Another bad D&C column
Petrena Hayes has an anti-Congress screed in today’s D&C. It’s the usual thing: members of Congress have decent job benefits, we have to pay for them, boo hoo. You’ve heard it before on Rush (now that Democrats have a majority in Congress), on Fox, on Lonsberry, on all of the shows from which those on the right get their talking points.
What’s interesting is that those who complain about Congressional benefits also complain that not enough good people run for Congress. I’m sure that if Congress operated the way (their favorite company) Walmart is run — that is, it paid minimum wage and offered no benefits — that we’d get all kinds of wonderful people trying to take the job. Bear in mind, that members of Congress oversee a 2.7 trillion dollar Congressional budget — that’s about 4 billion per member of Congress. I don’t think there are many CEOs of 4 billion dollar companies who make as little as Congressmen do.
I write all of this as someone who has a very low opinion of most of our local Congressman. But I don’t begrudge Randy Kuhl, Jim Walsh, or Tom Reynolds their salaries or benefits. I just wish they’d do a better job in Congress.
And let’s admit the real monetary issue here is the delayed bribes Congressmen get when they join lobbying operations upon retirement. I’m thinking of guys like Trent Lott and Billy Tauzin here.
The essay does end with a good point though:
When I’m up for re-election, I’ll know just how to secure my seat. So keep an eye on your mailbox, the postcards are coming, paid for by …
You guessed it.
The trouble with essays like this is that they conflate three completely unrelated facts into one badly blurred mess:
1. Many Americans do not have health care and other benefits.
2. Members of Congress do have many of these benefits.
3. Incumbents have too many advantages in our system.
I agree wholeheartedly about point number 3. A wiser article might have focused completely on this point, but the phrases “wiser article” and “Democrat and Chronicle” do not often appear in the same sentence.
And there is another point here, one that Ms. Hayes would never make since she opposes universal health care access (per her writings elsewhere at the D&C): if we had a national health care system and members of Congress were forced to use it for their own health care, they’d have a lot of motivation to make it a good system.
This last point is one Eric Massa has made many times before.
Good points! You get what you pay for. And as a recovering computer geek, I know that the best way to get someone to fix their buggy software is to make them use it! Same thing for congress and healthcare.
I’m sure you mean to say - take that Congressional program that works and roll it out nationwide as oppose rolling the crappy program that exists all of us into Congress.
Sorry– thought that was clear in what I said! Looking again, I agree with you– why take the time to make them feel our pain, when we should just start rolling out their benefits to the rest of us!
I didn’t take the column as “Anti-Congress”….more along the lines of:
‘My family needed health coverage, and the plans available to me were so expensive compared to what I pay in taxes to my Congressional Reps. for their plans.’ I don’t remember reading that Petrena had a problem with the salaries they have. It was mostly the benefits and perks that come along with the job.
I don’t have a problem with their salaries, or the necessary evils like providing vehicles to our Reps…..they represent “us”. Supposedly.
Someone in the story chat of Petrena’s column made a good point, as does btp in his comment; The best way to get someone to fix something is to make them use it.
Why can’t Congress fund their own health coverage like most of us “taxpayers” do? It would certainly give them a better understanding of what an average, middle class person has to go through to get decent health care.
What is most frightening to me - I have read that NY has one of the better health care systems in the country - can you imagine living in states like Arkansas, or Texas? Typically, “wealthier” states have better health care systems, those in the Northeast for example. “Poorer” states, those typically in the South, do not.
As for the column itself - I’m sure there’s a “word minimum” in those columns. I would guess it’s pretty difficult to fit all of your thoughts into limited space. To be fair, she’s an unpaid, community blogger. Certainly not the “institutional” view of the paper.
I think you folks would be great at it. You should volunteer to do it sometime in the future. I’m sure we’d all love to comment on your contributions, as they would be interesting.
Jax - with all respect - the title of this piece is “Politicians still ride the gravy train” with the subject being Congressional perks.
You are saying that isn’t anti-Congress?
Petrena didn’t have a problem with salaries? the entire piece is about benefits and such that Congress gets.
Quoting Petrena here -
That’s a pretty damn silly point about millionaires. And I don’t see how this can be interpreted as anything other than anti-Congress.
That said, I don’t think I (or btp or slo or any of the rest of the RT gang) mean this to be anti-Petrena. This column is typical of what they write at the D&C. I don’t think the D&C should have run it but that’s the fault of the (paid) editorial board.
I would concur. Petrena did a great job on the Greece blog. That said, this particular speaking out essay is lacking.
Whether or not one is paid or not is immaterial to the conversation. Jerri and Alex were not paid either yet both added significant dialogue albeit Jerri was extremely active on-line than Alex..
I’m sure their is editorializing and such but this piece has the power of the D&C’s Thumbs up, thumbs Down section. Thumbs up for “Air”, Thumbs down for “bad” people.
Why not discuss universal Health care in the article? No, instead we complain about Congressional compensation.
“Why not discuss universal Health care in the article? No, instead we complain about Congressional compensation.”
Well, her column got me talking about national health care on here. Doesn’t that count for something?
Don’t you think that other people may make the connection between their own lousy, expensive plans and the ones Congress enjoys via our taxes? Maybe they’ll wonder why their Reps in Congress keep shooting down a national coverage plan while they enjoy a “socialized” version of their own?
Maybe it’ll spark some discourse on why a Congress person’s experience with aquiring health coverage and the American reality are so disproportionate.
Maybe when she mentions the other sweet benefits like Congressional Pensions - we’ll question why they receive annual cost of living increases tied to inflation, when the rest of us have to live on SS or what we put into a retirement plan ourselves.
Hopefully, we’ll be considerate of the job they do representing us, and realize that some of them do work very hard for their constituents - but do you think that automatic pay raises tied to inflation is something we all should enjoy? I do. I think they just got around to increasing minimum wage last year to a whopping $5.85 per hour after how long? Ten years? It took that long for a $0.70 increase? Yet, members of Congress are almost guaranteed to see an increase every year…..unless they vote it down, which they hardly ever do. I’d love if minimum wage had guaranteed annual increases tied to inflation. Wouldn’t that be nice?
I guess you could take the column as “Anti-Congress” if you wanted to. I took it as: She was searching for health coverage for her family, came across a few articles on their benefit packages and was amazed at what she found out.
It does seem like a “gravy train” to me too. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be provided benefits, or a good salary, or a couple of perks now and then……but c’mon. It’s a little excessive in my opinion.
As for Jerri and Alex, I thoroughly enjoyed reading their opinions on many things over the year. Very informative, and I enjoyed the comments that it generated. Provocative at times too. This was Petrena’s first column in the paper I think. She has her opinions on things, and other people have theirs. She has her style, Jerri and Alex have theirs. Not everyone is going to agree all the time, but if it sparks debate about it…….what’s wrong with that?
I wouldn’t have a problem with anyone being “Anti-Congress” either. If that’s what their opinion is….then that’s what it is.
What’s wrong with complaining about Congressional compensation?
It doesn’t solve the issue nor suggest a solution -
It got us talking about it? Well - nice try. unfortunately folks who read blogs and folks who read the Mainstream media are different audience,
There is a wider audience at the D&C and the time used is to bash Congressional compensation without offereing an alternative.
It got people talking? Well - the folks who wold be talking about it already. I don’t think people on this blog need a column by Petrena to discuss what is wrong with our national health care system.
No - Petrena’s column does nothing but shift the focus on a false issue.
I would never suggest that anyone on your blog would need a column by anyone to discuss things. I’m not talking about you.
I’m talking about the “typicals” that you talk about. Perhaps they’ll realize that a “socialized” system has been in place that works great. FEHB is funded by their taxes, and a lot of people are covered…..and it works.
No, I don’t think taking health care away from a Senator is going to provide a plan to anyone else…..I don’t remember even suggesting that….but….I don’t want to deny a single mother of two a decent plan so Congress can enjoy extravagant ones.
Yes, the column could have focused on one issue….instead of railing against all the bennies and perks and coming off as “Anti-Congress” to some. Nope - no solutions either. But, if some people - whatever party - realize the benefits that Congress gets…..maybe we can “embarrass” them enough to push for real change in the system so it can work for everyone.
I can see your points about the columns that the D&C runs sometimes. I just thought you were being a little harsh on Petrena, and I can see that it really has more to do with your concern over the D&C’s inability to properly cover certain issues.
I guess my expectations are low…..I really don’t expect anyone at the D&C to win a Pulitzer. I just want them to get people to think about things and talk about it.
Well, thanks for entertaining me…:) You’ve been very gracious. I appreciate it. Keep up the great work on here, and I really do hope to read a few of you in the D&C Ed Board in the future.
It’s nice when everyone can be heard.
Thank you for your kind words. I see your point — it would have been unfair to attack Petrena harshly over this, but it isn’t unfair to see this as part of a pattern at the D&C.
If Petrena really does feel that she pays a lot more for health insurance than people in Congress pay, here’s a method that will cost everyone less money: it’s called single payer universal health insurance.
I agree about UHI.
We all pay more for health insurance than people in Congress pay. People in Congress don’t pay for their health care. WE pay for it for them.
I used to believe the argument that “social health care” could “never work…….look at Medicaid!” I see how Medicare and Medicaid is abused.
But, our taxes pay for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Basically a “socialist” UHI plan for ALL Federal Employees. If it works for them, it should work for us, don’t you think?
I think it’s mainly billing fraud with Medicare and Medicaid and not the individual stereotype perpetuated in the public sphere. The overhead for those two programs is much less than what HMOs use.
It seems like conservatives are afraid of anything that has the root word “social” in it. Social Security, socialized medicine, socialism, etc. Does this mean they’re anti-social?
“I think it’s mainly billing fraud with Medicare and Medicaid and not the individual stereotype perpetuated in the public sphere. The overhead for those two programs is much less than what HMOs use.”
I agree. But why does this “social” program differ from the other “social” program of Federal Benefits?
Why does their taxpayer funded program work, and our taxpayer funded program fail? At least that’s what they tell us it is anyways….a drain….a continuous cycle of fraud and abuse.
If the Federal program works so well, and is funded by our tax dollars……….why not apply that to everyone?
Anyone who uses the “socialist” slant for the argument against Universal Health Care should consider the “social” programs that support our Federal employees and their families. They can’t be that afraid of the word if they take advantage of the programs, right?
“It seems like conservatives are afraid of anything that has the root word “social†in it. Social Security, socialized medicine, socialism, etc. Does this mean they’re anti-social?”
I’m sure some of them are. Not all of them. Most of the conservatives elected to public office have no problem taking part in the “better than the average joe” benefit packages. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t get benefits, but they are taking advantage of a “socialist” program. It’s taxpayer funded. We should all be able to take part in it.
I read somewhere that North Carolina Congressman Howard Coble (a Republican) has refused to participate in Congress’s pension system. I think he said something like “Not the brightest decision I ever made”, but he doesn’t like that taxpayers subsidize such bountiful retirement plans.
Another Congressman, a Democrat from Wisconson, Steve Kagan ran on the “Declaration of Health†platform due to his determination to make health care affordable to everyone. When he went to sign up for the Congressional Health Benefits program, he refused. He said: “I decline that offer until my constituents, and everyone across America, can have the same option.â€ÂÂ
Now that’s what I’m talking about……
The question that needs to be asked here (and I don’t know) is, Howard Coble or Steve Kagan who you say refused some form of compensation.
Do they actually need it? What there a personal penalty or risk for forgoing this coverage?
That’s what I’m talking about (cute reference btw)
Honestly stlo7, I don’t really know if they actually needed it or if there was a penalty.
A couple of months ago, I was reading an article in the NY Times and it mentioned that Edwards, Obama, and Clinton all wanted Americans to have access to the same health coverage that they enjoy as members of Congress. Edwards went so far as to say that on his first day in office he would, “submit legislation to end coverage for the president, all members of Congress and all senior political appointees in the legislative and executive branches of government on July 20, 2009  unless Congress has enacted universal health insurance.â€ÂÂ
I thought that was pretty ballsy. So, that got me thinking…”How many in Congress have refused to participate in the benefits like health care, or pension plans that we provide with our taxes?”
So, I googled.
I found an article about Coble on there where the article states:
Coble is one of a handful of lawmakers who have refused to take a congressional pension because the system is a “taxpayer rip off.” Though his 22 years in Congress would have earned him more than $2 million over his lifetime had he enrolled in the plan, Coble has twice sponsored unsuccessful bills to repeal or downsize the congressional pensions.
“I’m not condemning my colleagues up there,” Coble said. “What they’re doing is lawful. But I think it’s obviously a sweetheart deal.”.
I forget where I read about Kagan, but I do remember the article said he used to be a doctor and was tired of writing prescriptions to people who couldn’t afford them, and decided to run for Congress to change the system to make health care more affordable.
Universal Health care is a no brainer. We already have socialism for the rich, why not benefits for the rest of us.
I’m very tired of hearing silly conservatives uses the term ’socialism’ as a bogey man to scare folks off. It’s very dishonest. Most economies in the world are mixed forms anyway as is the US economy. IF we want to do away with socialism Let’s do away with the Fed which stabilizes the market and the economy for those who have money to invest. These polices are not that good for the rest of the population.
PS Why did they give Petrena this job?
I don’t know if you’re implying that I’m a conservative because I used “socialist” in quotation marks…….because that could be further from the truth. I’m not a “liberal” either. I’m mostly a boring “centrist” if I must have a label.
I’m not against “socialist” programs, and I realize there are many needed programs out there.
My concern is for the health care of the citizens of our country. Like you said, it’s a no - brainer. I believe there should be national health coverage for every person who is a U.S. citizen, and I believe my tax dollars should support it.
I brought up “socialism” and the “Medicaid/Medicare” fraud and abuse because they are two very truthful statements. Valid points.
It’s a program that would be funded by our tax dollars. It is what it is….a “social” program.
It’s also a fact that there are countless abuses in Medicaid and Medicare.
But, in my opinion, our tax dollars fund different classes of health care…..the medicare/medicaid one for us, and the federal one for our government employees.
It seems that the FEHB plan is working fine. Do you hear any differently from our representatives? Maggie isn’t taking money from the school districts to relieve the Federal benefit burden….it’s the Medicaid debt according to her. The “burden” that she’s going to solve forever with the intercept plan.
Perhaps our elected officials can use the winning formula for the taxpayer funded Federal Health Benefits plan and apply it to our needs, instead of the draining Medicare/Medicaid burdens and abuses that they tell us occur?
“Why did they give Petrena this job?”
Why shouldn’t they have? She gets people talking…..apparently enough to write a blog about it on their own site even…..which is a bad thing?
If you write something silly enough, of course people will comment.
You call that good?
With all due respect, you have incredibly low standards for the D&C. Even Tobin and Lawrence, as unambitious as they are in regard to the page, wouldn’t say “it got people talking, it was good.”
By your reasoning, the “don’t taze me bro” guy deserves a Pulitzer Prize.
I think that is the storyboard mentality that defines the term “got people talking.”
recall the D&C particularly proud of the traffic on the story boards in some yearly wrap-up. I also recall Mr Lawrence proud of the conversation on the storyboard when Cynthia Elliot made her controversial remarks.
The point here, of course, is the people who are talking were already talking before the column and will be talking long after the next community person is hired.
Petrena had an opportunity to speak to a wider audience and chose fluff over substance. Rant over suggestion.
In the end she choose to perpetuate the ignorance that supports lack of understanding how government works or why we need government.
Shifting a bit here -
The argument in her piece was quintessential “I’m getting mine you get what is left over”
She needs health care, Congress has a great system, She is running for Congress.
Rather than she needs health care, Congress has a great system, why not spread that system across the United States, These candidates support it, these do not.
Excellent summation of what a column should do if we want to change things.
aw come on realgreecer - let’s not go cheapshot here.
Petrena got the got because she applied and I’m assuming was selected from a pool of applicants. Good for her.
We should also be careful with our language.
There are critical differences between universal health care, single payer health care and socialized medicine. Unfortunately, they are often freely interchanged but mean very different things.
I realize there are differences and you make a good point.
My point here is that rather than pointless whining about Congress — which is what the column was — they should write articles about how to get more people access to health insurance of some form or another. Taking away Randy Kuhl’s health care plan won’t give one to people like Petrena.
Agreed.
What a wasted opportunity for Hayes. When she had to shop for health care she could have contemplated on the situation of nearly 50 million Americans who can’t afford to do what she did.
She could have tried to empathize with a single mom with two kids who doesn’t have the money she obviously does.
She has a choice. Most of the uninsured don’t.
Instead of ranting about that nebulous body she could have written about positive change.
But that’s typical of how right-wingers look at life, think of all the things that are wrong, tear down the “other” and propose nothing positive.
Yep. Good points
I didn’t have any poster in mind with comments I made. Just the general view often expressed by politicians about universal or government health insurance as socialized medicine. I think the term is meant to have a rhetorical impact that closes off debate. it’s typical of stereotyped thinking.
Despite claims to the contrary we hardly live in a full “free market” system nor would most want to live that way. The ideal free market according to proponents like Friedman would regulate itself including the safety of products and the environment all banking commerce trade etc. probably in the long run no social security either –look at what the Friedman’s followers did in Argentina for an example Hardly a realistic or a desirable picture of way things work.
There are many types of political observers. Those who simply post, and wait for the reaction of the crowd to determine the direction of the post. Those who lightly scratch the surface, but lack the energy or knowledge to truly research things out and find out all the facts behind actions. Then there are those who rip lid off the can, settle for nothing less than complete exposure, take the time to go out and find the facts, attend the meetings, keep people informed, not just tapping away mindlessly at a keyboard. Rochester Turning makes me want to be involved, makes me want to attend these meetings, and makes me want to investigate further and realize that seldom are things done in the political world that don’t have a true purpose to be found somewhere in the chain wherein the real reasons are found, and more often than not, NOT to the benefit of the taxpayer.
To each his own, but I’ll take Rochester Turning any day of the week over the rest that’s out there. The dedication and comittment they make to TRUE PROGRESSIVE CHANGE is remarkable. If you want more than a “bite” Jax, feed your face here. There’s plenty to go around in this County!
Jiminy,
I agree. To each his own.
I assume that RT shares a lot of the same ideals that you do. Politically, that is. That’s great. If they inspire you to “find out more”, or if they get you involved in the community to make it a better place….that’s great.
Not everyone is inspired by RT though. No offense.
Maybe Petrena’s column will inspire “the typicals” to reconsider their stance on a National Plan that can cover everyone.
Just like if Rush Limbaugh’s columns are something you never agree with…..he may have a point that you can say “Yeah, that’s a good point. Let’s work to change that.”
I don’t think in every case one needs to “rip the lid off”….some people like their lids - are too comfortable with them -…..and it’s very hard to pry it off. The more you try to force it off, the more it sticks to the can. lol
Maybe some “gentle” prying all around the edges can finally “get the lid off”.
Ok, that was a crappy analogy. But, I hope you get what I’m implying.
Identifying a serious problem in our country and enacting change isn’t going to happen with a “You’re wrong. It needs to be done THIS way” approach. Not all the time anyways. I appreciate that there are those who can “get it done”. I love that. Really, I do.
I just think everyone has different ways of pointing out things in our government, or our society etc. that we take issue with. Relegating it to 400 words is tough, unless you’re a journalism major or something….I can’t even imagine how hard it is. Some are better at it, some are just learning.
I don’t think it’s up to a community blogger to do the “investigative reporting” it takes to “expose” things. They’re just getting the community involved in some conversation. Again….some of you may think certain Ed Blogs are better at it than others……but I think if it gets people thinking and talking about an issue…..there’s half the battle right there. Well….in my opinion anyways.
Thanks for letting me know why you enjoy RT….I enjoy it for some of the same reasons. I “feed my face” here often, I just don’t comment all the time.
Not everyone is inspired by RT though. No offense.
I’ll be honest with you: I’m a pretty hard-ass elitist person as the others here can tell you…and I’m happy with RT.
The fact that a few people with full-time outside jobs are even mentioned in the same breath as a paper with a multi-million dollar budget tells you everything you need to know about why I view RT as successful and why I I view the D&C as a joke.
The only problem I have with that Jax is that Petrena, a self-confessed Republican wants National Healthcare (words equal to garlic and a wooden stake) to most of the GOP, including those locally. But because it’s an issue that impacts HER life, it’s acceptable to step outside of the box to get what you need.
I’ve believed in a National Health Care system before Bill Clinton was first elected President and Hillary tried to get legislation introduced and was ridiculed by the GOP who still try to poke her with it today.
Bottom line…I prefer leaders, not followers. I prefer people who stand up for what they believe in and not for what is only in their best interests. I respect people who tell the truth, not suck up to people to help propulgate their lies. I wish you would comment here more often. There is a lot more susbstance here, and less fru-fru. As far as the D&C goes, they couldn’t product a good piece of investigative journalism if their lives depended on it. All their good people left, and there is not much substance anymore to it. But again, the GOP will be the first to cry “liberal” newspaper when the news doesn’t come out thier way. I don’t have time for the “popularity” contest. I care about what is impact families locally, and what I can do to oust many of the people who represent the problem (i.e. Tom Reynolds) and get elected those who have the solution (i.e. Jon Powers).
Hope to see you more active too!
Talk about GOP health care, let’s look local. Brooks routinely appoints her political cronies to the county water authority board. After three years they get county health insurance for life. Then she rotates the positions around to cover as many contributors as possible. Sweet deal. They get health insurance, she gets cash for TV ads.
No need to go to Washington, we have trouble with a capital T right here in River City.
With a capital T and that rhymes with B and that stands for Brooks!
Great quote on your main page. I should post this in Petrena’s column in the D&C………
It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native criminal class — except Congress.
Mark Twain
Ha! That darned Twain. What a rant.
No solutions either. (joke, my friends…..smile)
Exile,
“I’m a pretty hard-ass elitist person….”
Really? Gee, I never would have guessed that had you not said something.
While I do agree with your last sentence, I’m not here to draw comparisons between RT and the D&C. I don’t care, really. I get my “meat and potatoes” news from other sources. But, I also like reading different points of view. From both ends of the elitist spectrum.
The other group of elitists…..the “typicals”….aren’t going to be inspired by RT to change anything, or get involved. They may be inspired by Rush Limbaugh, or Boob Lonsberry, or Fox News….but a lot of them do read the D&C.
I just thought that the column highlights the incredible bennies that Congress gets - and the fact that all of us have been supporting a “socialized” health plan for decades that is successful. Hopefully that would get them thinking that the words “socialized” and “health care for Americans” isn’t a bad thing. If they do their homework, they may also see that it is more affordable than what is in place now.
My point was….if it gets people thinking or talking about an issue - that’s half the battle right there. What you folks here already realize, some of the other elitists haven’t, and they won’t be inspired by RT because I don’t think they take your views seriously - just like you don’t take theirs seriously.
They’ll read, and agree with views from Republicans or Conservatives. Petrena is a “self confessed Republican” - don’t you think they’ll be more likely to nod their head in agreement with one of “their own”.
I don’t think it’s fair to pot-shot anyone for finding out something because of something THEY needed. I know many Republicans who are in support of single payer health care for the U.S. - they realize that there are over 47 million people without insurance in the U.S., they realize that the U.S. currently spends about 40% more per capita on health care than other industrialized nations with universal health care etc.
I don’t think how someone got to the “a-ha moment” of UHC is relevant. Who cares? So, someone had a need and finally realized that socialized health care isn’t a bad thing.
I’m very fortunate. My husband owns his own business, and does very well and can afford health care for our family. I look at our bills and wonder “How can anyone working a minimum wage job afford health care and food for their family?”
Does it really matter how they came about supporting UHC? I don’t think so. Just that they finally realized it is ok with me. If it was because of their own self interests, or because they see a single mother of two without health care…..the end result is what’s most important, and hopefully that will be a UHC plan for Americans.
I think you folks on here are informative, and I think your site is a success too. I remember James Lawrence mentioning RT in one of his Ed Blogs….so….imo I think the people here do influence the D&C to try a little harder in representing what you believe in.
I still think you should volunteer to be a community editorial blogger for the D&C, even if you think they’re a joke. You said it yourself - they reach a wider audience.
The problem is Ms. Hayes didn’t have an “a-ha” momment about UHC.
She just complained about the coverage congress people get. That’s something all together different.
It would have been great if she had had an “a-ha” moment.
Actually, Ms. Hayes didn’t write about an “a-ha” moment.
Whether she had one or not is subjective.
And just for the record….here’s a link to Petrena’s Greece blog where she brings up Hillary’s plan for UHC. That’s the only time I remember Petrena talking about UHC, and nowhere does she say she opposes it. She didn’t agree with Hillary’s plan, and neither did Lee Strong.
That was the only thing I read from her: “opposing” a plan. Not the idea of Universal Care for Americans…..just the plan Hillary Clinton proposed.
I have never read where Petrena states that she is for or against any and all socialized health care. If you have a different link to where she states she is against all socialized health care plans….then kindly show me. I haven’t seen it.
There’s nothing wrong with railing against Congress and their benefits.
“I don’t think how someone got to the “a-ha moment†of UHC is relevant. Who cares? So, someone had a need and finally realized that socialized health care isn’t a bad thing.”
Your words.
“The problem is Ms. Hayes didn’t have an “a-ha†momment about UHC.”
Your words.
I don’t know if she did or didn’t. I don’t even know if she supports UHC or not.
My fault for not being more specific. I meant “someone” as in any of “the typicals.”
Apologies for the way I worded it.
Accepted.
The point here is that Hayes had an experience, she was left without health insurance. She then had to shop on the market for a plan. Instead of using that experience in a way to understand what it might be like to be part of a huge disenfranchised class, to emphatize with the plight of others and promote something positive, she attacks what others have offering no solution.
She is now part of the media. She had an opportunity, if not a responsilbilty as a newspaper writer and human being, to empathize and to do good and she missed it.
The bigger question is where has she been for the last 20 years? Maybe a conscience woke up, but this situation is by far anything but new. You’d have to be living under a rock to have missed this one.
And Bush, Reynolds and Kuhl have done everything they can to shut down the Schip healthcare for even children, a current Bill put forward and shot down by the GOP Majority.
People should be angry that Congress people will get those benefits for LIFE. She and others will get nothing for anything currently diagnosed, and scrutiny for each and every approval received by the HMO’s in addition to that big fat monthly bill, increasing by leaps and 25-28% bounds annually.
And if anyone gets a diagnosis, and suddenly realizes they need health care - too bad. No pre-existing medical conditions are covered under a new plan. And fobid if a child or spouse is diagnosed with a terminal condition during the first year coverage - that will be srutinized on what will be paid and nwhat won’t be covered as well. You don’t think they have those fundraisers for sick children in our community for no reason do you? It’s to help cover the ever increasing amountn of HMO denials received for long-term treatment of a terminal illness.
That’s the society we live in. That’s why many of the posts you’ll read here cover those voting records, and those important issues like Schip. If the D&C won’t tell you the truth, Rochester Turning will.
Wow. I wish I could have an “a-ha” moment…or a “ha-ha” moment. Hell, I’d even settle for a moment.
[...] is tough to top exile’s excellent retort to Petrena’s speaking out essay about Congressional Health Care,but her particular speaking [...]