Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Health & Wellness

Right-Wingers in Congress Love Their Own Govt.-Run Health Care, But They Hate Sharing It

By Jim Hightower, Creators Syndicate. Posted October 29, 2009.


Members of Congress and their families are blessed with their very own gold-plated, taxpayer-financed, Washington-run health care system.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

How do you spell "hypocrisy"?

Try this: "H-Y-P-O-C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S." The hypocongress consists of those Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who have risen up on their hind legs in recent weeks to snarl and howl at any mention of a government role in meeting America's health care needs. "Socialism," they bark -- we won't allow Barack Obama and the liberals to create a Washington-run, big-government intrusion into the hallowed private market. Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, even pledged to fight so ferociously that the health care battle would be Obama's "Waterloo."

What a stand-up guy for free enterprise! What an ideologically correct appeal to laissez-faire principle! And, let me add, what a crock!

What these bellicose market-purists hope you don't discover is that they are closet socialists. As members of the congressional elite, they and their families are governmentally blessed with their very own gold-plated, taxpayer-financed, Washington-run health care system. And, they loooove it.

Theirs is such an effective system that not a single member of the hypocongress has been willing to give it up -- even though they surely realize the political peril of being exposed as rank hypocrites for enjoying the very program they so adamantly reject for you.

Actually, they happily take a double dip in the soothing waters of public health care. First, they enroll their entire families in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program -- and you probably would, too, if it were available to you, for it's the Rolls Royce of health plans.

For example, while even the best employer-provided health policies offer only one or two types of coverage, FEHBP is a Chinese menu, offering dozens of coverage choices that allow its lucky members to assemble a plan that meets their unique needs. Members also need not worry about being denied coverage because of some pre-existing condition -- once sworn into office, lawmakers and their families are immediately and fully insured, with total access to a national network of doctors and hospitals.

But here's the sweetest part of their Rolls Royce ride: up to 75 percent of the premiums are paid for by taxpayers, many of whom are lucky if they can afford to buy an old Yugo-level of health coverage in the vaunted private market.

Well, snaps the hypocongress crowd, even if FEHBP is essentially government-paid insurance, at least it's not socialized medicine, with doctors working for the government -- so, technically, we're still pure.

Ah, that raises the second bit of secret socialism that lawmakers have mandated for themselves.

Right under the Capitol dome, conveniently situated between the Senate and House chamber, is the Office of the Attending Physician. Inside are more than a dozen navy doctors, nurses, medical technicians, pharmacists and other health professionals, all employed by the government solely to attend to a select clientele: the 535 members of Congress.

Let's say that, after giving a fiery speech on the floor assailing the evils of government-run health care, a lawmaker gets gaseous or has a tongue cramp. He or she can pop right into the OAP for -- yes! -- some government-run health care. No appointment needed, no pesky insurance forms to fill out, no co-pay -- just care.

For this, members pay a flat fee of $503 a year. A year! You and I are taxed to cover the real costs of this elite service. And that's not the end of public health benefits for lawmakers -- if they need a specialist, an operation, therapy, rehab or other pricey procedure, it's all free at the government's Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval hospitals.

If it's good enough for them, why not us? The public deserves what the Congress has, and any member who opposes extending it to us should automatically be stripped of their privileges.

For a model of integrity, they might look to Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Rep. Steve Kagen, D-Wis. -- both of whom have rejected taking congressional coverage until everyone in America has coverage of equal quality. I don't think the noisy naysayers are looking for integrity, however -- not as long as they can get away with their abominable hypocrisy.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: congress, health care, hypocrisy, jim hightower, government run health car

Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the new book, "Swim Against the Current: Even a Dead Fish Can Go With the Flow." (Wiley, March 2008) He publishes the monthly "Hightower Lowdown," co-edited by Phillip Frazer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
Be careful about making this arguement; you fall into a neocon trap when you do
Posted by: rickiey on Oct 29, 2009 7:12 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The trap? The trap is "our solution, give everyone the same insurance plan that congress has".

Sounds nice, doesn't it?

Except the Congressional plan, has a $5000 deductible. Sure, for the corporate fatcats thats an insignificant amount, even if they didn't have access to the OAP.

But this is enough to bankrupt the everyday citizen who doesn't have 5 grand on hand, or access to a free staff of navy doctors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is exactly what one would expect from such a system
Posted by: Bic Pentameter on Oct 30, 2009 2:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Evey congressperson, sentor or representative, will tell individually that they wished the status quo were much different, but few if any dare break the mold.

They have to pay to get in, everyone else has to pay to play. AND, they make the rules. Who do you expect them to favor?

Do you imagine that a group of 535 people quite used to patting their own backs would ever decide that they shouldn't get any better care than the least fortunate of their constituents?

Until we see fundamental change, we won't see greatly different attitudes. Sure, a massive, media-assisted shaming campaign might make some difference. But the prevalence of media cross-ownership has made it a big-company game, and I doubt that we could pull off another public push like the Watergate investigation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Contradiction?
Posted by: Ted Hayes on Oct 30, 2009 4:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Theirs is such an effective system that not a single member of the hypocongress has been willing to give it up -- even though they surely realize the political peril of being exposed as rank hypocrites for enjoying the very program they so adamantly reject for you."

Is this not a contradiction? In the final paragraph, Mr. Hightower states: "For a model of integrity, they might look to Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Rep. Steve Kagen, D-Wis. -- both of whom have rejected taking congressional coverage until everyone in America has coverage of equal quality."

Regardless, hats off to both Sen. Brown and Rep. Kagen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have a Coalition of Citizens who will be voting out any and all Congressmen
Posted by: avidAmerican on Oct 30, 2009 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who do not vote for US, the U.S. Citizens in setting up the Health Care Reform Bill. If they don't vote for us, we don't vote for them. We don't need Congressmen who would rather line their own pockets than to help the people who pay their wages, their health insurance, their retirements, etc. We've had enough of "NO" to everything that would help the American People, and we are not falling for the lie after lie on the Senate floor either. I watch the Senate daily, and the Rs just stand there and lie, they need to be called out on their lies. They claim the Bill has too many pages -- well, if they can't handle that many pages with all the help they have, maybe they should be looking for new jobs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congress Knows Best, Now Now
Posted by: QQOblivion on Oct 30, 2009 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a shock. Republicans and Blue Dogs in the House and Senate are in fact hypocritical SOCIALISTS. They are special too, much more important than us common folk. While we losers continue to literally DIE because of lack of proper health care insurance, those in Congress live fat and healthy on tax-payer dollars. And they will keep making sure that none of us common folk are sullied by that evil evil socialism, even if that means we pay the price of that abstinence with our lives.

Defund Congress' health care plan if we commoner "losers" don't get something at least as good!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK, lets dump
Posted by: Marlena on Oct 30, 2009 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"public option" and have "Congress Health Care For ALL!!"
keep it simple!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congress............
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Oct 30, 2009 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congress may be authorized by the Constitution, but it is "We the People" that continue to vote these people into office! The reason that "We've" been sold out to the Oligarchy and the reason that Congress doesn't listen to US is because "WE" abdicated our responsibility to OUR DEMOCRACY! Until we all relearn how to participate in our democracy and reward those that work for us with another term and kick out the buzzards that are working for the Oligarchy! We can force Congress to work for US again, we've all just got to pull together to make it happen! What do we want health-care, when do we want it, yesterday!! Medicare for all with controlled costs - Congress can have their plan, cause unless you're making at least $100K it really is expensive, but the rest of America needs affordability, portability, and guaranteed cost containment, NOW!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Term Limits, We have them ! Posted by: reelectnoone
We pay...they play.
Posted by: reelectnoone on Oct 30, 2009 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that Congress should only receive the health care that the lobbyists are willing to purchase for them. They work for the special interest groups so why are they not required to supply Congress with coverage?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Humorous but true. Like India, like America. Healthcare hypocrites !
Posted by: Ranjit Kumar on Oct 30, 2009 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even India has universal healthcare with some of the finest hospitals. Unfortunately, the government sector is often in bad shape and more people there are falling for turning to privatized care. I had a fierce discussion with my greedy relatives abroad about health care. They never get tired of arguing that the big insurance companies are somehow going to be the new saviors. They rail against government run health care and call Aetna, Blue Cross, Cigna, and others the "justice league". Nothing I can do to try to tell them that the health care system in the USA is completely broken gets into their thick skulls. They even have the nerve to blame my father not putting profit before patient care as the cause for his business not doing so well. Between the politicians and my spiteful relatives who are both greedy and rich from crooked means, they both have universal coverage but can't stop shouting against it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

E-mail copy sent to Jim Hightower
Posted by: Newstime on Oct 30, 2009 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The critic of Mr. Hightower who protests that federal employees pay "pretty high" monthly premiums fails to mention that the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that the differential between fringe benefits in the public sector and fringe benefits in the private sector more than compensates for any "pretty high" employee share of health-insurance cost among federal employees.

Also for the column being a "complete misconception" of the federal health-benefits program, it is interesting that the critic does not dispute Mr. Hightower's contention that even-handedness--may one presume to invoke the Constitutional principle of equal protection and the Constitutional principle that taxes must be used for a public, truly public, purpose--requires that uninsured taxpayers receive the same coverage for which they contribute for the benefit of others.

Apparently, double-standard Congressmen would have Mr. Hightower practice the drill: So, it's not "socialized medicine" as long as uninsured taxpayers get nothing in return for Medicare payroll-tax withholding from their wages and the payments they make for federal/state income taxes, federal excise and state/local sales taxes and, if they make mortgage payments rather than rent, local property taxes?

It only becomes "socialized medicine" when they demand that their funds(private property) collected as taxes be used only for a Constitutional public purpose, not Medicare coverage for a minority of citizens, for example?

Likewise, it only becomes "socialized medicine" when they demand the same health protection(Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection clause) their tax payments provide Medicare beneficiaries, federal employees, undocumented aliens in detention, the U.S. prison-inmate population, Medicaid recipients, Veterans hospital/clinic patients, CHIPS (Children's Health Insurance Program) users, Native Americans, state civil servants, school-district personnel and other municipal employees?

One thing I would have liked to see the columnist mention is the ready resort to cries of "frivolous," too, as when in one Oregon District court or elsewhere, uninsured taxpayers claim the same health protection their taxes help to finance for complete strangers, out of their household budgets.

But, then, does the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition of maintaining individual means of self-protection ring a bell among the double-standard clan?

By Charles H. Savage/Editorial Columnist
Continental Features/
Continental News Service, Inc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is MY Understanding
Posted by: JSquercia on Oct 30, 2009 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't remember where I heard it but it is my understanding that the Medical Coverage continues with them even AFTER the leave Congress . If that is true We continue to pay for these guys even if we vote them out of office

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congressman Gred Walden (R-OR) is a fine example
Posted by: ESComm on Oct 30, 2009 10:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I read this piece from Hightower, I thought of Oregon's own Congressman Greg Walden who was admitted into the hospital last month for H1N1 and getting primo health coverage at taxpayers expense to help heal him. He then goes on Lars Larson on Wednesday to announce he is all better but desparages and denies any public option for Americans. Once again Hightower nails is right on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wouldn't repulbicans in congress prefer that the government uses private insurance compaines?
Posted by: aouie01 on Oct 30, 2009 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be in line with other choices that give big boosts to private companies at the people's expense. Just pointing out the possible fallacy in the title.
Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK, new rule!
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 30, 2009 12:37 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you have "socialist" healthcare or "socialized medicine" for you and yours and you try to prevent me from having it too, I get the right to throw your furniture on your lawn, every Saturday night.

Everytime some owning-class fuckhead has something they won't share with the lowers, like privileges, fee-free banking, mortgages without docs (yeah, the uppers still get those people, even with all the shitstorm going on), etc. We get to throw their furniture on the lawn. And the cops get to protect US, not them.

Period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was waiting for someone to mention this!
Posted by: stickem Up on Nov 2, 2009 2:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have emailed my congresspersons to demand that they give up their Health Care plan until EVERYONE can get covered. WE THE PEOPLE need to revoke that privalege from our "employees". Plenty of companies can no longer provide health insurance for employees, it's a recession you know! No where in the Constitution is it written that the government must provide Health Insurance to Congress! A few months without ANY insurance and we will have a REAL, effective, public plan in a hurry!

Lisa
P.S. It needs to cover alternative treatments like Acupunture --- which treats depression and tons of other stuff with NO SIDE EFFECTS! except to your wallet :(

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The critic
Posted by: nikefilson on Nov 15, 2009 3:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The critic of Mr. Hightower who protests that federal employees pay "pretty high" monthly premiums fails to mention that the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that the differential between fringe benefits in the public sector and fringe benefits in the private sector more than compensates for any "pretty high" employee share of health-insurance cost among federal employees.

Also for the column being a "complete misconception" of the federal health-benefits program, it is interesting that the critic does not dispute Mr. Hightower's contention that even-handedness--may one presume to invoke the Constitutional principle of equal protection and the Constitutional principle that taxes must be used for a public, truly public, purpose--requires that uninsured taxpayers receive the same coverage for which they contribute for the benefit of others.

Apparently, double-standard Congressmen would have Mr. Hightower practice the drill: So, it's not "socialized medicine" as long as uninsured taxpayers get nothing in return for Medicare payroll-tax withholding from their wages and the payments they make for federal/state income taxes, federal excise and state/local sales taxes and, if they обои к фильмам обои кино субтитры к сериалам субтитры lcn лига по казакам seropol5 make mortgage payments rather than rent, local property taxes?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement