Socialized Medicine is Good Enough for Congress
Attending Physician of the United States Congress, Brian Monahan
This sure is a nice perk congress has granted itself:
Formally called the Office of the Attending Physician, the clinic — and at least six satellite offices — bills its mission as one of emergency preparedness and public health. Each day, it stands ready to handle medical emergencies, biological attacks and the occasional fainting tourist visiting Capitol Hill.
Officially, the office acknowledges these types of services, including providing physicals to Capitol police officers and offering flu shots to congressional staffers. But what is rarely discussed outside the halls of Congress is the office’s other role — providing a wealth of primary care medical services to senators, representatives and Supreme Court justices.
What’s noteworthy here isn’t just the existence of the perk, it’s the specific form. Congress could have voted itself higher salaries. Or better travel benefits. Or larger appropriations so the congressional cafeterias can serve better food. But or just more generous health insurance. But what they wanted here was socialized medicine—health care that’s not only financed by the state but directly provided by government employees. This kind of state-provided health care is basically universal in the UK, it accounts for an important chunk of the health care in Sweden, and it’s what we give to our veterans in the United States. But most members of congress claim regard it as a horrifying prospect. And yet in practice they appear to like it just fine
39 Responses to “Socialized Medicine is Good Enough for Congress”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Maybe the Democrats should quietly propose a bill to eliminate this perk. Have a low key vote. Then use that vote against all the Republicans who voted to keep Gov’t run health care for themselves.
I think it would make for very effective commercials.
September 30th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Anyone conveniently choosing to go apeshit over abuse of the general welfare clause regarding health reform should also oppose this, along with thousands of other things that have existed for decades.
September 30th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
This is not socialized medicine, it is unlimited medicine. Which is great if, like your congressmen, you can force somebody else to pay for it.
Unfortunately, as a nation, we don’t have that option. If the US buys it, the taxpayers pay for it. So we can envy the ridiculous medical benefits that Congress has provided for itself, but we can’t afford to extend them to the general public.
Chalk this up as yet another way Congress gives itself a hidden raise.
September 30th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
The media are finally talking about this? Better late than never, I suppose.
September 30th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
To be clear, I think that this “perk” is pretty disgusting, I just disagree with Matt as to why congress passed it.
It’s not that they like socialized medicine (not the Republicans, anyway), it’s because this was a way to increase their total compensation without having an honest accounting of the costs, and without having to take the political hit of openly increasing their salaries.
September 30th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
It is ludicrous that Congress can vote themselves such a perk, they should be treated like everyone else. They have FEHB coverage, use it, go make an appointment, see a doctor. What they do is NOT so valuable that they need a “in-house” doctor.
September 30th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Doesn’t the American govenment already spend as much on healthcare (on a per-capita basis) as some countries with universal healthcare? So um….we can clearly afford it, but it would probably hurt the bottom line of pharmaceutical and insurance companies…and we can’t have that.
September 30th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
heedless, are you really claiming that the Republicans aren’t big socialists? This is the party of socialized losses and privatized gains. See the entirety of George W. Bush’s Presidency along with that of Reagan and the previous Bush. Hell, a better name for the party would be “Handouts to the Rich R US.”
Republicans are opposed to socialism only when it benefits someone who isn’t them.
September 30th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
PhillyGuy,
America actually spends much more per capita on healthcare than any other country . This is partially because we are a very rich country with very unhealthy living habits, and partially because most other countries have imposed price controls. We are unlikely to suddenly acquire healthy living habits, and price controls are a very bad idea, so we really can’t afford socialized medicine.
Also, pharmaceutical and insurance companies have very low profit margins, so it’s a bit of a stretch to look for scapegoats there.
September 30th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Thank goodness for those low profit margins for pharmaceutical and insurance companies. Otherwise they would have the resources to exert substantial influence on our government through lobbying and campaign contributions.
September 30th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
NaSaWA,
I specifically noted the Republican opposition to socialized medicine (accompanied by a number of Blue Dog Democrats).
September 30th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
CJ,
Do you think we will get more such rent seeking with government control of healthcare spending or less?
September 30th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
heedless, Philly Guy actually said the American government already spends more per capita on heathcare (that is, the total cost of Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, VA, and coverage for US govt. employees) than many countries that actually provide universal coverage. I also heard something similar, though I don’t recall where.
September 30th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Hmm…
Well, that will teach me to read more carefully. At least I turned down the snark before I hit submit.
And I’m pretty sure he’s right. I think we sepnd about 2x what Canada does on healthcare, and 1/2 of that is government spending.
September 30th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
There’s actually a handy table on the WHO website that breaks down all sorts of health-related expenditures on a per-capita basis. Too lazy to link, but it’s quite eye-opening. And yes, I am talking specifically government expenditures.
Heedless, I’d like to see your source for claiming that pharma has low profit margins, because that’s patently untrue. As far as insurance companiess, quick google search shows there’s some truth to that, but it also shows that they have huge administrative costs (inefficient) compared to government run programs (yeay government efficiency).
September 30th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
You should count tax subsidies for employer-provided health-insurance as a government health expenditure as well.
I can’t find any reasonable stats on total US govt expenditures on health care, but Medicare and Medicaid alone in 2007 (according to US HHS) amounted to 431 billion and 329 billion in total expenditures respectively.
By my simple per-capita calculation (divide by 300 million) and you get per-capital spending on Medicare and Medicaid of $2,533.
By comparison, total per-capital spending on health care $2,317 (according to Kaiser Family Foundation).
Mindblowing! The US government spends more on Medicare and Medicaid alone than the UK spends providing free health care to every man, woman, and child!
September 30th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Edit fail. Obviously I meant to say:
By comparison, total per-capita spending on health care in the UK was $2,317 in 2007 . . .
September 30th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I agree with Yglesias on two points.
First, the service should be considered health insurance coverage, as should similar services provided by the DOD to 2,863,221 other Americans (according to US Census Data, 2008) who are considered “uninsured” only because the service is provided by a DOD-affiliated agency. By deducting these 2 million fully-cared-for individuals from the ranks of the “uninsured”, the public would have a much clearer picture.
Second, Congress should have instead voted itself a pay raise, subjecting it to the 27th Amendment (”No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.” Proposed Sept. 25, 1789, Ratified May 7, 1992.).
September 30th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
But most members of congress claim regard it as a horrifying prospect. And yet in practice they appear to like it just fine
Bad analysis.
This is not comparable to single-payer.
For this to be comparable to single-payer, the whole shebang of Congressional health perks would have to be paid for through taxes that were specifically only levied on the people who were eligible for the benefits.
It is very easy to set up a government -run healthcare system that provides excellent gold-plated coverage when you are only covering, what, 500-1000 people – and when there are 300 million people paying for it. This does not indicate what would work best for a system that covers 300 million people.
September 30th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
What about the costs if you extrapolate the regime some privileged civil servants get to an entire country ?
By the way, Yglesias, since you are in our beloved Europe, I am still waiting for a post about the greatness of our high taxes (25 % VAT,…).
September 30th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Wow. What a spin on the Repubs. Maybe we should also be asking why no Dems will offer up this health care that people elected to office of either party enjoy? They don’t seem to be too willing to give up their current plan for the one they want to implement for the rest of us.
October 1st, 2009 at 12:44 am
Oh, Christ in a crusty pie shell! I’m sick of this “debate”. The ruling class doesn’t want us spending tax revenue on ourselves, and demanding that the filthy rich pay their fair share of taxes, because that will cut into the ability of corporations and filthy rich individuals and families to have the wealth and power of FUCKING GODS.
October 1st, 2009 at 1:16 am
Only slightly tangentially: John McCain appears to have shut the fuck up about healthcare, given that the only time he hasn’t had recourse to government-provided care his entire life was in the Hanoi Hilton. When he opens his trap, as he’s likely to do as a bill moves to the Senate floor, he ought to be reminded of it.
By deducting these 2 million fully-cared-for individuals from the ranks of the “uninsured”, the public would have a much clearer picture.
Yes, that the military doesn’t trust its own to the private sector medical racket. Report that one back to McArdle.
October 1st, 2009 at 1:56 am
heedless, I’m saying that they have demonstrated a love for socialism. They even like socialized medicine both for themselves and for the elderly. It’s right there in the voting record.
October 1st, 2009 at 9:32 am
Sure, they like it just fine. It doesn’t take much for the government to run an efficient health service for a handful of people, most of whom share the same needs. And just because it’s paid for by the federal government, doesn’t make it “socialized” – it’s more like a corporation running its own health service for its own employess. But try extending that to a diverse population of 350 million people…
October 1st, 2009 at 9:49 am
Socialized medicine/hijacking of healthcare/communism/marxist mentality. I don’t know how anyone can be a democrat. I mean democrat moms and dads the fact that you look your kids in the face and tell them that it is okay to tax other people/thou shall not steal. I mean you are ruining your children and making them weak and dependent on others. democrats are nothing but disgusting folks.
October 1st, 2009 at 10:32 am
This kind of state-provided health care is basically universal in the UK, it accounts for an important chunk of the health care in Sweden, and it’s what we give to our veterans in the United States. But most members of congress claim regard it as a horrifying prospect. And yet in practice they appear to like it just fine…
Yes, but that’s totally different. Very few darkies are getting this service, and no illegal immigrants.
If only America were white like me, we could *have* single-payer!
October 1st, 2009 at 10:37 am
[...] Socialized Medicine is Good Enough for Congress – Matt Yglesias [...]
October 1st, 2009 at 10:38 am
[...] comments… What’s noteworthy here isn’t just the existence of the perk, it’s the specific form. [...]
October 1st, 2009 at 11:20 am
I’m surprised no reporter has seem to have done a study to see how many members actually use the government health program. I have been unable to find that information on the internet. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy used his own doctors and Obama as a senator and president has done the same. Sen. McCain uses the VA hospital because he was a vet and that was part of his pay package.
October 1st, 2009 at 11:47 am
Sure, they have “socialized” medicine, but it IS NOT the same as the plan in Congress.
I doubt you would find one, single member of Congress that would opt out of their plan and into the proposed government option. Not one. Until that day happens, do not be fooled!
October 1st, 2009 at 12:57 pm
The “Powers That Be” Care not for the middle class (what’s left of it) and the working poor(an ever increasing segment of our population). The greed displayed by our legislators is immoral. If the Democratic majority lets a few Republicans control this debate, then there will be no change in the status quo of overpriced insurance coverage.
Yes, the Republicans chant the mantra of smaller government. But as evidenced by the past administration they believe that the smaller government gets the more power is vested into the wrong hands.
October 1st, 2009 at 1:41 pm
From the article on the ABC website: “Kagen said he believed the office was no different than the on-site medical clinics at major corporations. “It’s kind of like being at a very large employer, where you have an on-site nurse or an on-site doctor, an on-site capability to get your immunizations or your blood pressure checked.”
His comparison is ridiculous and wrong!
I work for a large organization such as Kagen mentioned. In fact we are a major Medical Center. Yes, we have health services that can be used by employees, but we can’t just walk in. We have to call for an appointment, sometimes wait days. We also have to use our insurance. If we have an emergency, we go to the emergency room and are treated just like anyone off the street. There are no perks. We wait, we pay, we use insurance. It is nothing like the services described for the Congress.
October 1st, 2009 at 1:45 pm
[...] secret through all this contentious debate about what Americans deserve for their healthcare. Via Matt, look at what they’ve provided themselves, their very own socialized medicine. Formally [...]
October 1st, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I recently read that the Healthcare industry has increased profits by 400% since the year 2000. Hardly seems like a low profit margin.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:49 pm
[...] secret through all this contentious debate about what Americans deserve for their healthcare. Via Matt, look at what they’ve provided themselves, their very own socialized medicine.Formally called [...]
October 1st, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Where’s the list of congress critters who pay? And yet even worse, those who don’t pay?
October 1st, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Chuck Grassley’s office told me this morning that this is all a lie. There is no such facility. Hahahahahaha.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:13 am
From what I’ve seen of congress the medical staff there must be for administering the latest and greatest anti-depressant or other mind altering drugs because most of them appear to be in some kind of daze. And what is a blue dog democrat? These are blue dog republicans or rats. Any member who seeds his/her vote to the opposition party which has put this country and much of the world into the toilet is a dog gone rat! Maybe the reason health care looks so expensive is the high cost of going overseas to kill people. After all our military budget is larger than the rest of the worlds military budget combined! Or maybe it’s because of the $70 billion dollars we spent on “intelligence”. You know, the kind that lead to 9/11! And of course health care reform wouldn’t leave enough for us to spy on your average Americans private phone calls or library cards. And health care reform might not allow all the pork for republicans project. And where would that leave the big corporations which enjoy enormous federal subsidies. And just think about all the lobbyists who would be without a job. Why should the government take the taxes they collect and spend it on the people they collected it from? If people don’t like socialism as they claim how come they buy so much crap from China? That’s what republicans want is a workforce like the Chinese have.