The Democrat Thread

[Y2HH]

That would be the right thing to do. Then again, I though Kirk should do the same. The only people getting hurt are the people in his district. If you really care about your district, that should be in the back of your mind somewhere.

 

They only pretend to care about the people in their district. They actually only care about themselves.

 

[StrangeSox]

I forgot about Kirk.

[southsider2k5]

I forgot about Kirk.

 

Which is what Jackson was hoping for. Thankfully Kass at the Trib has it out for him, and isn't letting it die.

[Balta1701]

That would be the right thing to do. Then again, I though Kirk should do the same. The only people getting hurt are the people in his district. If you really care about your district, that should be in the back of your mind somewhere.

if it's acutally a short term thing, and all he does is miss votes on overturning Obamacare that are totally inconsequential anyway, then his staff can actually deal with most of the details that a Congressional office needs to handle, constituent issues and so forth. Depending on the staff and district it starts becoming important after a few months, because eventually important votes come up and funding bills start getting written that directly impact that district, and the staff can't handle those without his active participation.

[StrangeSox]

Crooked Timber has been having a months-long back-and-forth with the "Bleeding Heart Libertarians" regarding libertarian philosophy and the workplace. There's lots of interesting stuff there, and dozens of links once you're heading down the rabbit hole.

[Y2HH]

Call me crazy...but I'm not of fan of how some of you are giving these politicians excuses for prolonged absence from work without showing/stating an actual reason why. We aren't talking about some perk-less minimum wage job here...we're talking about a very high paying job, with perks the likes of which none of us could even imagine.

 

If I, or anyone on this forum (that I know of) missed work for this long and cited the reason of "exhaustion" or "personal", we'd be in the unemployment line within a week. I'm not saying a person with a legitimate reason cannot miss work for an extended amount of time...but like the rest of us, you need to tell your company/bosses why...and in the case of an elected public official...WE, the people...are his f***ing boss.

 

Another politician taking advantage of his high paying, high powered position.

[Balta1701]

Call me crazy...but I'm not of fan of how some of you are giving these politicians excuses for prolonged absence from work without showing/stating an actual reason why. We aren't talking about some perk-less minimum wage job here...we're talking about a very high paying job, with perks the likes of which none of us could even imagine.

 

If I, or anyone on this forum (that I know of) missed work for this long and cited the reason of "exhaustion" or "personal", we'd be in the unemployment line within a week. I'm not saying a person with a legitimate reason cannot miss work for an extended amount of time...but like the rest of us, you need to tell your company/bosses why...and in the case of an elected public official...WE, the people...are his f***ing boss.

 

Another politician taking advantage of his high paying, high powered position.

If you take a group of 535 people, almost all of whom are past the midway point of their life in age, some fraction are always going to be sick from one ailment or another, and at some level even if they're public servants, it isn't my business to know what treatment that person is going through. At some point, yes it does become excessive, and yes it does start impacting their district, but that point can vary depending on the political season (nothing will get done this year anyway), the party in power, the district in question, and the type of votes being taken.

 

If he is out of service so long that it begins to impact his district, then either it's his responsibility to resign, or it's his district's choice to remove him, either through primary or general election. Especially in the House where the terms are only 2 years, if he's absent for too long, then his district can choose to remove him.

 

They also get some fairly nice health care plans that us proles aren't worthy of.

[StrangeSox]

Call me crazy...but I'm not of fan of how some of you are giving these politicians excuses for prolonged absence from work without showing/stating an actual reason why. We aren't talking about some perk-less minimum wage job here...we're talking about a very high paying job, with perks the likes of which none of us could even imagine.

 

If I, or anyone on this forum (that I know of) missed work for this long and cited the reason of "exhaustion" or "personal", we'd be in the unemployment line within a week. I'm not saying a person with a legitimate reason cannot miss work for an extended amount of time...but like the rest of us, you need to tell your company/bosses why...and in the case of an elected public official...WE, the people...are his f***ing boss.

 

Another politician taking advantage of his high paying, high powered position.

 

It's a private medical issue. I don't care or need to know the details of Kirk's condition, either.

 

How much information is your employer entitled to if you have to go on long-term leave?

[StrangeSox]

Issues of media reporting the the seemingly random anecdotes used to tell stories:

 

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/manufactured_quotes.php

 

But what really sends the BS meter into the red zone is when you learn that the anecdotes are populated with business people with ties to lobbying groups that news organizations, for whatever reason, fail to disclose.

 

Take one of the Times’s main anecdotes, Drew Greenblatt, who owns a small manufacturing firm in Baltimore called Marlin Steel Wire and who gets his picture in the Times. This was his third NYT hit in three months. Here are Mr. Greenblatt’s other press hits in June: The NBC Nightly News, PBS Newshour (twice), NPR’s Morning Edition, The Hamilton Spectator. So far this year he’s also been on CNN Newsroom and Fox Business (four times), and in the Financial Times, Reuters, and the Associated Press, plus a number of smaller publications. Two years ago, Greenblatt and his company were the focus of a flattering 2,300 word Atlantic profile and a couple of WaPo profiles in 2001 and 2007. This guy is like the Greg Packer of small manufacturers.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's a private medical issue. I don't care or need to know the details of Kirk's condition, either.

 

How much information is your employer entitled to if you have to go on long-term leave?

 

Um, all of it. They need to verify your request is legitimate.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[southsider2k5]

Um, all of it. They need to verify your request is legitimate.

 

I'm sure if I told my employer that I needed an indeterminate leave, and I told them it was none of their business why, they would totally give it to me.

[StrangeSox]

Hey guys it was an honest question on the legal requirements of that. There's some line there between "f*** off, none of your business" and "here's my medical charts"

[Y2HH]

It's a private medical issue. I don't care or need to know the details of Kirk's condition, either.

 

How much information is your employer entitled to if you have to go on long-term leave?

 

It's not the extent of the information they're entitled too...it's a professionals word they're entitled too. If you say you have cancer...they're going to want your doctor to say so, etc...and in the end, it better turn out to be an actual diagnosis...not some friend of your making false statements.

 

Jackson cited "Exhaustion", which is fine...but it doesn't take weeks to recover from...it, at best, takes a few days of vacation or rest.

 

We also aren't elected public officials. Not as many people need to know our reasons...so they can be kept more private. But to live a life in the camera eye means you have to give up some of these privacies...or else don't become a public figure. It's a trade off, and they're well compensated for said trade off. Wahhh, I'm famous...people bother me on the street. Yes, wah. You also get single paychecks that equate to more money than some people make in a decade.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Y2HH

[southsider2k5]

Hey guys it was an honest question on the legal requirements of that. There's some line there between "f*** off, none of your business" and "here's my medical charts"

 

To which Jackson has pretty much said, f*** off, none of your business.

[StrangeSox]

Which, in this case, I'm fine with, because it isn't really my business. Maybe it's his constituents' business but that's a much different relationship than between your employer and you.

 

I'm genuinely curious as to how much you have to divulge to your employer.

[Jenksismyhero]

Which, in this case, I'm fine with, because it isn't really my business. Maybe it's his constituents' business but that's a much different relationship than between your employer and you.

 

I'm genuinely curious as to how much you have to divulge to your employer.

 

As far as I know they have a right to just about everything, limited to the request for leave. They're funding it, so why not? You're protected by the ADA if they take adverse action against you. I'm sure they'd require you to see their own doctor before approving it anyway, so they'll know about it one way or the other.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think your employer is legally allowed to require you to see another doctor of their choosing.

 

I found this, which seems to be relevant:

 

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/what-f...ies-may-buy-you

 

The court held that Jernberg Industries' attendance policy illegally "interfered" with the plaintiff's exercise of FMLA leave by requiring him to produce a doctor's note following each absence when his physician had already provided a single certification supporting the need for "intermittent FMLA leave" for one year. The court reasoned that the doctor's note requirement discouraged the plaintiff and other employees from taking intermittent FMLA leave and that the FMLA's recertification regulations adequately protected the employer from an employee's abuse of intermittent leave.

 

edit: I should add that my background knowledge here is essentially zero, so when I said "I don't think" I wasn't making a strong statement at all.

Edited July 12, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't think your employer is legally allowed to require you to see another doctor of their choosing.

 

I found this, which seems to be relevant:

 

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/what-f...ies-may-buy-you

 

 

 

edit: I should add that my background knowledge here is essentially zero, so when I said "I don't think" I wasn't making a strong statement at all.

 

That's a slightly different issue. Once you establish that you're in need of medical leave, you're not required to continue proving it to your employer. Most major employers that would be impacted by this sort of thing have occupational health centers with contracted rates. I don't think it's illegal to require that you go to that physician for employment related health issues, at least as a first option.

[lostfan]

If you take a group of 535 people, almost all of whom are past the midway point of their life in age, some fraction are always going to be sick from one ailment or another, and at some level even if they're public servants, it isn't my business to know what treatment that person is going through. At some point, yes it does become excessive, and yes it does start impacting their district, but that point can vary depending on the political season (nothing will get done this year anyway), the party in power, the district in question, and the type of votes being taken.

 

If he is out of service so long that it begins to impact his district, then either it's his responsibility to resign, or it's his district's choice to remove him, either through primary or general election. Especially in the House where the terms are only 2 years, if he's absent for too long, then his district can choose to remove him.

 

They also get some fairly nice health care plans that us proles aren't worthy of.

Did you read page 81 of the ACA?

[Y2HH]

Did you read page 81 of the ACA?

 

It's not in effect yet since no plans have been created for this act as of now, nor have exchanges. And plans created under this law can still be "cadallic plans" which will simply be taxed under a luxery type tax...a tax they don't have to pay anyway, since we pay it for them.

 

They will still have access to healthcare that us normal people do not...such as doctors on hand 24/7, etc.

 

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.—

 

REQUIREMENT. — Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be

health plans that are—

 

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment

made by this Act); or

 

(II) offered through an Exchange established

under this Act (or an amendment made by this

Act).

[Rex Kickass]

For all the Jesse Jackson Jr. speculation, the conventional wisdom is this issue is about serious mental illness and not drug abuse.

 

A really thoughtful piece in Slate today about it:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_s...l_illness_.html

 

A few days ago, it looked as though Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., had pulled the strangest disappearing act in politics since the Appalachian Trail’s good name was sullied by then-South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. But the cause of Jackson’s disappearance, we have since learned, was nothing so lurid as an affair with a mysterious Argentinean. After a few weeks of obfuscating about Jackson’s medical leave from Congress—which began on June 10 but was not announced until June 25—his office has finally confirmed that he is currently receiving “intensive treatment medical treatment at a residential facility” for a mood disorder. (According to NBC News, friends and colleagues” of Jackson have said he is at an unnamed Arizona facility.)

Rather than putting the matter to rest, however, the brusque and somewhat vague statement only prompted more questions. The term “mood disorder,” as the Washington Post pointed out, can refer to a range of conditions, from the relatively mild dysthymia—a persistent, low-level depression—to bipolar 1 disorder, which can be debilitating and frightening for both sufferers and family. While it is important to respect a patient’s privacy, Jackson is missing a chance to perform a real public service. It is hard to escape the conclusion that his handlers have been reticent in part because of the pervasive stigma still attached to mental illness in this country—a stigma that, by remaining evasive, Jackson and his office are helping to perpetuate.

[StrangeSox]

National Review has replaced one racist bigot (the Derb) with another:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...rvatism/258749/

 

 

 

 

 

 

More NRO racism!

[StrangeSox]

[StrangeSox]

Related:

 

Second judge rejects state voter ID law (WI)

 

Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan wrote Tuesday that the state's requirement that all voters show photo ID at the polls creates a "substantial impairment of the right to vote" guaranteed by the state constitution.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Boehner, Rubio distance themselves from Bachmann and her bats*** crazy letter.