Members of Congress, to include Rep. Coble, have decried the Affordable Health Care for America Bill as a "government takeover of health care."
But is this objection consistent with what Congress does for its own health care? I would say no, because Congress itself chooses to have government health care. First, free care is available through the Military Health Care system. I know, because as a former Army doctor, I once provided some of this care. Military Health Care is government health care.
Second, and more to the point, Congress is insured under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program, touted as having beneficiaries who "enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country." Indeed, there are seven different plan types (providing a range of low to higher cost options) available through multiple carriers. The FEHB program is government health care because taxpayers fund it.
What's to be made of this contradictory behavior? Congress decrying a "government takeover of health care" but espousing government care for themselves? Perhaps some legislators have, on principle, individually rejected these options, but if so, I haven't heard about it. Nor does Coble, in letters to his constituents, indicate that he has declined government health care for himself. Why should government health care be good for Congress but bad for the nation? Is there a disconnect here? A bit of hypocrisy?
I am reminded of an anecdote, told by the president, from a letter that in essence said, "I am against government-run health care, but don't touch my Medicare!" Here the contradiction is obvious. The contradiction of members of Congress decrying government health care for the nation while benefiting from it themselves, should be made just as obvious!
Edward N. Squire Jr.
Seven Lakes
Seven Lakes
No comments:
Post a Comment