GOP hypocrisy - repeal and.....hey where's MY healthcare!

• 
  
  

  
  

  [The following entry originates from two contributions I made to a thread on Facebook. The thread was about the hypocrisy of GOP Congressional members selling "repeal and replace”. As "repeal and replace" has now been replaced by simply "repeal.... and ...... well, maybe we'll have a different idea later.....", the hypocrisy is even more pronounced]:

  
  

  The Congressional GOP stance on healthcare reform is one of absolute hypocrisy. Despite all the good in the new law, they are hell-bent on repealing the entire Affordable Care Act (the health care reform Obama signed into law last year). And why not? THEIR healthcare access will not suffer if they do somehow succeed in repealing the Affordable Care Act. They have the power to ensure that. They MAKE the laws. Given that only one or two members of Congress opt out of taking the healthcare they are offered via Congress' health care plans, it is very safe to say that any action by Congress on health care issues will not negatively affect the healthcare that members of Congress receive. This is a dramatic difference compared to so many other average Americans - fellow citizens who's access to health care will suffer if the new laws are repealed. Many American's life savings will be drained away once again if they want to keep a family member alive. Many Americans will simply be ignored, having no access to health care at all. We will return to the good old days of denying health care and replacing it with an offering of only minimal immediate medical needs at the emergency room after a long wait. This inefficient, immoral approach is not free. (Nor can it be called health care.) Patients denied health care but offered minimal life-saving intervention at the emergency room still receive a bill for these services. A large percentage of these patients can never pay those bills any more than Congress can pay off the national debt. But one way or another, that cost will be covered. It forces up every one else's premiums in order to cover the difference. Again, why should Congressional Republicans worry about that fact? They won't be affected by the lack of care. The financial devastation won't affect their families. The health care provided to members of Congress will not suffer either way.

  
  

  There is however, one inconvenience that can hit some newer Congressional members. It is a major shortcoming that the Congressional health care plans have in common with the health plans of most Americans. Lapse of coverage while transitioning from one job to the next is a foundational flaw in the construction of our health care system. It affects most of the nation. It can wreak havoc on a family of low to moderate means. It is but an inconvenience for a family of a higher station.

  
  

  When Congressional "repeal and replace" chanters start bitching about THEIR job-provided healthcare not being immediate (like my new representative Andy Harris), then the hypocrisy is just pathetic. Andy Harris campaigned on killing any government involvement in healthcare, even though the blue-dog Dem he just beat voted against the Affordable Care Act. Andy was upset because he had to wait about a month before he could be enrolled in Congress' health care plan. Hell, "REAL" Americans (to borrow a term from Palin and others) would be considered pretty lucky to be immediately covered under the health care plan of a new employer. For most of America, receiving coverage while only in orientation for a new job is a huge perk. Bitching about not getting immediate healthcare coverage after campaigning so hard on repealing “Obamacare” just makes the hypocrisy absolute. Way to go Andy!

  
  

  Despite the blatant hypocrisy, an article on Andy Harris in the local paper may have shed some light on his perspective. The reason Andy was upset about not having immediate coverage was that this is the first job he ever had that did not offer it. It’s just another example of how nearly all lawmakers really do live in different realities than the average citizen (except maybe Joe Biden in his days in Congress). I'm guessing the reason for Andy's history of immediate coverage with all of his previous employers has to do with him being an anesthesiologist. My guess would be that doctors of virtually all forms working in hospitals would be covered immediately through the hospital's own plan. I haven't researched it, but it sure would seem odd to me for that to be any other way. The last thing a hospital would want is one of their doctors to have an emergency but not be covered. Imagine the bad press and the potential resentment from one of their own doctors. No. I doubt doctors associated with hospitals would experience this all too common lapse in coverage while transitioning from one employer to another. Certainly not when transitioning from one hospital to another.

  
  

  Despite how logical it seems, maybe I'm wrong in that assumption. I don't know. But whatever the reason for Andy never having to experience any lapse in healthcare coverage for him and his family in the past, the point is one of blatant hypocrisy. Andy Harris campaigned on repealing health care reform (or "Obamacare" as he put it). Then he complains when HIS government-provided healthcare is not immediate. Thanks to Bill Clinton's administration, at least Andy has the option of COBRA. Even though it is wildly unaffordable for the average US citizen, I'm guessing Andy would be able to digest the financial burden of COBRA for one month without destroying his financial future, or having to sacrifice any basics like food and shelter to pay for that one month of coverage. Despite the month-long wait for his Congressional coverage to kick in, the new "Obamacare" now allows his whole family to still be covered through his plan. He has 5 children with ages running from 11 to 26. Prior to "Obamacare" he would not have the option to keep his oldest offspring covered under his employer-provided healthcare. Maybe he doesn't want his oldest on his coverage. That is purely his business. The point is - if his oldest child found no other employment offering reasonable healthcare - the option is now there. Thanks to “Obamacare”.

  
  

  But there is the devil’s advocate argument against criticizing Harris for complaining about his transitional lapse of health care coverage. An argument that fails to consider him hypocritical for accepting the federally funded health coverage Congress offers him. Being a Congressman IS his new job after all, and that is where we Americans secure our health coverage – through our jobs. That is the foundation of our system. The argument would be credible if it weren’t for the very fact that Andy’s job IS to make laws governing the nation. And to get that job, his focus was vowing to eliminate new health care security for millions. Security that he not only expects from his job as a Congressman, but which he hypocritically takes for granted and finds insufficient for himself.

  
  

  If it weren't for this power they have to make laws affecting all other Americans' access to healthcare, while being able to secure their access through their legislative powers, then this argument WOULD be one reasonable perspective. But it misses the big picture - that simply having a job does not automatically provide health insurance. And the even bigger picture, that our health care SYSTEM is one of the worst. Linking affordable health care access to jobs that do actually offer it is frankly a form of indentured servitude. Sure COBRA sounded like a step in the right direction - allowing a worker to choose his or her career path more freely by not being afraid to lose health care coverage if taking the plunge to change careers or start a new venture on their own... but COBRA failed miserably in that regard. COBRA coverage itself is more than the average income. Not only not affordable, but for all but a few, it’s literally impossible to maintain.

  
  

  The BIG, big picture is one that should question this structure of health care. This structure that links provision of health care to employment by another more wealthy individual or company. A link that makes the basic needs of the average individual so dependent upon what wages and health care coverage an employer will offer that the relationship goes beyond that of basic worker/employer, but enters the realm of submissive and/or destructive co-dependence.

  
  

  Again, this BIG picture is blatant. Despite Andy's lucky history of immediate and continual coverage from one employer to the next, he is a marked exception to the average citizen. The average citizen does not have the luxury of not even considering healthcare coverage in making career decisions. For most, the consideration of healthcare and any potential lapse in coverage is a major impedance to career mobility. The freedom to quit a civilian job may be there for all, but the risk of financial devastation over health care costs trumps that freedom far, FAR too often.

  
  

  The Affordable Care Act fails to properly address this foundational flaw of the system.  It leaves the for-profit market-based system of health care intact. Yes, it mandates that everyone purchase insurance from private companies, and it fails to offer any public option for the millions who have no job, or are self-employed, or have a pathetic wage job that can’t offer health care in any form. Yes, I have a problem with all of this. It is far from ideal. But in return, it does offer patient protections that have been unheard of in my lifetime. Pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, etc. can no longer be the legal catchphrases to excuse an insurance company’s breach of responsibility.

  
  

  Despite it’s leaving the market-based system of health care intact, Republicans label the Affordable Care Act a “government takeover”.

  Despite its original offering of more personal decision over end-of-life care issues, Republicans yelled “Death Panels!”

  
  

  Despite the law moving aside the largest middlemen so doctor and patient can decide the best path of care, Republicans insist that an agent of Obama, and not the insurance company will stand between you and your doctor.

  
  

  Despite the CBO (the NON-partisan budget scoring panel) consistently running results that show the Affordable Care Act saves billions of dollars, Republicans insist on calling it “job-killing” (At least until a week after the Arizona tragedy when the word “killing” was removed.)

  
  

  Despite complaints over not being covered under Congress’ health plans prior to officially starting the job of Congressman, we hear chants of “repeal Obamacare”.

  
  

  Despite the imperfection of the Affordable Care Act, and despite having already repealed the “replace” portion of “repeal and replace”, Congressional Republicans want to take away these powerful new patient rights that the law created.

  
  

  Yet they still say they can do better.

  
  

  Blatant hypocrisy. What dials up the hypocrisy-meter even more is that the GOP have HAD power. The only health care reform they created with that power was unpaid-for drugs for seniors with no taxpayer discount bulk rate. That change was a huge taxpayer giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry, and a large box of donut holes to many of our grandparents.

  
  

  Whether looking at the large scale foundational flaws of our health care system, or simply looking at the coverage of individual members of Congress, the GOP steadfast opposition to any government involvement in healthcare, and simultaneous dependence on it for their OWN families, is absolute pure hypocrisy.