I know he has thoughtfully studied this legislation and cares very much, as we all do, about airline security, about making sure we have the safest system, and not about doing a quick and easy fix of just saying well, if we make them Federal employees, that will solve the problem. There are serious problems with the Senate bill, beginning with this issue of should we have a different set of responsibilities for small airports and should people who live in small towns pay a different price? I wonder if he has given the question any thought of why should we have different responsibility at those smaller airports than we have at the larger airports and how fair is it to say to people who live in small towns, you are going to pay more than people who live in large towns?
Editor's note · Context
Discussing airline security legislation and the implications for small airports during a House floor debate.
Share
More from John Shadegg
In the system today, your employer picks the plan, and the plan picks the doctor. You don't get to pick the plan, and you don't get to pick the doctor. If the plan or the doctor abuses you, you can't fire them.
Wait, wait, wait. Are you telling me this is a deal? You're telling me these health insurance companies went into the White House and struck a deal, and the deal says, If you'll pass a bill forcing everyone in America to buy our product…
Going back to my board here, why don't Democrats want to force United to have to compete with Aetna for the business of that little guy so that he or she can buy health insurance, tax-free, like Intel can or Motorola can or the Federal…
I kind of think the American people are fairly bright. I think they see through this. If you are deeming a bill passed in a rule, aren't you actually passing that bill and aren't you voting for that bill? And isn't this just a trick or a…





