Anthony Weiner Points Out the Hypocrisy of Members of Congress on Medicare but Against the Public Option
By Heather Sunday Oct 25, 2009 6:00am
From Think Progress: Rep. Weiner Identifies 55 Republicans On Medicare Who ‘Steadfastly Oppose’ The Public Option
Rep. Anthony Weiner’s (D-NY) office today released an internal study showing that 151 members of Congress “currently receive government-funded; government-administered single-payer health care — Medicare.” Of those 151 members, 55 are Republicans who also happen to be “steadfastly opposed [to] other Americans getting the public option, like the one they have chosen.” Included on Weiner’s list are anti-public option crusaders Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT), Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), and Rep. Peter King (R-NY).
Rep. Weiner talked explained why his office released that study on C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
WEINER: Well it’s more kind of another way of looking at this debate, this discussion about the public option, to put it in focus. We went, just out of curiosity, looked at how many members of Congress get the public option. And I know a lot of people have said, “Well under the new bill, how many of you members of Congress would choose the public option?”
Well there already is one; it’s called Medicare. And we found that 55 Republicans and 151 members of Congress are on Medicare right now. So they’re already getting the same type of public option that we’d like people who are without insurance to be able to get. And I guess the purpose of this list was to kind of point out some of the hypocrisy of this debate.
You have members of Congress thumping their chest how they’re against government health care, against government control of health care, socialized medicine and yet when it’s time for them to accept Medicare, they’re like, ‘Sign me up!’
And part of what I’ve argued in arguing for a single-payer system is that when we have Medicare for those that are 65, why not 64? Why not 24, like, you’re about 24 right?
C-SPAN HOST: Sure.
Weiner: And why not have that type of a system that has lower overhead, lower costs and you don’t have to deal with the 30% of profits and overhead that insurance companies take. So we compiled this list largely to point a bright light on some of the hypocrisy of this debate, but also I hope it gets people thinking—if Medicare is good enough for 151 members of Congress, why shouldn’t a program like it be created for those who want to go out and buy insurance?
I actually did get to hear this live on C-SPAN radio the other day and didn't get a chance to get back to it sooner. I was glad to see Think Progress picked it up. I would have liked for Rep. Weiner to have taken this a bit further and ask if those members of Congress would care to give up their Medicare—since they think that having government administered health insurance is such a terrible thing. I would guess the answer is "No".
Login or Register to post comments.
If you PAID doctors their full charges AND kept private companies out of the picture, then allowed anyone who want to to sign up for Medicare across the country, there wouldn't be a single doctor who would turn it down!
And I just can't imagine that anyone who was told they could get the same health care or better than what they have now for a FOURTH of the cost, would turn it down either!
BUT, at the same time, I can't understand why so many do not consider vision and dental care as part of health! Even those in Congress who CALL themselves DOCTORS don't consider those to be part of "health" and they KNOW that, UNTREATED, dental disease is a affects ALL OTHER aspects of a persons health, from the HEART to the immune system and other things.
Have ANY of them ever had to work for MONTHS ON END with abscess after abscess and constant excruciating pain? EVER? Maybe that's exactly what they NEED to have in order to FEEL some kind of empathy, though I know they consider empathy as the dirtiest of words, for others in even minute quantities!
Absolutely right wes. If they are going to be controlling costs, unattended dental problems can cause severe health problems, even lead to a heart attack. It really is silly for them not to have addressed dental.
What do they want us to end up looking like the British?
Yet ,,, THE government tells us Canada health care is worst than that in our country but they still can not afford to give us the same benefits..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_C...
In general, costs are paid through funding from income taxes though three provinces also impose a fixed monthly premium $54/month in British Columbia which may be waived or reduced for those on low incomes. There are no deductibles on basic health care and co-pays are extremely low or non-existent (supplemental insurance such as Fair Pharmacare may have deductibles, depending on income).
Yet ,,, THE government can afford to give our tax money as welfare gifts to other countries like Saudi Arabia , Israel and others,,, while supplying them with any military equipment and assistance they request..
Yet ,,, The government has just passed a piece of legislation which gives the military ..without a paygo restriction..
****Congress sends Obama $106 billion bill to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan***
Yet ,,, Obama did not have a paygo restriction on the bailout..
Yet ,,, Obama did not have a paygo restriction on the auto bailout.
Yet ,,, Obama did not have a paygo restriction on the Clunker deal...
And Japan jump for joy when they saw their cars go off the floors of the dealer lots..
Japan and other foreign countries economy really when thru the ceiling with this welfare bill they passed..
How many Blue dogs are on medicare? How many Senators? Get this out to the MSM....Snt it to Stepfie!
Would that be their full current charges, or their current charges minus the roughly 30% overhead costs they would save by not needing staff to fill out scores of different forms, not to mention the time spent by staff and doctors arguing with insurance companies? [That's right: you not only pay roughly 30% of your premium to cover insurance companies' profits, but you get hit with a doctor's bill that is roughly 30% higher because of the added expense to the doctor to accommodate the various insurance companies.]
However, we should remember, the public option is NOT single-payer. So why is Weiner equating the public option with single-payer/ Medicare? We all know single-payer is a better deal than this watered down, almost-no-one-will-qualify and no-curtailment-of-future-health-care-rises public non-option. (Have you seen the Congressional Budget Office's statement for the 'public options'? Note the plural.)
You are absolutely right about vision, but especially dental.
Problematic teeth can kill. That's a health issue.
Nothing further need be said.
Rep. Weiner!!
if you don't have Health Insurance. Call today and one of our trained professionals will be happy to assist you with all your health care needs. This offer ends Nov 1 2009 Hurry while supply's last! For as little $1200 per month you can have the peace of mind and security . . . .
of the bobbleheads confront any of the 55 Republicans who won't let us have what we pay for them to have, and ask them when they will be giving up their government controlled health care?
Better yet, ask them why they haven't already given it up? Why are they walking around shooting their mouths off about how evil government run health care is if they haven't given their's up?
Weiner can't do this one alone - where are the bobbleheads?
If FOX is really a news organization, why aren't they reporting on this news?
The AZ Senators are, as usual, taking a stand in support of allowing insurance corporations to rape the public.
Huzzah for the Rape-publican Party.
HR 676 single payer is the minimum we should accept. Give up on this 'Public Option' flim flam.
Russell Mokhiber @ Counterpunch here
Read on…
RIGHT THE FUCK ON!
Two months ago, Dennis Kucinich called Hr 3200 deeply flawed and vowed to vote against it, even if it contains his amendment (which would clear the way for individual states to initiate single-payer systems). He would then offer this amendment as stand-alone legislation.
HR 3200 would require that you buy private insurance, and very few would be admitted into the so-called public option. "Kucinich said that HR 3200 would actually worsen our health care system. The legislation according to Kucinich would enshrine private insurance--the cause of our health care crisis--into the nation's helath care system giving private insurance companies a permanent role that would make true cost reduction impossible."
Anyone signed up to receive newsletters from Progressive Democrats of America will have read this. The rest of you can go to their site. The newsletter was e-mailed on August 30 of this year.
I wish some rich liberal would bombard the airwaves with a commercial on this.
Whenever I hear people complain about socialized medicine, I ask them; "don't you find it odd that the people who oppose socialized medicine for YOU, all love some socialized medicine for THEMSELVES? Whenever any repuke needs healthcare, they don't call them HMO's they love so much (the ones YOU have to plead with for coverage) do they? Nope, they whip out their socialized medicine card."
When Bush had his pollips removed from his brain, he didn't go to CIGNA did he? The last time they went looking for Cheney's heart, did they have to wait for pre-approval?
The complete silence, and look of, "you know, I never thought this much before" is amazing to behold.
I cannot believe how fucking stupid 45% of the people in this country are!
It is one hundred years of corporate propaganda to turn the citizens of the SOCIETY, who could and should be interested in the common good, into mindless consumers who are only concerned about what is good for them.
It has been very successful.
just willfully ignorant
stating that "the government can't manage things well" while being a part of the government
so not only should these guys give up their medicare, they should give up their position
and one which we should all take up as a mantra as concerns especially those who've been serving in Congress for decades.
Whatever is messed up about our foreign policy, health care system, military excursions, and the theft of the people's wealth by greedy banksters has been overseen and abetted by these despicable cretins who deign to call themselves 'servants of the people.'
Talk about DITHERING??!!
Screw the public option --- medicare for all!!
I even sent Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews emails asking that they PLEASE make a challenge out of this " demand that all Congressman against the PO relinquish their right to their government run health care ". Neither responded ?
I just don't understand why this is not the pro PO rallying cry. No other point to expose these hypocrits is even necessary. " IF GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH INSURANCE IS SO BAD FOR US, THEN WHY IS IT SO GOOD FOR YOU CONGRESSMAN " and yet proponents of the PO spend hours and hours digging up facts and figures that very few can even relate to.
Put a picture of each congressman and senator against the PO in an add and next to their picture define the health insurance that they AND their families enjoy at the people's expense.
I just don't get it ??????
you do get it.
I've emailed it to Keith and Rachel.
By way of encouragement: A few weeks ago I emailed both of them the story about how some of the anti-health reform republicans had been champions earlier of government-funded flood insurance--the hook being that they were fine with government insuring PROPERTY but not PEOPLE--and said I thought it needed to have wider exposure. I never got a reply either, but a few days later Keith gave the story an entire segment, despite its not being "breaking news." Did my email do that? I like to think so. 8-)
Peace.
This means that 35% of Congress is 65 or over, which could be a big part of the problem. The proportion is probably higher in the Senate. I'm not saying older necessarily means more narrow-minded, conservative, set in one's ways--I'm 59 and grow more open and progressive with each passing year--but I suspect it is a factor.
About 30 years ago I decided that whenever two or more candidates were roughly equal in my estimation, or if I didn't know enough about their positions to have an opinion (often the case in local races), I would vote for a woman if one was running--just to shift the "energy" in the office, if she won. (Or, as earlier this month, I voted for an openly gay candidate for the same reason.) I'm thinking now that I ought to change that criterion to voting for the youngest!
Peace.
I thought it would be a much higher number. I bet the average age in the Senate is close to 60.
I like your voting strategy viz women/minorities. Not so much w/youth for its own sake.
You're right, of course. I was using 435, for which I have no excuse, as I'm already finishing up my second cup of coffee. Thanks!
Peace.
That in the last 9 years since the gw/chenny cabal totally screwed everything, that on C-SPAN even they no longer have both or oposing views. No for and against. That to is something that has been done by the right. They understand that if you are going to tell a lie you cannot have someone that is willing to point out that it is in fact a lie!
cspan use to always have both sides, open discussion. But after bush/chenny cabal got appointed that all stopped. Not totally at first but within a year of the take over it stopped by 2003 there are virtiually no examples of both sides being on the show at the same time.
The corporate control is very tight. message is controled very tight.
Watch if you are an idiot.
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness!
Login or Register to post comments.