on several things.

[catrose]

14. They get $733?

whether they have other insurance or not?

[Enthusiast]

16. Goose -gander and stuff. nt

[Zambero]

17. Is this another form of Exceptionalism?

Y'all don't get subsidized gov't paid for health care, EXCEPT for me.
Since the Republicans aren't eager for their constituents to discover how they're pushing a double standard that would penalize others while benefitting themselves, it certainly would not be defined as TRANSPARENCY.

[TxVietVet]

53. That's why I say they are greedy rotten bastards.

They say, "I want mine. You don't get any. I'm not paying for you."

Hypocrisy is an issue the conservanazis don't understand, yet just about everyone of them are hypocrites.

[Zambero]

55. They can also pin the Narcisist label onto their pathetic existence

"It's all about me, and no one else matters, unless of course they're helping me"

[TxVietVet]

81. AMEN.

[BlueIris]

18. I'm conflicted. On the one hand, health information should be as private as possible.

Yes, I know that it is far from that, especially WRT type of coverage.

On the other hand--Ms. Hill makes a valid point.

[No Elephants]

21. Why are you conflicted?

This is info about total compensation (salary and all fringes) of elected officials, which the public has as much right to know as your own employer has to know how much your total compensation is costing him, her or it.

It has less than nothing to do with anyone's health info, such as whether anyone has cancer or even whether anyone has asked the insurer to cover a visit or a med.

On the one hand, you say you are well aware that this is far from health info, yet you say anyway that you are conflicted. I don't get it.

[BlueIris]

23. Okay, I'm less conflicted since you reminded me these people are public employees.

My conflict was more related to the idea that I hate making anyone's health info, even "just" info about kind of health coverage, viewable by the public at large. Even if these individuals are getting their coverage paid by the public, it seems kind of wrong.

[No Elephants]

44. Glad you are less conflicted, but saying people are entitled to receive

an extra $733 a month to buy health insurance and most are accepting it is compensation info, not health info of any kind. I don't believe calling it "medical info" changes that. Heck, it's just barely medical insurance info, let alone medical info.

IMO, most compensation info should also be between the employer and the employee, unless the employee himself or herself wishes to disclose it to others, but both the employer and the employee always know. And people who work for government in the U.S., especially wannabe legislators, know beforehand that the taxpaying public will be their employer. If that is not agreeable in the overall picture,, they should not run for office so danged hard.

On this we agree 100%: Whether any employee, public or private sector, legislator or not, ever saw a single medical provider or bought a single drug (or hundreds), under a plan, however, is not our business, let alone any details about why or why not.

[No Elephants]

20. I see no hypocrisy in accepting insurance your employer offers you voluntarily,

even if your employer is government, unless many Republicon officials have been saying you should not accept insurance any employer offers you voluntarily.

I point this out for a couple of reasons:

1/ In my experience, comparing apples and oranges rarely leads to anything good.

2/ If we hit Rethugs on this, they will hit Democrats who accept insurance and other fringe benefits from, government right back with it.

Apples to apples questions are along the lines of: How many benefit (or have benefited, or intend to benefit) from OASDI, Medicare, unemployment, public schools, national and other public parks, or any government-funded thing, any government subsidized thing or any government grant?

I remember McLaughlin once calling out Tony Blankley because Blankley and his wife were accepting OASDI and Medicare, without any real financial need so to do, all while Blankley was railing in the media against all government programs.

Unabashed, Blankley mumbled something I don't recall. I think the thrust was something along the lines of, as long as something was available to everyone, of course he was going to accept it (implied: even if he had less than no real need of it).

How that made him somehow nobler than people who accepted OASDI and Medicare and desperately needed one or both is well beyond me. But, then, what do I know about rationalizing the unrationalizable?

ETA: It does get dicey, though, when you are not just any government employee, but a legislator or someone else with power to set--or end--your own ompensation, including fringe benefits Then, whether your employer is offering you something "voluntarily" is a real issue.

[xxqqqzme]

22. If your health care is being paid by

your constituents and you are denying that same benefit to your constituents with your vote - you are a hypocrite. No apples to oranges, just plain straight up hypocrisy.

[greymattermom]

24. in my mind

the issue is what other state employees get who work part time. Are they treated differently? I'm a fancy schmancy professor at a state medical school, and I'm not treated differently from other state employees as far as health insurance goes.

[No Elephants]

51. Perhaps a somewhat sneaker issue--

Is say, a state house secretary or cafeteria worker getting 3 times as much by way of fringe benefit than their private sector counterparts only because legislators voted themselves the best of everything and didn't want to be seen as discriminating?

I would not mind. Since at least the Depression, relatively good fringe benefits and a certain degree of job/salary security, esp. in bad times, have been trade offs for government employees living with tightly controlled salaries, no bonuses, no company car, etc. when money is flowing freely. Govt should not be able to take only the part of that bargain it likes.

However, maybe legislators, esp. part time legislators, should be taking less than others, not simply treating everyone the same. maybe. It just occurred to me. I haven't thought it all through yet.

[No Elephants]

48. If they vote to outlaw accepting employer provided insurance, yes.

However, I don't know of anything like that.

I think you have to at least reognize government is one thing as employer and another as generator of government programs like food stamps.

I would never begrudge anyone in need food stamps However, if someone accepts benefits from a government program for the public, like food stamps, while denying similarly-situated constituents food stamps, yes, that is hypocrisy. However, accepting a fringe benefit a private or govt. employer offers is different from a public or private employee accepting benefits from a government program like food stamps.


Constituents do pay for a whole host of fringe benefits legislators or Chief execs get on taxpayers's dime that they don't vote to give a single constituent, ever. Some of these fringe benefits range from having a Air Force One level plane, a helicopter and the Beast as your personal taxis, to having a gourmet dining room on your job site for little or no cost to you, to all expense paid fact-finding junket via private plane for you and your spouse, and on and on.

Some of those of those votes and deprivations may not be to your liking. They may also be morally wrong, even legally wrong. However, hypocrisy as an issue can be separated from the issue of wrong.

I do agree--and the ETA portion of my prior post said--it does get "dicey" when you are not some govt staffer or secretary or security guard, but someone who gets to say what your employer does or does not give all employees, including you, as part of a total compensation package.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

26. WI, Ohio, NJ, and NY should all do the same thing and expose these hypocrites !

I would love to see what HC benefits these Governors receive too

[Lifelong Protester]

33. good point. I'll share on FB for the WI struggle

[LarryNM]

50. Should Be Done in All States and DC as well

Then watch the contortions of the amoral apologists in denial.

[plumbob]

28. Hurray for Hill!

"All voting not to bring the bill to the floor were Republicans. Eight Republicans and 30 Democrats voted for the motion."


I continue to hope fervently that there is a real and burning hell, but I don't have much faith in it.


Strange thing is, when ACCURATELY described, these bastards think they're IN hell!


Paging Harry Truman!

[Snoutport]

42. Nobody likes a hypocrisy!! nt

[Beartracks]

47. I hate hypocrisy as well, but couldn't it be argued that...

... these politicians are fighting against "government health care" for citizens while simply enjoying the benefits of "employer-provided health care" for themselves?

-------------------------

[TheEuclideanOne]

62. Not true. Let me see if I can summarize this for you.... "Get the Nigger out of the white house"

Okay, sorry to be so blunt, but I see too many people here trying to approach this logically. This issue was never about being obviously hypocritical or whether we need healthcare. It is about making Obamacare fail so that a White, Republican President can run the country. It has nothing to do with the merits of healthcare or even if 100% of the politicians opposing it for your ane me, accept it for themselves. They do and we have know that almost all of them do for a long time. If you look at it from a logical standpoint too long, your head will explode.

[russspeakeasy]

46. Thanks Ms. Hill.

[TxVietVet]

49. Hypocrisy is the main character flaw in conservanazis.

Hands down. They epotomize GREED. "I want mine. Screw the rest of them. Make the do without. I'm not paying for those lazy working people."

Worthless, rotten, greedy a$$holes.

[No Elephants]

52. In totial fairness, ,

they have quitie a number of main flaws. You've named two of them, hypocrisy and greed. I'll name some others.

Lying and other forms of deception. Abuse of power. Code terms and "dog whistles" designed to appeal to racists. A propensity for dirty tricks, including vote caging and voting fraud. And on and on.

Maybe DU should have a thread just listing every oft-exhibited flaw, maybe with an illustrative link or two for each main flaw.

[zbdent]

60. Nearly $105K a month of taxpayer monies ...

Gee, you'd think that would boil some Tea ... over $1.25 million a year on people who probably could afford it from their personal fortunes ...

[patrice]

64. There are the deserving and then there are the un-deserving. That's the natural order of things, so

that means that there are those who will always be without health care and I/we can't do anything about the fact that they are, apparently, un-deserving of health care, but none of that has anything to do with the fact that the deserving get their health care, because the deserving are different from the un-deserving; that's what makes them deserving of health care and the un-deserving not.

Do not mess with the order of the righteous.

:sarcasm:

[felix_numinous]

65. These same people who do not want to disclose their government benefits

have no problem with women giving up their rights to their own bodies. The concept of personal boundaries *whoosh*

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/09/new_missouri_abortion_laws_amo.php

[Bluzmann57]

66. Lee newspapers? That's great!

I say that because I subscribe to a newspaper in that chain. In fact, their home office is here in my city. So I think I'll pester them to publish the names of Iowa lawmakers who accept state health benefits. Thank you for posting this.
Edited due to absolutely atrocious typing.

[LiberalFighter]

67. Montana has a part-time legislative body?

They only meet 90 days in odd-numbered years?

Legislators, who are in session for four months every two years, can choose to be on the state employee health plan for their entire term - and get $733 a month from the state to offset their share of the cost of that coverage. The lawmaker's share of the coverage can range up to $922 a month, if they add family members to the policy.

If they don't choose to be on the state plan, they can accept up to $733 a month from the state to offset the cost of their own private health insurance.

They can receive health insurance for the entire 2 years for just working 4 months in 2 years?


I would propose that the state legislator instead stay on their employer's health plan. But the legislator would be reimbursed for a set amount of insurance their employer says they need to pay to remain on the plan. A cap would be imposed on the amount any reimbursement could be based on state employees health insurance plans. And it would be limited to the months that the state legislators are in session.

For those state legislators that might not be an employee with a job providing health insurance I would think it would be acceptable for them to receive insurance from the state provided they pay for it themselves. Only when they are in session would their insurance be fully or partially paid by the state.

[Godot51]

68. two legs good, four legs better...

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning...

[pam4water]

70. Yet another jaw drop at the reeps hypocrisy. K&R

[wordpix]

73. and how many congresscritters are getting fed health care benefits?

:shrug:

Good question. Inquiring minds want to know.