THE HILL
 

Public option for Congress

By Cheri Jacobus - 10/22/09 05:24 PM ET

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) submitted three versions of a public option in healthcare to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to be scored. Not one of them includes a query on cost or savings to taxpayers should Congress subject itself to the taxpayer-funded government plan commonly referred to as the “public option,” not to be confused with the fully tricked-out Cadillac plans they now have, for which we, the taxpayers, are footing the bill.

The public option should not be optional for Congress. It should be mandatory. Congress is already on a publicly funded plan more generous than almost any private plan offered anywhere in the United States. But why shouldn’t they be on the same public plan they have in store for their fellow citizens? Is it too much to ask for Pelosi, et al, to put their money where their mouth is? (Or rather, our money?)

There were actually a few Senate Democrats who supported the notion of members of Congress living under whatever public option Washington eventually forced on us. This past summer, an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) was adopted by the Senate health committee by a 12-11 vote with an assist by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and proxy votes by Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.). But since then, the blatant hypocrisy of the majority party has predictably taken over as the Democrats thumb their noses at American citizens who will live, or die, as it were, on these arrogant decisions being made in Washington.

While it would be lovely to give credit to the Senate Democrats hiding behind closed doors crafting a whole new bill from scratch and trust they will support the wishes of the late Sen. Kennedy by preserving the Coburn amendment for which Kennedy voted “aye” while too ill to cast his vote in person, it would also be naïve. Democrats won’t accept the public option for their very own selves, despite the likelihood it would save tax dollars. Neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) nor Pelosi wants Democratic members going “on the record” as hypocrites and elitists. Best to keep it behind closed doors, which is exactly what Democrats are doing.

But with polls indicating a slow downward spiral in public approval for the Democrat-led Congress, with a Real Clear Politics average disapproval at nearly 67 percent and a tied generic ballot, wouldn’t it make sense to demonstrate confidence in the public option elected officials in Washington are passing for the rest of us by mandating it for themselves?

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) is doing his part in the House by nudging his colleagues into doing the right thing. Ninety-six House members — all Republicans, by the way — have signed on as co-sponsors to his non-binding H.R. 615, “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.”

Likewise, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) plans to push for an amendment similar to the Coburn language during full Senate consideration of whatever healthcare bill ends up on the Senate floor, despite the obvious and numerous obstacles inherent in being in the minority — especially in Harry Reid’s Senate. Democrats insisting on ignoring this very important moral litmus test by sweeping the committee-passed Coburn amendment under the rug could very well find themselves in a pickle come Election Day.

Forcing taxpayers to pay for a public option healthcare plan that congressional Democrats deem not good enough for themselves but just fine for the rest of us might very well be enough to prompt voters to try to take away congressional Democrats’ Cadillac plan and force a public option on them another way — by voting them out of office and sending them home to live under legislation they passed while in Washington. But even if voted out of office, members of Congress still get their plan for the rest of their natural lives with this taxpayer-funded entitlement. It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

 Yes, we, the taxpayers, are very, very generous. Congress insisted on it.

Jacobus, president of Capitol Strategies PR, has managed  congressional campaigns, worked on Capitol Hill and is an adjunct professor at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management. She appears on CNN, MSNBC and FOX News as a GOP strategist.

Source:
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/cheri-jacobus/64407-public-option-for-congress

Comments (12)

Of course they should take the public option if there is one. Question for you. Does the fed employees health plan provide retiree health for all employees of just members of congress. Even the latter is bad enough in this age of very limited employer paid/sponsored retiree health.BY dave on 10/23/2009 at 02:20
Thank You, Thank You, Thank You. The idea that these arrogant S.O.B.s have the NERVE to try and jam this thing down our throats, while at the same time, EXEMPTING themselves, AND their Families, is the HEIGHT OF HUBRIS. This is the arguement that needs to be made. NOT the COSTS! Million, Billion, TRILLION. Everybodys' eyes glaze over. Do we even USE 'Million' anymore? ARROGANCE. "For THEE, but not for ME." "Let them eat cake."I thought they worked for US!BY Timothy L. Pennell on 10/23/2009 at 11:26
Congress and all federal employees should be required to pay into the Social Security System along with the rest of us!BY Bradley Williams on 10/23/2009 at 12:41
Mr. Bradley, we do.Congress since 1984, and federal employees since they changed the retirement plan a few years later. A few people are still on the old plan, but most are retired.BY May Hamilton on 10/23/2009 at 13:13
Fairness would also require that the 55 members of Congress who oppose a public option but currently receive Medicare should give up that 'socialized' benefit.BY R. Holm on 10/24/2009 at 11:08
Public Option is the only way to go; it is the only way you will get a handle on premiums/deductibles/out of pocket and donut holes. The insurance company only has one thing on their minds "Profit", they say their profits are low, and I say that is a lie…check out their salaries, bonuses, perks…check out their expense reports…you will find I am telling you the truth. They need some form of regulation, and this is your chance…dont blow it …soon boomers will be upon us and they will not be able to afford the premium rates…I know it, the most of them live from check to check and on credit cards…when they retire they will file bankrupsy and still will not be able to afford those premiums. The guys on the TOP always do well, the average AMERICAN, and lower income, get dumped on every time…please do this for those people. We will remember who does what come election time.BY Carol Stanton on 10/25/2009 at 13:23
why do you have to approve comments…I thought this was AMERICA…FREEDOME OF SPEACH…WHATS WITH THE MEDIA NOW DAYS…GETTING VERY INTRAVERT.BY Kettle on 10/25/2009 at 13:24
Am I missing something? Isn't the public option an option for people who do not have insurance? It is not mandatory and will not change the coverage that people already have unless they WANT to change. So what is wrong for providing people an option?BY Angela Hale on 10/26/2009 at 10:43
Angela, the public option is not mandatory today, however, the public option WILL eventually run all private health coverage out of business due to the lower premiums. For our elected officials to say otherwise is for the most part, lying. Why would a private company continue to offer more expensive private insurance when it can simply dump its employees to the cheaper public option? America will be a single payer system (except for Congress, of course) in a few years time.BY Kathryn on 10/26/2009 at 16:52
I agree totally w KETTLE - the public option is just that - an option. And if it leads to a 'single payer system' as Angela H avers (do you have a crystal ball, A ?) I would not be opposed. Why not have a system similar to all other wealthy countries who provide health insurance to ALL their citizens, at much lower cost than the U.S., and resulting in much better health outcomes. Even the majority of physicians support a public option, because most are far more interested in serving people and keeping them healthy than in making huge amounts of money. 'Course there are always those few that see in the Hippocratic oath something about the "bottom line" and "greed being good" - just like most of the health insurance companies.BY Larry Didier on 10/27/2009 at 18:18

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.