barack obama made a bold promise to the culinary workers union in las vegas: if the hotel workers can't get a contract, he's ready to march on the picket line with them. "all we’re asking for is make sure the burdens and benefits of this new global economy are spread evenly across the board," he said. "that if profits are going up for everybody, then those profits are shared with workers. if ceo’s have free healthcare, then workers get free healthcare."
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.
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.
No. I have not declined benefits offered to me. But neither have I argued that everyone is entitled to the same level of benefits regardless of their educational preparation, job status, amount of responsibility and liability, etc. Call me crazy, but I believe that those in positions of greater responsibility are due greater pay and benefits. Obama, apparently does not, except as it pertains to his wife.
Finally I do realize that Ms Obama is not the candidate, nevertheless, I believe that her relationship to the candidate is sufficiently close.
Sufficiently close for what????????????
Ms. Obama is a person in her own right and not his property. Married couples are not required to "think alike, act alike, talk alike, walk alike". They are individuals.
Many candidates for office have spouses that have chronic illness - is that presumed to impair the candidates ability to lead. Some have had spouses with issues with psych components. It doesn't knock them out of the running because they are "sufficiently close".
No. I have not declined benefits offered to me. But neither have I argued that everyone is entitled to the same level of benefits regardless of their educational preparation, job status, amount of responsibility and liability, etc. Call me crazy, but I believe that those in positions of greater responsibility are due greater pay and benefits. Obama, apparently does not, except as it pertains to his wife.
So a hospital CEO who has to have surgery should get better coverage than a nurse with the same condition?
The issue was not the benefits that his wife receives. Ths point of this post was that CEOs should not receive better health care packages than their employees (nor better pension plans for that matter.) There are cases on file of companies giving CEOs credit for 20 years service towards pension plan accruals when they never worked for that company before the day they were hired on as CEO. (And no they as individuals do not deserve better benefits simply because of their level of responsibility. When they are making 300-400 times the base salary of the front line workers they can certainly afford to pay for their own enhanced lifestyle.) Better pay yes but not better benefits.
Benefits are part of the negotiation process, along with pay, stock options etc. Why is health care special?
Using the health care argument-
If they identify the pay rate that would prevent employees from eating healthy meals, then everyone should be compensated to keep them above that line. Same for decent housing, and education. I would get behind those three priorities before even thinking about health care.
Health care is only a small part of what allows people to live a healthy and productive life.
Specializes in Cardiac Surg, IR, Peds ICU, Emergency.
The methods used to defend Obama and his wife are weak at best.
I'm sure few are aware that they are actually contradicting themselves.
The irony is that Obama was campaining at a UNION event, while Mrs. Obama sits on the board of a WalMart supplier, and that one of her main responsibilities as a hospital VP is to divert low-income patients away from the Chicago Med Center ED, and toward primary care providers elsewhere.
It is blatant hypocrisy.
It doesn't matter if she is running for presidency; she is engaging directly in activities to support her husbands campaign, including developing organizations like "Women for Obama," and conducting interviews. Ms. Obama and her actions cannot be excluded from the discussion simply because she's not running. I don't remember this from discouraging liberals from talking about Mrs. Bush and the fact she was a driver in a fatal car accident when she was a TEENAGER.
But back to Michelle; noone seems to mind that her current boss at UCMC was also her boss when she worked at city hall. I expect shortly to hear Obama to again criticize 'cronyism' and for you to make some weird explanation as to why Michelle's situation is not cronyism.
And if the "point of this post was that CEOs should not receive better health care packages than their employees," then maybe you can try again to explain why this is not hypocrisy?
The methods used to defend Obama and his wife are weak at best.
I'm sure few are aware that they are actually contradicting themselves.
The irony is that Obama was campaining at a UNION event, while Mrs. Obama sits on the board of a WalMart supplier, and that one of her main responsibilities as a hospital VP is to divert low-income patients away from the Chicago Med Center ED, and toward primary care providers elsewhere.
It is blatant hypocrisy.
It doesn't matter if she is running for presidency; she is engaging directly in activities to support her husbands campaign, including developing organizations like "Women for Obama," and conducting interviews. Ms. Obama and her actions cannot be excluded from the discussion simply because she's not running. I don't remember this from discouraging liberals from talking about Mrs. Bush and the fact she was a driver in a fatal car accident when she was a TEENAGER.
But back to Michelle; noone seems to mind that her current boss at UCMC was also her boss when she worked at city hall. I expect shortly to hear Obama to again criticize 'cronyism' and for you to make some weird explanation as to why Michelle's situation is not cronyism.
And if the "point of this post was that CEOs should not receive better health care packages than their employees," then maybe you can try again to explain why this is not hypocrisy?
Richardson takes the WH in a cakewalk. No Republican can withstand the moderate face of Democratic change.
Edwards might have an outside shot, if he can keep his liberal tendencies in check after the primaries (something I doubt).
Clinton and Obama - either lose to any Republican candidate fielded.
Clinton has too many high negatives. Something like 48% of the population say they'd never vote for her, under any circumstance. That leaves an awful small margin. Too small. Plus, people that want to vote for change: any of the Republicans would also be change. When you spend 8 yrs hyping anything but Bush well then, anything but Bush fits that bill.
Obama: being black is a wash. Some will vote for him because of it; some won't. However, being of direct Muslim decent and having attended a madrassa as a child: unelectable. The public is not ready to put a Muslim educated and heritaged person into office, no matter if he does consider himself to be a Christian. It's just too close to 9/11 for that.
But handicapping the '08 race is a sidetrack discussion on this thread.
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.
It sounds good on paper but it's just campaign rhetoric. Promise the moon, deliver nothing.
The American government isn't afraid to hand out free health care. Senior citizens get it. Veterans get it. As SiCKO shows you, even the detainees at Guantanamo Bay get it.
So, too, do our federal elected officials. It doesn't matter if they are Republicans or Democrats, young or old, healthy or sick -- they are entitled to free, government-provided health insurance. They don't have to worry about being able to pay for medical help -- even if many of their constituents do.
When Senator Sherrod Brown was running for a seat in the House of Representatives over 10 years ago, he saw something wrong with this. He pledged not to accept his free government health care until everyone in the United States had the same luxury. (He's still waiting.)
Brown reasoned that politicians should have the same privileges as those they represent.
I know a lot of the Democrats running for President understand this principle. Monday night during their YouTube debate, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson all pledged to work for the minimum wage should they be elected president -- to show that they're in touch with the plight of everyday Americans, and to make sure they are personally invested in making sure the minimum wage in this country is a livable one. Good for them.
Now, candidates, how about giving up your health care too? If elected president, you and your family will be entitled to free government health care, courtesy of the fine doctors at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. But nearly 50 million of your constituents will go without any medical care at all -- and 18,000 of them will die during your first year in office simply because they lack health insurance.
As the head of the government, how can you take advantage of its health care services, but deny it to so many citizens?...
Jolie, BSN
6,375 Posts
No. I have not declined benefits offered to me. But neither have I argued that everyone is entitled to the same level of benefits regardless of their educational preparation, job status, amount of responsibility and liability, etc. Call me crazy, but I believe that those in positions of greater responsibility are due greater pay and benefits. Obama, apparently does not, except as it pertains to his wife.