It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congressman Rob Woodall gets called out on taking free healthcare at tax payers cost

page: 2
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

What do you think medicare is? It's socialized healthcare. It's funded by the tax payer. You clearly stated that you supported funding the healthcare of these politicians but not of the general population, including seniors.

So you don't consider medicare socialized healthcare?


Of course it's socialized healthcare. That's exactly what's wrong with it. It's healthcare for someone else funded by you. Whether they are seniors, children, what have you. I, you, him, her, we are forced to pay for it even if we have no need of it, or even if we don't want it. If you do want it, then you should be free to pay for it. That's the beauty of that thing that eludes progressives: freedom of choice.

But I never said to strip anyone of Medicare. I said it's wrong to force me, or anyone, to pay for it and I resent it. You don't. OK. I get that you are OK with funding other people that you don't know or care about. Good for you.


Do you support the public option?


No I do not support the public option. The government can't even fix themselves. Why would I want them trying to fix me? Why would anyone?


Do you support our right to opt out on funding the healthcare of politicians?


I would be OK with that. I don't mind paying for their healthcare for the reasons I mentioned before. But I would not be against them having to pay for their own healthcare.


The OP is not about opting out of medicare. It is about a politician who opposes any public funding of healthcare


I was responding to david9176, not the OP.

/TOA
edit on 29-5-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Of course it's socialized healthcare. That's exactly what's wrong with it.


And yet you have absolutely no problem with covering our politicians with socialist healthcare. This makes sense to your standing?


It's healthcare for someone else funded by you.


First of all, I don't have any issue having my taxes go towards the sick and the elderly. It sure as heck is a better option than funding this $600 billion military complex we have in this country. Secondly, how on earth are to rationalize cutting healthcare from the elderly and sick because it's "socialist" and yet you want us to be obligated to pay for the healthcare of politicians?? This makes sense to you?

How much does a senator get paid on average in this country? $170,000? Why are Republican representitives so reluctant to get private healthcare? Walk the talk.


I, you, him, her, we are forced to pay for it even if we have no need of it,


Why should I be forced to pay for this bloated military of ours?
Why should I be forced to pay for the healthcare of politicians? They can afford it.

We can do this all day.


But I never said to strip anyone of Medicare. I said it's wrong to force me, or anyone, to pay for it and I resent it.


Regardless of whether you contribute to medicare or not, so long as it exists, it will be a socialist healthcare programme. You clearly stated that you oppose socialist healthcare. Do you mean you'll only support socialist healthcare if you can opt out? Is that it? So you don't actually oppose government support it's citizens? Because that is exactly what it is, regardless of whether you participate or not.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
I think you're all missing a really big point of this video...since you're not government employees (such as myself) you wouldn't catch the fact that he called his health care 'free'.

It's not free. He has to pay for it, he can decline it...but the government covers 75% of the cost, why would anyone decline a deal like that? He has to cover the other 25%. It's also not 'free' if someone else (the taxpayer/the borrowed money) is paying for it.

Mr. Woodall was either outright lying or completely ignorant of his benefits.

If anyone has any questions about the sorts of benefits government employees have compared to 'everyone else', please feel free to ask me. Please.



new topics
 
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join