Guess who actually uses a government option for health care?

#1

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
72,719
Likes
42,915
#1
For $503 A Year, Members of Congress Have A Top-Notch Hospital On Call In The Capitol. But They Don't Want 'Government Care'?
By Susie Madrak Friday Oct 02, 2009 11:00am
I wanted to make sure everyone saw this. I'm so mad, I can hardly see straight. If your elected representative is one of those standing in the way of the public option, I suggest you tell him or her what you think of this. (And don't forget Plan B: If you're uninsured and you get swine flu, go visit your congress critter and turn their waiting room into a different kind of waiting room - "waiting" for affordable health care!)
From time to time, we're reminded of the fact that members of Congress -- many of whom are fighting to kill health care reform -- give themselves pretty good coverage. Several weeks ago, the LA Times reported on the taxpayer-subsidized insurance federal lawmakers currently enjoy.
The piece noted that, while most Americans have to go with whatever their employer offers, members have a choice of 10 plans that offer access to a national network of doctors. "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," the article added.
ABC News explores this conveniently located facility in more detail today. It sounds like a pretty sweet deal for lawmakers.
This fall while members of Congress toil in the U.S. Capitol, working to decide how or even whether to reform the country's health care system, one floor below them an elaborate Navy medical clinic -- described by those who have seen it as something akin to a modern community hospital -- will be standing by, on-call and ready to provide Congress with some of the country's best and most efficient government-run health care.
Formally called the Office of the Attending Physician, the clinic -- and at least six satellite offices -- bills its mission as one of emergency preparedness and public health. Each day, it stands ready to handle medical emergencies, biological attacks and the occasional fainting tourist visiting Capitol Hill.
Officially, the office acknowledges these types of services, including providing physicals to Capitol police officers and offering flu shots to congressional staffers. But what is rarely discussed outside the halls of Congress is the office's other role -- providing a wealth of primary care medical services to senators, representatives and Supreme Court justices.
Through interviews with former employees and members of Congress, as well as extensive document searches, ABC News has learned new details about the services offered by the Office of Attending Physician to members of Congress over the past few years, from regular visits by a consulting chiropractor to on-site physical therapy.
"A member walked in and was generally walked right back into a physician's office. They get good care. They are not rushed. They are examined thoroughly," said Eduardo Balbona, an internist in Jacksonville, Fa., who worked as a staff physician in the OAP from 1993 to 1995.
The Office of the Attending Physician includes at least four Navy doctors as well as at least a dozen medical and X-ray technicians, nurses, and a pharmacist. When a specialist is brought in, members pay no additional costs.
Indeed, lawmakers receive top-notch, wait-free care, and money is largely no object. Members pay a flat annual fee of $503, and it covers all expenses -- without submitting claim forms to their insurer. Despite soaring costs throughout the health care system, prices have been largely stagnant in the Office of the Attending Physician for 17 years.
Some lawmakers didn't pay the fee and still took advantage of OAP services.
Keep this in mind the next time you hear a member of Congress complaining about the nightmares of government-run, taxpayer-subsidized health care.
 
#2
#2
yes because a increadibly costly and abusive current gov't healtcare option is certainly a reason we need to put the other 300 mil of the country on a similar program.
 
#3
#3
what's your point LG?

as droski pointed out, it's easy to provide a carte blanch health care program to maybe 2000 people if you include Congressional staff and the White House. How are you going to provide that level of coverage to 300 million plus people, especially when you know only 53% are going to be paying the bill for everybody.
 
#4
#4
yes because a increadibly costly and abusive current gov't healtcare option is certainly a reason we need to put the other 300 mil of the country on a similar program.

what's your point LG?

as droski pointed out, it's easy to provide a carte blanch health care program to maybe 2000 people if you include Congressional staff and the White House. How are you going to provide that level of coverage to 300 million plus people, especially when you know only 53% are going to be paying the bill for everybody.


I think the point is that if the Republicans' point here were truly philosophical, then they would have the same problem in themselves using a government option that they pretend to have in providing that to everyone else.
 
#5
#5
I think the point is that if the Republicans' point here were truly philosophical, then they would have the same problem in themselves using a government option that they pretend to have in providing that to everyone else.

why do you think the amendments republicans have proposed that would force Congress to participate in the same plan they legislate for everybody else have all been voted down by democrats?
 
#6
#6
I think the point is that if the Republicans' point here were truly philosophical, then they would have the same problem in themselves using a government option that they pretend to have in providing that to everyone else.

ridiculous. do your turn down your health coverage because you don't like it? they don't have a private option.
 
#7
#7
ridiculous. do your turn down your health coverage because you don't like it? they don't have a private option.


Many Republicans have said that they don't want government control of delivery of health care because they view it as socialized medicine, or a step on the way to that, or wrong to have government health care as competitive alternative to Blue Cross or Aetna or Prudential.

Meanwhile, they are getting exactly that for themsevles.
 
#10
#10
They could buy the private health insurance they say everyone else ought to be buying in order to preserve capitalism.

how do you know some don't? If you apply your standard as thoroughly as it appears you want it applied, you should be outraged that the Obama's chose a very expensive private school for their daughters.
 
#11
#11
They could buy the private health insurance they say everyone else ought to be buying in order to preserve capitalism.

There is a point here.

If they really are on a government program it would go a long way with their credibility to purchase private plans.
 
#14
#14
There is a point here.

If they really are on a government program it would go a long way with their credibility to purchase private plans.

That's how I feel about congress members that are fighting going on the same public option as they are passing for the general public.
 
#15
#15
how do you know some don't? If you apply your standard as thoroughly as it appears you want it applied, you should be outraged that the Obama's chose a very expensive private school for their daughters.

Why would they purchase private plans when they get it now for "free"?

If the free market is the solution for the greater good then the ones that will actually be voting on this should drop their cadillac free coverage and purchase the private stuff. If it is supposedly good for everybody else then it should be good for them.
 
#16
#16
Why would they purchase private plans when they get it now for "free"?

If the free market is the solution for the greater good then the ones that will actually be voting on this should drop their cadillac free coverage and purchase the private stuff. If it is supposedly good for everybody else then it should be good for them.

Hmm, then how DO you feel about the Obama's not putting their daughters in public school? Isn't that also supposedly good enough for everyone else, and thus good enough for them?
 
#17
#17
And while we are at it, Al Gore needs to downsize into a smaller home, give up the limos, and start communting from his 1100 sf biosphere in a Prius everyday...
 
#18
#18
Why would they purchase private plans when they get it now for "free"?

If the free market is the solution for the greater good then the ones that will actually be voting on this should drop their cadillac free coverage and purchase the private stuff. If it is supposedly good for everybody else then it should be good for them.

every gov't employee in the country has these sort of ridiculous heathcare and pension benefits. obama would have us force the private sector to make the public sectors same mistakes. california isn't billions in debt because this model works.
 
#19
#19
Hmm, then how DO you feel about the Obama's not putting their daughters in public school? Isn't that also supposedly good enough for everyone else, and thus good enough for them?

It's the same hypocrisy, but the thread is about UHC, as much as you want to change topics.

I'm against UHC that includes a public option, btw. This entire debate can be won by the conservatives on facts alone. But it still stands...there are yahoos using scare tactics and special interest attack dogs to shape the debate strictly for a political victory, and I am willing to bet many of them use this government run program in the capitol.
 
#20
#20
every gov't employee in the country has these sort of ridiculous heathcare and pension benefits. obama would have us force the private sector to make the public sectors same mistakes. california isn't billions in debt because this model works.

which goes to my point that it's pretty easy for 100 million taxpayers to fund the healthcare benefits of 535 members of Congress, their families and possibly their staffs.

expecting those same 100 million taxpayers to foot the bill for UHC, in addition to everything else, is ridiculous and doomed to fail.
 
#21
#21
every gov't employee in the country has these sort of ridiculous heathcare and pension benefits. obama would have us force the private sector to make the public sectors same mistakes. california isn't billions in debt because this model works.

No they don't....at least not as posh as the one Congress enjoys.
 
#22
#22
which goes to my point that it's pretty easy for 100 million taxpayers to fund the healthcare benefits of 535 members of Congress, their families and possibly their staffs.

expecting those same 100 million taxpayers to foot the bill for UHC, in addition to everything else, is ridiculous and doomed to fail.

Which is why Congress should forfeit what they are getting and purchase private plans like they want the rest of us to do. I pay for my healthcare, what makes them so special?
 
#23
#23
Which is why Congress should forfeit what they are getting and purchase private plans like they want the rest of us to do. I pay for my healthcare, what makes them so special?

see post #5
 
#25
#25
Which amendments, and how did the voting go on either side of the aisle? I know one congressman (a doctor from LA I think) was talking about proposing an amendment, but I wasn't aware there were multiple ones that were already voted on.

Not saying you are wrong, just never heard of this.
 

VN Store



Back
Top