Vice President Dick Cheney would "probably be dead by now" if not for his federally funded health care, according to an eye-catching ad calling for universal health care that will run Monday in ten Iowa newspapers. The ad is union-funded by the California Nurses Association and its national arm, the National Nurses Organizing Committee, which represents 75,000 nurses.
"The patient's history and prognosis were grim: four heart attacks, quadruple bypass surgery, angioplasty, an implanted defibrillator and now an emergency procedure to treat an irregular heartbeat," the ad states, referencing Cheney's lengthy medical chart. "For millions of Americans, this might be a death sentence. For the vice president, it was just another medical treatment. And it cost him very little."
The group is calling on the presidential candidates to support a single-payer government-run health-care bill introduced in Congress by Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) that has 88 co-sponsors, including long-shot Democratic candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.
The three Democratic front-runners have all proposed sweeping plans to cover all or nearly all uninsured. Republicans have offered more modest plans and none advocate a single-payer system. The nurses group opposes the plans of Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards because they argue that each plan will "continue to rely upon the wasteful inclusion of private insurance companies." The single-payer plan would take insurance companies out of the equation altogether. ...
I'm sure plenty of people complained when Clinton had medical treatments.
Maybe, but we sure didn't hear about it. I didn't complain; he was our President after all. And I'm sure he has benefits as a past-President also. As it should be. But he, like VP Cheney, is not a regular joe, so if those of you who are complaining about Cheney's care, then you should have complained about Clinton's as well.
I didn't vote for Clinton, but I do have a respect for the office (even though I feel Clinton disrespected the office, which is another topic.)
The problem for me is when people, anybody, scams the system and fraudulent billings are an epidemic, according to a news piece I saw last night.
Specializes in Happily semi-retired; excited for the whole whammy.
Maybe, but we sure didn't hear about it. I didn't complain; he was our President after all. And I'm sure he has benefits as a past-President also. As it should be. But he, like VP Cheney, is not a regular joe, so if those of you who are complaining about Cheney's care, then you should have complained about Clinton's as well.
I didn't vote for Clinton, but I do have a respect for the office (even though I feel Clinton disrespected the office, which is another topic.)
The problem for me is when people, anybody, scams the system and fraudulent billings are an epidemic, according to a news piece I saw last night.
I have to disagree with that. I think there were more jokes made about Clinton than any President in recent memory.
There have been some real interesting ideas expressed on this thread, but I do believe your suggestion that people "should" complain about this or that just might top them all.
I have to disagree with that. I think there were more jokes made about Clinton than any President in recent memory.
There have been some real interesting ideas expressed on this thread, but I do believe your suggestion that people "should" complain about this or that just might top them all.
Many jokes about Clinton, yes. But that is not the topic. The topic began by inferring that VP Cheney was getting special medical benefits, when others can't or don't. Very different subject altogether.
My point was that those who are NOW complaining about VP Cheney's health care should have also complained about Clinton's, because it boils down to the same system allowing both men to get treatment.
Take the political ties out of it, and the two men are equals, so if care for one rocks your boat, then care fo the other should also rock your boat.
1. If you want to argue that there are far too many federal employees feeding at the trough of my salary and we should fire two-thirds of them to reduce this need for federally funded care - - I agree.
2. If you want to argue that we should end employer-based health insurance immediately and all employers, including the Federa gov't, should stop providing health insurance thereby leaving VP Cheney to his own salary for coverage - - I agree.
However.
So long as the VP is a Constitutional role AND so long as we depend upon a bloated, anti-choice, employer-based system, then I cannot see the complaint that VP Cheney receives health insurance from the gov't.
There is no connection to that whatsover to any argument about freeloading everybody on my paycheck for their healthcare. To suggest otherwise is a strawman argument, not to mention, just a silly notion.
But, I'll submit:
Anybody that 'needs' health insurance should get it from the federal gov't . . . provided, they attain a Constitutionally mandated elected office.
Specializes in Happily semi-retired; excited for the whole whammy.
Many jokes about Clinton, yes. But that is not the topic. The topic began by inferring that VP Cheney was getting special medical benefits, when others can't or don't. Very different subject altogether.
My point was that those who are NOW complaining about VP Cheney's health care should have also complained about Clinton's, because it boils down to the same system allowing both men to get treatment.
Take the political ties out of it, and the two men are equals, so if care for one rocks your boat, then care fo the other should also rock your boat.
What is with you and the shoulds? People get to feel whatever they want about whatever they want. It isn't your decision to make.
Take the political ties out of it? Huh? We're talking about politicians.
And Clinton and Cheney are NOT equals. That's why the word "Vice" is in front of Cheney's title.
Maybe, but we sure didn't hear about it. I didn't complain; he was our President after all. And I'm sure he has benefits as a past-President also. As it should be. But he, like VP Cheney, is not a regular joe, so if those of you who are complaining about Cheney's care, then you should have complained about Clinton's as well.
I didn't vote for Clinton, but I do have a respect for the office (even though I feel Clinton disrespected the office, which is another topic.)
The problem for me is when people, anybody, scams the system and fraudulent billings are an epidemic, according to a news piece I saw last night.
I'm just at the end of "Coronary" . . a book about 2 local docs who were accused of unnecessary angios and surgeries. It also talks about Medicare fraud.
Let's fix our government system that we have now - and not add to it.
Specializes in Happily semi-retired; excited for the whole whammy.
Scams and fraudulent billings are a whole different topic. You don't not provide needed services on the basis that they will be abused. You institute safeguards to thwart abuse and you prosecute it when it happens (or you should).
What is with you and the shoulds? People get to feel whatever they want about whatever they want. It isn't your decision to make.
Take the political ties out of it? Huh? We're talking about politicians.
And Clinton and Cheney are NOT equals. That's why the word "Vice" is in front of Cheney's title.
No you are right. But on principle, if one is upset with Cheney's medical care, it stands to reason that based on the same principles, that same person would also be upset about Clinton's medical care.
Of course they are both politicians, but to say that the Democrat's use of medical coverage is okay, when the Republican's is not, is folly.
By equals, I meant they are both high-ranking public officials. That one is a VICE-President and one was President is obvious to most of us, and has nothing to do with this discussion. IMHO of course.
Specializes in Happily semi-retired; excited for the whole whammy.
No you are right. But on principle, if one is upset with Cheney's medical care, it stands to reason that based on the same principles, that same person would also be upset about Clinton's medical care.
Of course they are both politicians, but to say that the Democrat's use of medical coverage is okay, when the Republican's is not, is folly.
By equals, I meant they are both high-ranking public officials. That one is a VICE-President and one was President is obvious to most of us, and has nothing to do with this discussion. IMHO of course.
But no one has actually said that the Democrat's use of medical coverage is ok and the Republican's is not. That was just a statement you came up with whilst assigning what people "should" think.
I would hope the fact that Clinton was President and Cheney Vice President is obvious to all of us. The fact that this makes them totally not equal is also obvious to almost all of us. Clinton was a higher ranking official than Cheney. There is no arguing that point, although you do seem to be trying.
But no one has actually said that the Democrat's use of medical coverage is ok and the Republican's is not. That was just a statement you came up with whilst assigning what people "should" think.
Uh, no. that's not what I just came up with. The inference from the beginning was that Cheney should not be getting the care he was getting. He specifically was mentioned. Not "elected officials" but Cheney. From that, I get that the OP was upset that specifically Mr. Cheney was getting treatment.
I would hope the fact that Clinton was President and Cheney Vice President is obvious to all of us. The fact that this makes them totally not equal is also obvious to almost all of us. Clinton was a higher ranking official than Cheney. There is no arguing that point, although you do seem to be trying.
The actual office they hold is not of import. Both are/were high-ranking officials, can we please at least agree on that?
Specializes in Happily semi-retired; excited for the whole whammy.
The actual office they hold is not of import. Both are/were high-ranking officials, can we please at least agree on that?
I have no problem agreeing on that. That doesn't make them equals. To suggest it does means that Al Gore is equal to George Bush. Does that statement bother you at all? Then you should know how I feel about hearing Cheney being called an equal to Clinton.
tntrn, ASN, RN
1,340 Posts
Maybe, but we sure didn't hear about it. I didn't complain; he was our President after all. And I'm sure he has benefits as a past-President also. As it should be. But he, like VP Cheney, is not a regular joe, so if those of you who are complaining about Cheney's care, then you should have complained about Clinton's as well.
I didn't vote for Clinton, but I do have a respect for the office (even though I feel Clinton disrespected the office, which is another topic.)
The problem for me is when people, anybody, scams the system and fraudulent billings are an epidemic, according to a news piece I saw last night.