Surprise: "Obamacare" critic demands his government-run health care

Head meet wall:

A conservative Maryland physician elected to Congress on an anti-Obamacare platform surprised fellow freshmen at a Monday orientation session by demanding to know why his government-subsidized health care plan takes a month to kick in.

Republican Andy Harris, an anesthesiologist who defeated freshman Democrat Frank Kratovil on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, reacted incredulously when informed that federal law mandated that his government-subsidized health care policy would take effect on Feb. 1 – 28 days after his Jan. 3rd swearing-in.

“He stood up and asked the two ladies who were answering questions why it had to take so long, what he would do without 28 days of health care,” said a congressional staffer who saw the exchange. The benefits session, held behind closed doors, drew about 250 freshman members, staffers and family members to the Capitol Visitors Center auditorium late Monday morning”.

“Harris then asked if he could purchase insurance from the government to cover the gap,” added the aide, who was struck by the similarity to Harris’s request and the public option he denounced as a gateway to socialized medicine.

(Thrush)​

To be fair, though, Representative-elect Harris' spokeswoman, Anna Nix, explained that what the newly-elected Republican was really doing was complaining about government-run health care.

Harris, a Maryland state senator who works at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and several hospitals on the Eastern Shore, also told the audience, “This is the only employer I’ve ever worked for where you don’t get coverage the first day you are employed" ....​

Additionally, I would note that it's a very interesting employee-based coverage Harris suggests. That is, when I've had employer-based health care in the past, the policy was delivered weeks after I started work, but I could also include prior claims originating on or after the first day.

And as to state-run health care, when my daughter had public health care, we could have filed back claims for three months before the original date of the approved application.

Maybe insurance regulations are just really strange out here. Or back in Maryland.
____________________

Notes:

Thrush, Glenn. "GOP frosh: Where's my health care?" Politico. November 15, 2010. Politico.com. November 16, 2010. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is a pretty interesting story...not unlike some here in this forum. We hav members here who are retired federal employees and have had federal healthcare benefits their entire lives.

It is amusing to hear them wail about government heatlhcare in one sentence and defend their government provided healthcare in the next.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A better thread title would be "Obamacare Critic Wonders When Health Benefits Begin For His New Job". But that would be more honest and less scandalous, I suppose. :shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is nothing more than we should expect of Republicans

It would also ignore the irony that Rep.-elect Harris campaigned against health care, including the specific proposition of government-run health care. And, yes, that would probably be more pleasing to your politics, I suppose.

We all recognize your equation, Cowboy.

During the campaign, Harris told voters, "the answer to the ever-rising cost of insurance is not the expansion of government-run or government-mandated insurance but, instead, common-sense market based solutions that ensure decisions are made by patients and their doctors."

(Marshall)

• • •​

"I just wanted an answer, is this gap true. Yes, because of the pay period. Can we pre-buy the coverage? And the answer was no," he said. "I didn't even say I want that coverage. The words 'I want it' didn't come out of my mouth ....

.... "The best solution would be for the federal government to say, 'Yes, we do provide coverage and it's from day one,'" he said.

(FOX News)​

We should note, however, that Harris is correct that he didn't say the words, "I want it". Rather, he allegedly asked what he should do for the twenty-eight days between his swearing in and the institution of his health policy.

COBRA, anyone? I mean, that's what "regular" people do. If they can afford it, that is. I don't know, maybe a Johns Hopkins anesthesiologist can't afford it, either.

And one thing that is absent from this discussion is the terms of retroactive coverage in the Congressional health plan. I'm telling you, if one can file a retroactive claim for their child on a state health plan, I have a hard time imagining that members of Congress can't do the same for themselves.
____________________

Notes:

Marshall, Josh. "Freshman GOPer: Hey, Where's My Health Care?" Talking Points Memo DC. November 15, 2010. TPMDC.TalkingPointsMemoDC.com. November 17, 2010. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/freshman-goper-hey-wheres-my-health-care.php

FOX News. "Republican Rep.-Elect Refutes Claim He Lost It Over Congressional Health Care Rules". November 17, 2010. FOXNews.com. November 17, 2010. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-claim-lost-congressional-health-care-rules/

United States Department of Labor. "FAQs For Employees About COBRA Continuation Health Coverage". (n.d.) DOL.gov. November 17, 2010. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_cobra.HTML

 

But, see, this isn't government-run healthcare. It's a healthcare plan for employees. Since they're employed by the government, Ta Da!, the insurance is "government-subsidized".

If the guy had demanded that elements of Obamacare be implemented more quickly for his benefit, this would be a story. Instead, this is about a new hire wondering when his insurance kicked in. I don't like politicians, but I'm not opposed to them being eligible for medical insurance while in office (it's the lifetime of benefits that some get that bother me).

 

(chortle!)

In other words, it isn't government-run healthcare, but what conservatives, including Harris, denounced as government-run healthcare?

I'm not sure that helps your apologism.

And if he could buy health insurance from the government to cover the gap.

 

I am against offering health care to rich congresspeople, or a salary.

 

Indeed, and it is funny that the new Republican/Tea Party expert on healthcare was totally unaware that new hires are typically not entitled to healthcare insurance immediately.

On average, according to Kaiser Health, the average weighting period is 2.2 months compared to 1 month for federal employees (active duty military exempted). And this guy is a physician, and he demanded to buy healthcare insurance from the federal government...something he has been opposed to. The extreme hypocrisy, it just does not get more extreme.

 

It's employer-provided healthcare. It just happens that the employer is the government. It isn't "government-run", regardless of what Harris' spokesman says.

Your willingness to bend the facts isn't helping your demonization.

And he was rightfully told that he couldn't. His poor planning shouldn't be cause to violate federal law. And, for the sake of honesty, he was asking his future employer if he could buy into their insurance to cover the gap. Your point would be more valid if he had accepted a job with a computer company or something and was pulling this stunt with the government.

 

Because they're congresspeople or because they're rich? Are you in favor of employers refusing to offer pay and benefits to their employees?

 

I think people would still run for office even if there were no pay or benefits offered.

 

Some would. But this would make it pretty much impossible for anyone but the uber-rich to hold office, and it's hard enough as it is. You want an oligarchy?

And a lot of people would be running because they'd want to use that office to make money in some way. It's just asking for even more corruption.

 

I thought that was the Republican line....let people pay their own healthcare. In that way they would be more responsible for negotiating better pricing and be more prudent in their use of medical services. Is that combined with not allowing or greatly limiting malpractice claims not the Republican/Tea Party solution to the cost of heatlhcare?

 

No, we could establish some cut off based on tax returns. No one who made more than, say 1 million dollars the previous year could receive a salary or subsidized health care.

 

Why, though? Being wealthy doesn't mean you're not entitled to be compensated for your work.

 

Maybe they should serve in office to pay us back for their opportunity to make so much money. Why should poor people be taxed to pay for rich people's salaries?

 

This and That

That's a desperate hair to split, but also what I'm accustomed to of conservatives.

When health care reform is on the table, Congress is criticized for having government-sponsored healthcare. When a conservative embarrasses himself, though, it becomes employer-provided healthcare, and his employer just happens to be the government.

Yeah. That's the kind of duplicity history teaches us to expect of conservatives.

Your recognition of fact has long been doubtful, Cowboy.

Sorry, but of all the perspectives I'm going to consider respectable, one that changes its view of what a fact is according to convenience just isn't one of them.

And if he was working for Microsoft, would he have asked if he could buy insurance from Microsoft?

What should he do for those twenty-eight days? Well, if his health insurance is like most in my experience, it only becomes an issue under extremely unusual circumstances. He's a doctor and he doesn't know about retroactive coverage? He's a doctor and he doesn't know what COBRA is?

That would be funny, except it's sad.

• • •​

Well, there are a couple of ways of looking at it, at least. One is to laugh the next time a conservative tells you how "out of touch with the people" Democrats/liberals/progressives/leftists are.

The other, if we buy into the argument that he was trying to criticize the inefficiency of government-run healthcare, one could easily point out that he doesn't understand what he's criticizing.

I mean, look at Cowboy's latest twist for convenience:

"It's employer-provided healthcare. It just happens that the employer is the government. It isn't "government-run", regardless of what Harris' spokesman says."​

Which, of course, is the counterpoint to Thrush's article for Politico:

Nix said Harris, who is the father of five, wasn't being hypocritical – he was just pointing out the inefficiency of government-run health care.​

I don't know, Joe. Maybe I would be more kindly disposed toward conservative apologists if they stood up and smacked down Harris' brand of rhetoric before the guy is elected, instead of waiting until after the reform debate is over, and the election is past, and then changing their rhetoric.

But, you know—

—for them it's not about honesty or consistency. It's kind of like the raw capitalism conservatives pretend to advocate: The boundaries of acceptability include whatever gets them a profit.

But of the hypocrisy, I admit I have a hard time calling it "extreme". It's one of those questions like the mystery of the political center. Perhaps it is blatant hypocrisy to the point of extremity, but as I suggested to Cowboy, it's pretty much par for the course to my experience.
____________________

Notes:

Thrush, Glenn. "GOP frosh: Where's my health care?" Politico. November 15, 2010. Politico.com. November 17, 2010. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

 

I have no objection to employers providing benefits to employees. I just don't want the government taxing people for "healthcare reform" or anything of that nature.

 

This is the kind of duplicity that history teaches me to expect from certain people on this forum. I haven't been criticizing the government for providing medical benefits for current employees. And there's a difference between the government providing medical benefits for current employees and taxing citizens to provide medical benefits for the general population.

Where have my views changed?

I have no idea. What's your point?

Oh, there's plenty of fail on Harris' part. But it still doesn't equate to him endorsing the public option, as the congressional aide in your article suggested.

Do you really not see the difference between socialized healthcare and an insurance plan for people who are specifically employed by the government? Really?

I don't believe you're that stupid, but I do believe you're intellectually dishonest enough to pretend to be that stupid in order to demonize Republicans and conservatives.

I don't buy this statement from his spokesman, either. Harris is covering his ass with this explanation. Some jobs have a waiting period before benefits kick in. Others don't. This one does, but Harris didn't bother making preparations. That's his problem.

 

Who the hell cares? Your "side" for lack of a better term propagandizes and distorts all the time, and it seems to be working for you. Every government employee gets government health care, and even the people against government health care are demanding government health care! Hypocrites.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!