If CEO's have free healthcare, then workers get free healthcare."

glasgow3 · Jun 3, 2007

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/01/happy_hour_roundup
Remarkably principled stand. Obama is right on the money for this issue. If CEOs receive health insurance as part of their compensation package then every employee top to bottom of the organization should receive the same level of benefits.

Obama's wife is a VP at a not-for-profit hospital. When she was working there full-time, her total compensation package was 275K, (base 212K).

That means her "level of benefits", (63K) alone far exceeded the average United States RN's entire base pay.

Remarkably principled, or remarkably hypocritical? You decide.

missdeevah, NP · Jun 3, 2007

i don't see anything wrong with the wife having a nice job with a fat check and awesome benefits. what he is saying, is not that ceo's should not have those benefits, rather, that the people down the totem pole should get at least some of those same benefits. in essence he is saying that if his wife is getting those benefits for free, then he wants to fight for the "smaller" people in the organization to get the same. remarkably prinicipled, imo.

purplemania, BSN, RN · Jun 3, 2007

There are a lot more "worker" votes than CEO votes.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jun 3, 2007

i don't see anything wrong with the wife having a nice job with a fat check and awesome benefits. what he is saying, is not that ceo's should not have those benefits, rather, that the people down the totem pole should get at least some of those same benefits. in essence he is saying that if his wife is getting those benefits for free, then he wants to fight for the "smaller" people in the organization to get the same. remarkably prinicipled, imo.[/quote]
exactly what i was trying to say with the op.

Freedom42 · Jun 3, 2007

Obama's wife is a VP at a not-for-profit hospital. When she was working there full-time, her total compensation package was 275K, (base 212K).
That means her "level of benefits", (63K) alone far exceeded the average United States RN's entire base pay.
Remarkably principled, or remarkably hypocritical? You decide.

One of the problems surrounding this debate is that so many people argue that other people shouldn't have what they don't have. That's backward. You don't have the kind of health care that a hospital administrator has or that state workers have, so they shouldn't have it, right? Wrong. You should have what they have.

As long as we keep arguing that some people shouldn't get more than others, we'll do exactly what private industry wants us to do: Keep arguing, keep dividing, and keep the focus off the real issue.

Everyone should have the same health benefits as the CEO. And that's Obama's point. No, I'm not an Obama supporter, but I do appreciate his introduction of a health care proposal. I'll be satisfied when I see a plan for a single-payer system.

caroladybelle, BSN, RN · Jun 3, 2007

Obama's wife is a VP at a not-for-profit hospital. When she was working there full-time, her total compensation package was 275K, (base 212K).
That means her "level of benefits", (63K) alone far exceeded the average United States RN's entire base pay.
Remarkably principled, or remarkably hypocritical? You decide.

She was not an RN - she was a VP. If that level of pay and benefits was within the local standards for her position, then what is the problem?

Nothing hypocritical about it. Unless she was single-handedly the person that axed all of the health benefits, but kept hers.

She is also not running for president. Her spouse is.

kangaroo621 · Jun 4, 2007

Obama's wife is a VP at a not-for-profit hospital. When she was working there full-time, her total compensation package was 275K, (base 212K).
That means her "level of benefits", (63K) alone far exceeded the average United States RN's entire base pay.
Remarkably principled, or remarkably hypocritical? You decide.

Like some previous posters... this seems so backward -- if there is something good in the world (like amazing health coverage), shouldn't the aim be to make it available to all? Saying it should be taken from those with bigger paychecks is just crazy! Fight to RAISE the standard of care, not lower it!

Obama seems to be looking to improve the lives of those less fortunate by providing equivalent benefits no matter a person's salary or rank. Sounds promising to me.

glasgow3 · Jun 4, 2007

She was not an RN - she was a VP. If that level of pay and benefits was within the local standards for her position, then what is the problem?
Nothing hypocritical about it. Unless she was single-handedly the person that axed all of the health benefits, but kept hers.
She is also not running for president. Her spouse is.

I realize that Ms. Obama is not an RN, nor a CEO. The "problem" is that her candidate husband is quoted as saying "If CEO's get free healthcare then workers get free healthcare"; In turn the OP opined Obama's stand is "principled" as "every employee top to bottom of the organization should have the same level of benefits". My point was this "principled" equality of benefits does not even exist within the Obama household-----that, in fact, her level of benefits exceeds the average RN's entire base pay.

Whether Ms Obama's benefit compensation is standard, competitive, deserved etc. is not the issue. Rather, I find this "if the CEO has it the workers should have it" rhetoric a tad disingenuous under the circumstances.

Finally I do realize that Ms Obama is not the candidate, nevertheless, I believe that her relationship to the candidate is sufficiently close.

Jolie, BSN · Jun 4, 2007

I realize that Ms. Obama is not an RN, nor a CEO. The "problem" is that her candidate husband is quoted as saying "If CEO's get free healthcare then workers get free healthcare"; In turn the OP opined Obama's stand is "principled" as "every employee top to bottom of the organization should have the same level of benefits". My point was this "principled" equality of benefits does not even exist within the Obama household-----that, in fact, her level of benefits exceeds the average RN's entire base pay.
Whether Ms Obama's benefit compensation is standard, competitive, deserved etc. is not the issue. Rather, I find this "if the CEO has it the workers should have it" rhetoric a tad disingenuous under the circumstances.
Finally I do realize that Ms Obama is not the candidate, nevertheless, I believe that her relationship to the candidate is sufficiently close.

Interesting point. If the Obamas were truly concerned with equalizing the benefits of CEOs and workers, they could have declined the executive benefit package and opted for the lesser benefits received by the front-line workers. That would have gone a long way toward convincing me of their sincerity.

Freedom42 · Jun 4, 2007

So by opting for the best benefits offered to her and her family, Obama's wife is disingenuous? And opting for a lesser benefits package would make her a person of integrity?

Interesting argument. Settle for less, and you've got credibility. Opt for the better package that's offered and argue that others should get the same benefit, and you're a hypocrite.

So I presume you've always turned down any improvements in your benefits until everyone else's are comparable, right? What a great way to keep everyone's benefits down.

MrChicagoRN, RN · Jun 4, 2007

Every hospital I've ever worked for has offered the same health package for all FT employees. So what's the issue with the missus?