Comments on: The Health Care That Members of Congress Get

By: Maine is a healthcare battleground - About Town

Maine is a healthcare battleground - About Town — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:32:46 +0000

[...] time to come up to speed since she not only has a taxpayer-subsidized health-insurance plan, but access to free care at our nation's top government hospitals.) So here we are, getting a bit of what I think [...]

By: buzzorhowl

buzzorhowl — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:42:35 +0000

Hahaha how does that stack up. I don't have health care. Whatever it is, I'll take it.

By: messenia

messenia — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:35:03 +0000

So how does that stack up with what you've got?
.
I can't really tell...when it comes to insurance coverage, the devil is in the details. What are the federal co-pays for doctor visits and drugs?
.
I pay $5K/year for skimpy coverage and high co-pays. Beyond the basics, many things are not covered at all and can get very expensive. For example, I just discovered this morning that the CPAP machine recommended by my doctor will cost me $170. My government-employed friend, who has coverage through the same insurer as I do, paid $35 earlier this year for the same thing through the (there's no charge at all for seniors).
.
The current for-profit insurance model is riddled with inequities and in most cases, it's those who pay their own bills who pay more for less.
.
As far as I'm concerned, a single-payer system is the only rational way to go. If they can finance single-payer in Europe though employer contributions combined with government and/or individual assessments, why can't we do the same here? Why does everyone talk as though the only choice is a taxpayer funded, UK-like model?

By: thefoff

thefoff — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:06:21 +0000

Um. How does that "taxpayer subsidized care at Walter Reed and Bethesda" work exactly? I read through my Blue Cross PPO paperwork and it doesn't say anything about me being able to go a top-rated national medical center for free (would that be a public health option that Congress has that they don't want everyone else to have?). Maybe I'm missing how Congress gets the same sort of health care insurance that everyone else gets?? But I'm sure that no Congress person would ever actually choose the public health option they have over their private insurance, right?

By: The Health Care That Members of Congress Get (Time Magazine) | health

The Health Care That Members of Congress Get (Time Magazine) | health — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:40:17 +0000

[...] Go here to see the original: The Health Care That Members of Congress Get (Time Magazine) [...]

By: pirate wench (demwoman)

pirate wench (demwoman) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:24:47 +0000

Just out on th' AP:
.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j8xlwrrdMmmpRPqNM9_T-D650YDQD9913SJ01
.
"To enhance their clout, insurers, drug producers and other parts of the health industry have made over $372 million in campaign contributions to lawmakers since 2000, according to a report released Wednesday by Common Cause, the nonpartisan public interest group. Nearly half the total — $178 million — has gone to members of House and Senate committees that oversee health programs. They have also spent over $3 billion lobbying, with their annual expenditures growing yearly, the study said."
.
DUH!
.
They were gettin' ready fer this game long b'fore "we" were, an' they be ahead now 'cause o' it.
.
YARR!

By: donovong

donovong — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:26:05 +0000

Yeah, right, Congress critters are treated just like the rest of us. They get no special treatment at all (except for the best freaking hospitals in the country). They never get turned down for pre-existing conditions, huh? Horsefeathers, KT.

By: pirate wench (demwoman)

pirate wench (demwoman) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:06:41 +0000

Th' cap'n be a federal employee an' we be havin' th' FEP blue cross basic option. It be fine fer' reg'lar maintenance, bu' I've me worries regardin' wha' would 'appen should somethin' more serious occur. Me experience wi' some ongoin' problems be no so pretty. . Fer instance, BC decided tha' no matter wha' me doc recommended, they only be payin' fer follow-ups fr'm me retina detachin' (I'll be needin' 'em fer th' rest o' me life) every other year instead o' yearly. So, every other year, we be havin' an' extra several hundred dubloons out o' pocket. An' despite th' fact tha' 3 times now additional surgery were found t' be needed fr'm follow-ups in th' years I were payin fer...surgery tha' would'a been too late had we waited another year t' find th' problem, they continues t' refuse t' pay except on wha' they be decidin' be necessary. It be ri' frustratin'. We be fortunate t' be able t' afford t' pay th' off years on our own. An' this be considered a "good" plan... . Arrgh!

By: pafro

pafro — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:29:45 +0000

Can you see Blue Cross kicking Lieberman off their plan because he didn't disclose that he once went in to get treated for whiny, nasally voice? Or keeping him on the phone for 2 hours to get x-rays for a broken ankle approved? I have a feeling that Senators don't put up with any of the crap we are treated to.

By: joyousmn

joyousmn — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:06:34 +0000

opps, should read $25 for co-pays and 20% for assorted other stuff up to $3000. But even when we hit $3000 there's not 100% coverage on some things (like CT's, surgery).

Tech question: what html do I use to get paragraphs, p-tags down't seem to work...