Make Congressmen Take the Public Plan

The other day, I offered a modest proposal for inclusion in Obamacare; namely, that if it ultimately includes a public option, all members of Congress should be required by law to get their health care insurance from the public plan.

According to the LA Times, this idea is already kicking around in DC--with predictable results.

The Times story begins with a description of the gold-plated health insurance options available to our rulers:

Among the advantages: a choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member's home state. By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan -- take it or leave it.
Lawmakers also get special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities and, for a few hundred dollars a month, access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers.

After a bit more on the gold plate, the story gets really interesting:

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sponsored an amendment requiring members of Congress to forgo their current health coverage and enroll in any government plan they pass to compete with private insurers.
"Let's demonstrate leadership and confidence in the system," Coburn said before his amendment squeaked through the Senate Health Committee.

Coburn's now officially on my "good guy" list. Predictably, however, the Democratic majority in the House squelched the idea, with Nancy Pelosi taking the lead:

A similar measure was defeated in the House.
A spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi demurred when asked if she would sign up for a government-run plan. The San Francisco Democrat joined President Obama in pushing unsuccessfully for passage of a healthcare bill before lawmakers headed home for their summer recess.

Why am I not surprised that the Democratic-controlled Congress wants to keep their own special benefits, while foisting some BS public plan on their subjects?

I know Obama and Pelosi claim they'll let those of us with health insurance a doctors keep what we have, but that's a huge lie. The government subsidized public plan will eventually squeeze private insurance options out of the marketplace. Except, it appears, for members of Congress.

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

Comments

[Cornellian]

It shouldn't really matter whether they're required to sign up for the public plan or not on the conservative theory of how it will work. As I understand it, the public plan will put all private plans out of business. If that's true, the members of Congress will be stuck with the public plan whether they want to sign up for it or not.

[oolong]

Cornellian is right.

That they aren't signing up for the public plan means zero.

1) If their current plan is better than the public option, then this simply reflects the fact that people with better plans will stay in them. No one is suggesting that the public plan is a Cadillac model.

2) If the public option will drive the private market into non-existence, then the Congress ends up in the public plan at the end of the day. If the claim is that Congress "knows" that it will kill private insurance, then they have already opted for the public plan. If the claim is that they don't know it, then they are simply staying with their better plan, which is completely consistent with arguing for the public plan in the first place, as per (1).

Result: the amendment is much ado about nothing.

[Belial]

If the "public option" is a bad idea, as the proprietor and most readers of this blog surely believe it to be, then I do not understand why it should be considered acceptable if Congressmen participate. Why is that proposal anything other than political theater?

If the answer is that their participation does not make the plan acceptable, but simply makes them put their money where their mouth is, that only confirms that this is theater. Why is the personalization of policy a good thing, or worth pursuing any more than any other ad hominem argument?