Watch a handful of members of the new House majority try to justify why they're willing for average Americans to be denied health insurance when they've got some pretty good taxpayer-funded insurance themselves. First up is newly-elected Rep. Robert Hurt (R-VA), who campaigned on repeal.
HURT: I’ll support the repeal. Okay, what else?
TP: After you vote to repeal health care, will you also reject government-sponsored, government-subsidized health care given to members of Congress?
HURT: Uhm, well obviously we’ve got — I’ve got a health insurance policy that I pay for through the government so I don’t really–
TP: Well there’s $700 a month in taxpayer money on average that goes to a member of Congress’s health care plan given by you know the taxpayer.
HURT: It’s a policy that’s issued by Anthem and it’s a policy that any– it’s open to the public.
TP: But my tax dollars and everyone’s tax dollars subsidize your plan as a member of Congress. And all of your staff members. You’ve got what, thirty members of your staff? Do you think they should have government-sponsored health care if you’re going to repeal it for everyone else?
HURT: If you’re going to pay members of Congress anything, if they’re going to have a salary and they’re going to have benefits, like so many people who are employed do, then I think it’s not unreasonable to offer those benefits. So I support that.
Coherence is not is forte, obviously. Nor is understanding how he just made the argument for universal health insurance (and btw, the insurance exchange which he and his staff have access to is not available to the general public). And notice how the idea that it was taxpayers who are footing the bill for his benefits caught him by surprise. Is it possible that Rep. Robert Hurt thought his salary came from some magical source of free money? There really needs to be a civics test required for all persons filing for public office.
This one's even better. Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL), another rabid repealer, is keeping his taxpayer funded benefits out of pure altruism. No, really.
SCHOCK: It is, yeah. I had Blue Cross Blue Shield when I came here as a 27-year-old single male. I paid about $80 a month. And now, because I’m in a risk pool with a bunch of older seniors, my health care costs me $170 a month now for the same Blue Cross Blue Shield coverage. So I think it’s kind of interesting how people make such a big deal out of the health care coverage we have, which is not bad by any means. But I haven’t given it much thought because quite frankly I think I’m helping out the institution by lowering the risk pool for some of my older guys.
TP: I just know there are a lot of people who have made the hypocrisy charge, that there’s an average of $700 per month in taxpayer subsidies on these employee government health care plans, yet saying that the general public is not getting the same types of subsidies and help in buying health insurance for themselves.
SCHOCK: No, I get that argument. The only thing I would submit is because I’m an outlier in the group, I’m actually lowering the…(crosstalk)…When you’re under 30 in a body of…but, so.
TP2: Sir, you receive taxpayer subsidies even though you do have a lower rate. And you’re within a pool that’s highly regulated, as health reform does for the rest of the nation. Don’t you think it’s fair if you’re going to repeal health reform for everyone else, you should at least reject this subsidized, highly-regulated plan that members of Congress and their staff benefit from?
SCHOCK: No, I really actually think they’re completely separate issues.
TP2: Why’s that?
SCHOCK: Because I don’t think what we do with the health care bill has anything to do with what kind of health insurance programs members of Congress pay for.
TP2: No, it’s quite similar. There’s an exchange, there’s subsidies, just like you benefit from an exchange and subsidies, that are paid for by taxpayers.
SCHOCK: Well, I think the bill we voted on is completely different.
He's single-handedly lowering the risk pool and "helping out the institution." What a guy, even though he listened to his leadership's talking points on the bill rather than actually, you know, reading and understanding it.
But the one who takes the cake is newbie Rep. Michael Grimm, (R-NY) who, well, words fail.
In one of his first interviews since being sworn in, Grimm brushed off the suggestion that he was being hypocritical for accepting government-provided health insurance while calling for the repeal of Pres. Obama's health care reform.
"What am I, not supposed to have health care?" Grimm told the New York Daily News (the article hasn't appeared online, only in print). "It's practicality. I'm not going to become a burden for the state because I don't have health care and, God forbid I get into an accident and I can't afford the operation...That can happen to anyone."
Yes, indeed, it can happen to anyone. But just "anyone" shouldn't have the same opportunity to be protected should, "God forbid," they get into an accident. The teabagger brain in action.