A majority of Georgia’s congressmen will tell you that they oppose the health insurance reform bill moving through Congress because it’s a “government-funded” healthcare plan that will crowd out the “private” insurers who have done such a great job of covering America’s citizens (if you can overlook the 46 million or so who are uninsured).
These comments from Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson are typical of what you’ll hear from the people we’ve sent to Washington:
“I do not believe a Washington-run, big-government health care system is the answer,” Chambliss said recently.
“I believe that the government-run plan included in the bill will decrease choice and quality, because it would be difficult for private entities to compete with the government that regulates them and taxes them and that is exempt from having to pay taxes,” Isakson agreed.
They obviously believe that a taxpayer-funded, government-operated health insurance plan should never be made available to the constituents in their district. That does not stop them, of course, from participating in a taxpayer-funded, government-operated health insurance plan that covers nearly all of the representatives and senators in the U.S. Capitol.
All members of Congress can — and most do — participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), which offers several alternative health coverage plans ranging from fee-for-service to health maintenance organizations (HMOs). There is no waiting period for coverage and congressmen don’t have to worry about being denied coverage because of existing preconditions — they are covered immediately upon taking office.
For members of Congress in this program, the federal government pays as much as 75 percent of their health insurance premiums — money that comes from taxpaying constituents, millions of whom do not have health insurance.
Here’s how Mark Z. Barabak and Faye Fiore of the Los Angeles Times described it:
Among the advantages: a choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member’s home state. By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan — take it or leave it.
Lawmakers also get special treatment at Washington’s federal medical facilities and, for a few hundred dollars a month, access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers.
In all, taxpayers spent about $15 billion last year to insure 8.5 million federal workers and their dependents, including postal service employees, according to the Office of Personnel Management.
Generous plans are available in private industry. But the federal coverage far surpasses that enjoyed by 70 million Americans who are underinsured and at financial risk in the event of a major health crisis — not to mention the estimated 46 million who have no medical insurance.
Most of the Georgia congressmen who are eligible for this federal coverage vigorously oppose the healthcare reform bill that would make similar coverage available to their constituents. But they claim they are not getting any special benefits.
“While the federal government as our employer contributes to our healthcare plan, the plans are not a single-payer government plan as proposed by the administration in the health care debate,” said Isakson spokesperson Marie Gordon. “Rather, our health care plan is a market-based system designed to stimulate competition among private companies.”
“Sen. Chambliss is able to choose from coverage options similar to those at any large corporation,” said Chambliss’ press secretary, Ashley Nelson. “He and other members of Congress, as well as federal staff members, are covered under a group policy. He has a choice among different private health insurance companies, and his payments are deducted from his paycheck every month.”
Nelson added: “A government-run option would in no way resemble this model. That alternative would be able to charge lower rates and would reimburse providers at much lower levels than private insurance plans, thereby limiting competition. Over time, this could eliminate private insurance companies and drive all individuals to the government-run option that would essentially become a single-payer system.”
Actually, a government-run option would very strongly resemble the model that provides health coverage to our congressmen — except for the fact that the congressional health plan is better, offers more features, and is more heavily subsidized by the taxpayers.
This is not a partisan issue among Georgia’s congressmen. Rep. Jim Marshall, a Macon Democrat, opposes the current House version of the healthcare reform bill but does belong to the federal employees health insurance plan.
“Members of congress don’t get a special plan — they have access to the same healthcare benefits every federal employee gets, all of the employees who work for him,” said Doug Moore, a spokesman for Marshall.
Some congressmen have chosen not to participate in the federal health benefits plan, including Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, and Rep. Steve Kagen, a Democrat and a doctor from Wisconsin.
Kagen wrote in an op-ed column:
As a Congressman, I have learned that Band-Aids are what politicians are using to ‘fix’ our nation’s broken health care delivery system. But you don’t have to be a doctor or a Congressman to understand that Band-Aids can’t fix a fracture.
That’s why I declined to accept the health care insurance offer from Congress. Plainly put, I will not accept health insurance coverage until everyone I represent in Wisconsin and across America is given the same opportunity. After all, I did not run for this office to get health care benefits.
The next time you hear Tom Price or John Linder or Paul Broun talking about the “socialistic” health insurance plan that’s being considered by the House and Senate, ask them one question: Congressman, who’s paying for YOUR insurance?
Leave a Reply