No Health Care for Appointees?
By Tom Shoop | Monday, September 17, 2007 | 03:00 PM
By Tom Shoop | Monday, September 17, 2007 | 03:00 PM
On a day when Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was trying to draw attention to her proposal for universal health care, one of her rivals, John Edwards sought to one-up her with an out-of the-box proposal of his own. According to the Edwards campaign, at a speech before the Laborers Leadership Convention in Chicago, Edwards said:
On the first day of my administration, I will submit legislation that ends health care coverage for the president, all members of Congress, and all senior political appointees in both branches of government on July 20th, 2009 -- unless we have passed universal health care reform.
There's already some chatter in the blogosphere about the possibly dubious constitutionality of this idea, at least as it applies to members of Congress. (The 27th Amendment says, "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.")
"Senior political appointees," though, could be out of luck. But maybe Schedule Cs will get to keep their coverage.
Update: By the way, it's worth noting the first item in Clinton's plan unveiled today:
Americans can keep their existing coverage or access the same menu of quality private insurance options that their Members of Congress receive through a new Health Choices Menu, established without any new bureaucracy as part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare.
Comments
People have no clue about just how expensive health insurance is. Especially our politicians and even under the FEHBP. How many average working stiffs are going to be able to cough up the fully burdened annual cost of $6,000 for individual coverage or $14,000 for family coverage under the standard BC/BS plan, for instance? I foresee that many on the low income end would choose not to participate and self-insure instead, just as they are already doing so. And look out for another big porker of an entitlement if government decides to subsidize low income folks. That one will be a whopper. It would mean de facto socialized medicine and result in a rapid decline in US health care.
Johnnie Nichols | Wednesday, November 14, 2007 | 09:59 AMThe easiest way to enact national health insurance is just to eliminate the age requirement (65) from Medicare and cover everyone. I agree with Edwards about scrapping coverage for Congress et al. We taxpayers pay for cadillac coverage for Congress and Medicaid recipients, while doing with less health coverage ourselves--or none at all.
It will never pass, unfortunately.
However it would make them think a bit more to rewamp the health care for the rest of the country.
Saying you'll submit legislation is easy but meaningless...when there is absolutely no chance that those who would have to enact it will take it seriously...
GSH | Tuesday, September 18, 2007 | 09:34 AMHillary's plan is intersting!
1) Where does the no cost "system" (i.e bureaucracy, payment of premiums, etc.) come from for all the non-feds to sign up with?
2) How do the various plans feel about all these new participants (are they ready) and will the rates go up because of the different pool of insured?
3) Will the non-feds pay the whole premium? The answer is yes if there is any chance of this being a no/low cost proposal. But at full premiums, there won't be all that many takers.
Henry | Tuesday, September 18, 2007 | 08:10 AMThe House nor the Senate would never pass the BILL. I bet it would be voted down 100%
JAJ | Monday, September 17, 2007 | 06:06 PMI've listened to everyone of the Democratic candidates not 1 work about trail lawyers and capping any judgements. All I hear talk is about the nasty pham's and greedy HMO's.
Edwards made is fortune on bogus claims and has yet to apologize.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor Tom Shoop takes a look at news and events affecting the federal bureaucracy, from the perspective of a longtime observer of government.
feedARCHIVES
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
CATEGORIES
- Comings and Goings
- Congress
- Defense
- Factoid of the Day
- Fedblog
- General News
- Government Operations
- Headline of the Day
- Homeland Security
- Intelligence
- Management
- Oversight
- Pay and Benefits
- Photo of the Day
- Political Appointees
- Press Release of the Day
- Procurement
- Quote of the Day
- The White House
- The Workforce
- The Workplace