GOP Congressman has a little heath care secret

My congressman, Pete Olson, the one used a kids heart problems for political gain that was covered by Keith Olberman, has a secret of his own:

He too has a heart condition and he has government provided health care.

http://bayareahouston.blogspot.com/2009/09/republican-congressman-pete-olsons.html
You would think, after defending the private sector health insurance while standing behind an 8 year old poster child for health care reform, Congressman Olson would be running to the nearest private sector company to jump on the gravy train of low rates and excellent health care provided by these fine Christian establishments. But instead he has something better: Government provided health care. For his entire adult life, Olson has had government provided health care, with the Navy, as a federal employee, and now as a Congressman.

He's a repuke, of course IOKIYAR

Employee pays some, employer (who happens to be the government) pays some. Fed employee INSURANCE coverage even varies depending on which state fed employees live in. The (government) employer contracts PRIVATE INSURANCE companies for the individual INSURANCE GROUP POLICY covering fed employees in each state.

The only real difference between the 'government paid health-care' (which is group INSURANCE for fed workers) and many other group INSURANCE policies that other employers provide and help workers pay for is: Fed employees cannot have INSURANCE company deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.

I will admit, that is a nice thing, that rule that INSURANCE companies can't get creative about pre-existing conditions being a grounds to deny claims/coverage. But fed employees pay for part of their group INSURANCE and have to jump through the INSURANCE company hoops just like anyone else who is fortunate enough to be covered by health INSURANCE.

Yes, the government (taxpayers) pay a big chunk of the premiums, but federal works, in general, get paid less than what they would make doing same in private sector. ANY employer who provides funds toward group INSURANCE does that as part of the compensation they pay their employees.

It is disingenuous to go about calling INSURANCE coverage for federal employees "government provided health care". It is disingenuous to the point of being propaganda, teetering on being an outright lie.

Frankly, it is very disturbing that this propaganda keeps getting posted here at DU. One would hope DUers would be more honest about the facts of a particular matter. This crap meme that fed employees get 'government provided health care' is the same crap the RW shouts, again without getting the facts right.

cannot be denied because of pre-existing conditions, and if they pay only a part of their share of the insurance premiums, that is in effect "government-provided health care" or so close to it that the distinction is an artificial construct, and is not worth making.

The main difference is the extra expense to the government of paying the cost of Insurance executives and roomfuls of people on phones denying claims to people who have paid their INSURANCE premiums in good faith, expecting to have health care costs covered in return.

Since it is a cost of doing business to private employers, they get to deduct that cost from their gross before taxes. Sooooo us tax payers ultimately end up subsidizing ALL employer insurance benefits, taken to the final equation.

In other words: :rofl: at those who want to call PRIVATE INSURANCE GROUP POLICIES offered (at some cost to employees, like other group policies) to federal employees as part of the compensation they receive for their work.

Pushing the argument to the extreme of calling an employment benefit 'government health care' is helping the RW push propaganda in the discussion. You like doin' Limbaugh's, Beck's, Coulter's work for them? Nice. Real nice. NOT