Guest blogging: Billy Kennedy, candidate for Congress:
After Rep. Foxx's health care town hall today, I searched the Constitution to see where it says we taxpayers are supposed to be subsidizing her personal health care insurance. I couldn't find it.
You see, Rep. Foxx says unless something is expressly written in the Constitution, then we the people have no right to want or expect it. In fact, that was the exact question I had for her today (had I been called on). I wanted to know, since she's been a politician for the last 27 years, when was the last time the taxpayers weren't paying for her insurance?
It's fine for Ms. Foxx to stand up there today and tell folks that the people need to handle their own health care costs, that the government can't do anything right (so why even try?) and that our current system is the best in the world, when she lets the government handle her health needs and expects us to hand over our hard-earned dollars not just for our health needs, but for hers too.
Our health system is indeed the greatest in the world. For her. For those of us who aren't on government programs like Medicare or Medicaid, or Tri-Care or the Federal Health Care plan, not so great.
The saddest moment of the day came when a gentleman stood up to talk about how his son had tried for seven years to get government disability due to his cystic fibrosis. This nice man choked up when he recounted how his son had died shortly after he received disability benefits he'd fought so hard for. Ms. Foxx's reply was, "Government shouldn't have been handling this."
Now I thought to myself: if government shouldn't have been handling it, just who does Rep. Foxx thinks should have? Does she honestly believe private insurance was an option? But then, I checked. Indeed, there is nothing in the Constitution about helping out people who have a disability from the coughing, fatigue, pneumonia and pain of cystic fibrosis. In fact, I couldn't find a single one of those words, so I guess, by her view, she's right.
Ms. Foxx says she is all about health care reform. She says we need to do something, and that her idea is to lower health costs by expanding Health Savings Accounts, limiting the ability of people to sue if they have been physically injured through the actions of a hospital or their doctor, and allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines.
Of course all of us know that Health Savings Accounts are mostly just an option for healthy and wealthy families, since a lot of us just don't have the money to pay into one in the first place and, even if we did, we could never be able to save enough to pay for cancer treatments out of pocket.
When someone asked how it would work if we let health care companies sell their policies across state lines since the states regulated the companies, Rep. Foxx replied that working people might not really want "all those restrictions on the health care corporations" anyhow. Of course, as a wealthy politician who's covered by a taxpayer-subsidized insurance plan regulated by the federal government, she has nothing to lose from letting the rest of us fend for ourselves in an unregulated insurance free-for-all.
As for tort reform, the Congressional Budget Office says that wouldn't reduce total U.S. health care spending by more than about 0.5 percent.
...But I'd be willing to talk that one out with Rep. Foxx -- if she'd agree to give up her government health care in return for it.
Health insurance is part of her compensation as an employee of the government, same as the military or the Post Office. She does not have it as a "right" that the rest of us don't have.
ReplyDeleteIf by some miracle you are elected you will have the same employee benefits.
This is no different than JW having health insurance as part of his retirement package from ASU.
Well, now that the health care reform bill is going to be voted on, we see some of it's true colors....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politico.com/politicopulse/
So now "Big Pharma" is in bed with you dems.
Maybe we'll find out that "Big Insurance" is on board as well.
Whodda thought?
I guess Kennedy is going to be running a negative campaign from the get-go then, eh?
ReplyDeleteMike D. I believe you mistake positive for negative.
ReplyDeleteKallous,
ReplyDeleteWhat??? Did you read it?
His blog says everything that is wrong about Foxx, and nothing that is right about himself.
This may play well on a liberal site, but it won't play well with the general public.
Mike D. Yeah, I read it again. When a candidate points out the "wrongs" of the Madam it's a positive. It's seems that a lot of the "general public" is coming around to the idea that governmentfor <span>for the rich, by the rich</span> may not be in their best interest.
ReplyDeleteexcuse the careless typo below
ReplyDeleteKennedy puts out positive messages all the time. I get them in my email box and read them on his web site. He was responding to Foxx's bullshit from yesterday and he makes a very good point. If Foxx is so opposed to government interference in private health care matters, why doesn't she put her money where her mouth is and let go of her subsidized insurance. I mean, is she a person of principle. Or not?
ReplyDeleteGuest, no one is subsidizing my insurance. Why should we subsidize Foxx's?
ReplyDeleteBut she hates the government and doesn't think it can do anything well.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a "subsidy", it is an employment benefit. It may be a gimdandy of a perk, and they have it for life.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Congressmen should not recieve ANY retirment benefits at all. They shouold serve and go home to the private sector if they want a retirement.
And by the way, NO ONE is "subsidizing" my health care either, but I DO subsidize health care for people that do not work for me, but use the gov't to force me to pay taxes for their personal benefit.
Stop whining. You get so many benefits from living in a decent society that you are not even aware of. Would you be OK with kicking the sick and deformed beggers and children out of your way as you strut down the street? That's what happens in countries with no social safety net. That safety net is there for you too, if your luck runs out and the church charity baskets aren't enough to let you survive.
ReplyDeleteIt is different because it's our tax money that goes to her health care coverage. She derives benefits from tax money that she would deny to the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's probably a paved street. Paved with other people's money.
ReplyDeleteIt's an "employment benefit" subsidized by taxpayer money, not by a private company. Congresspeople get over 70% of their health care benefits (around 73%) paid for by TAXPAYERS, not CRYSLER.
ReplyDeleteAll federal employee (congress included) have good isurance but not any better than a decent private policy. A congress person would need to serve three terms for any of the benefits become included in retirement. Their great pensions are 1% per year (1.1% after 10 years) of employment with 5 years needed to be vested. Not defending them but facts are facts.
ReplyDeleteAs to Foxx & Kennedy on health care. What part of a $1,000,000,000,000.00 do we not understand? This is not the solution. Yeah, some of the "reforms" would be desireable but this is not reform; this is another giagantic entitlement program. What is next ? Everyone is entitlled to eat. Does that mean that we should also open a federal commissary? What has happened to this country? What has happened to concepts of personal responsibility and self reliiance? These reforms are not insurance, they are a public dole, plain and simple.
ReplyDeleteYou do not by insurance to pay for your morning coffee or gasoline. You buy insurance to protect against the unpredictable. Health Insurance should be reserved for the non predictable financially damaging events of life and not for health maintenance. Most health care is no different than putting food on the table. Perhaps a solution is to REQUIRE people to provide for themselves by mandating personal health savings accounts that each would own and be reponsible to allocate for day to day health care. These could be coupled with a major medical high deductible for major health issues. For those truly unfortunate there is always room for a safety net of a combination of private and public help.
In any event maybe a case can be made to address issues of preexisting or catastrophic health events but how is it governments responsibility to provide health care to the obese, indolent, addictive, boozing irresponsible parasites posing as human beings?
I hope you are just as upset about the trillion dollars spent in the past 7 years on wars on the other side of the planet.
ReplyDeleteDennis: Health maintainence PREVENTS "damaging events of life." Obesity education and prevention PREVENTS diabetes. Diabetes is an expensive disease resulting in amputations, kidney failure & dialysis, kidney transplants, blindness and heart attacks. All now "damaging events" being treated because we failed at PREVENTION. So, you see, education is really the least expensive alternative. It is a cost-saving alternative.
ReplyDelete"For lack of a nail, a shoe was lost. For lack of a shoe, a horse was lost. For lack of a horse, a battle was lost, and for lack of a battle, a war was lost." -old proverb
Wouldn't it had been wiser to stop and put a nail in the shoe?
And YES, in our wealthy country, people are entitled to eat!
First I hear it is going to cost a trillion dollars over the next ten years. Then I hear it is going to reduce the deficit. Can someone explain this to me? My personal belief is that preventive medicine saves money in addition to lives. I just want the facts. Not propaganda.
ReplyDeleteCongressional Budget Office (as independant an office as we can get) estimates a $13 billion savings.
ReplyDeleteThirty million more people insured and 13 billion dollar savings. Sounds like a win-win to me. :-D
ReplyDelete