Joe Walsh To Reject Federal Health Insurance

[ChiTownVenture]

Incoming GOP Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois has decided to put his money where his mouth is and turn down the federally funded health insurance package provided to members of Congress.

While in office, the Tea Party-backed, anti-health care reform Walsh will be under pressure to prove his commitment to fiscal restraint. The Chicago News Cooperative spells out how he intends to do it.

Mr. Walsh, 48, will get about $1.4 million annually to run his operation and plans as many as three district branches. He'll sleep in his office in Washington, while his family stays here in McHenry. And get this: he's turned down the usual congressional health care, pension and retirement packages.

"I don't think congressmen should get pensions or cushy health care plans," he said. His wife is not exhilarated with the latter decision; she has a pre-existing medical condition and is now forced to hunt for a plan.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/27/joe-walsh-health-insurance_n_801490.html

Should all congressmen who oppose HealthCare reform turn down their congressional health care and seek out private individual insurance plans?

[ChiTownVenture]

Walsh said he didn’t want to "burden" Americans with his health bills, and he will purchase insurance on the individual market.

“My wife and I now are going to have to go through the struggles that a lot of Americans go through, trying to find insurance in the individual market and having to deal with problems of preexisting conditions,” he said on CNN.

Over the past few months, the liberal advocacy group Americans United for Change launched a campaign to pressure incoming GOP members to drop health coverage available to them through Congress. The group criticized incoming Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), who announced he would drop congressional health coverage, for keeping his military health plan.

Liberals pounced on Rep.-elect Andy Harris in November after the Maryland Republican questioned why it took a month to start receiving congressional health benefits. Healthcare reform supporters called him a hypocrite for demanding government insurance benefits, but Harris said he was pointing out the inefficiency of government-run healthcare.

Walsh refused to criticize other Republicans who are keeping their congressional health insurance.

"This is my decision," he said. "I believe there are a couple other freshmen that feel the same way. I just feel we were sent – I feel I was sent to Washington to be something different."

thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/135859-incoming-gop-rep-predicts-struggle-after-rejecting-health-coverage

[rockon]

This is an individual decision and hopefully is an indicator that he is serious about his elected position and responsibility to the American taxpayer. Now work to get others to support reasonable restraints on these obscene perks and benefits that the tax payers do not get.

[mudflap81]

It's certainly his decision, but I wouldn't blame anyone who joins the program. These days we consider the Federal Legislature to be full time jobs, so I can't blame someone who takes a full time job and then accepts the benefits offered.

To me, a much bigger sign that they're serious would be to A) take an immediate 10% pay reduction for 2011, B) no raise in 2012, C) find ways to cut the health care program (higher co-pays, etc), D) find ways to cut the pensions.

EDIT: I saw poor grammar.

[billisonboard]

At least now he will be able to get coverage for his wife who has the pre-existing condition thanks to the health care bill.

[Deleted]

The pay & benefits that Congress gets are outrageous. Maybe they wouldn't be if we (the people) could be sure that: 1. Congress's votes couldn't be influenced by companies offering them jobs after they leave Congress (almost all of them do go into high paying jobs after they leave & so you have to wonder). 2. Congress was making rational decisions based on what's good for the country rather than what's good for special interest groups & the area of the state they are from. (which they don't do).
Congress NEEDS to change they way they do business & I doubt that more than a handful of Congressmen will do that. Being elected to Congress has turned out to be much the same thing as winning the lottery in that you can be "set" for life. Just Sad.

[billisonboard]

I hope that there is continuing quality coverage of the Walsh insurance saga.

I have no doubt that there is a health insurance company out there willing to give him a good deal.

[billisonboard]

Does anyone have any information on what, if any, health insurance coverage Walsh has had in the past?

[mudflap81]

Being elected to Congress has turned out to be much the same thing as winning the lottery in that you can be "set" for life. Just Sad.

I bet they have a much smaller chance of going bankrupt than lotto winners. It also takes time to get all the benefits. One term in the house doesn't get you the full pension.

[mudflap81]

At least now he will be able to get coverage for his wife who has the pre-existing condition thanks to the health care bill.

Pre-existing coverage on health insurance is like auto insurance paying for the dents in the car you just bought.

On the other hand, if health insurance companies could charge appropriately for the increased risk they're exposed to you'd see voluntary pre-existing coverage from every company within 12 months.

[ChiTownVenture]

BTW - The way I understand the original article,

Most of the articles regarding Joe Walsh and his rejection of Health Coverage in the Media center around the Health Care Reform Bill. He is quoted making the statement that he feels that it is a conflict of interests to oppose the Reform Bill and accept the Federal Health Plan.

I posted the first article because I liked the fact that it also stated that he is planning to sleep in his office in Washington DC. A nice little extra.

[deziloooooo]

He's not impressing me with his choice..and since his wife has a condition , to me it is a weird decision.
Unlike most here, I do not begrudge the pay of elected Representatives.
I believe most of them are quite capable, able to do well in the private sector and most would do better financially or have done better.
What I am looking for , and will not receive it, are open minded legislatures who are there to do a job and make the life of the average citizen better and if that means working with colleges from both sides of the aisle and be willing to work in a Bi Partisan way, to compromise and solve our problems, there is not much more that I could ask.
That is not going to happen, I know that, but I don't begrudge their renumeration. The hours are long, responsibilities for those who are really working their jobs also large.
Martyr act such as that mentioned above don't impress me.... Feel your over paid, donate a big chunk back to the government or give more to charities..and even that is a personal choice.

[billisonboard]

"Pre-existing coverage on health insurance is like auto insurance paying for the dents in the car you just bought."

I think it is more like your insurance company refusing to pay for dents you have in your car now because a different company paid to fix dents you had in your car last year.

[ChiTownVenture]

More news from the House

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House of Representatives approved a rules package on Wednesday, the first day of business for the 112th Congress, that will dictate the way the legislature operates this year and reflects a shift to Republican control of the lower chamber. The bill passed on a party-line vote, with 240 Republicans in favor and 191 Democrats against.

One measure that didn't make it into the rules package was a proposal by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) that would have required all members to disclose whether they are taking advantage of their federal health insurance plan within 15 days of taking the oath of office. Crowley's measure also split on a party-line vote, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

A handful of Republicans have already said they won't be taking the federal health plan, including Reps. Sandy Adams (Fla.), Bill Johnson (Ohio), Mike Kelly (Penn.), Bobby Schilling (Ill.), Joe Walsh (Ill.) and Daniel Webster (Fla.). Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) recently said he doesn't need to use the federal plan because he's already on Medicare -- another government-run program.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/gop-disclosure-rule-government-health-care_n_805146.html

[ed1066]

Without a doubt, every member of congress who voted for Obamacare should be automatically dropped from their current taxpayer-funded plan, along with their dependents, and put on the new government plan. Since they have told us the costs will be lower, this is a great way to save some taxpayer money. If it's good enough for us, it should be good enough for them...

[Deleted]

I agree with Ed. If they voted for it, they should have it. Good enough for the masses, good enough for the people supposed to represent the masses.

[zipity]

To me, a much bigger sign that they're serious would be to A) take an immediate 10% pay reduction for 2011, B) no raise in 2012, C) find ways to cut the health care program (higher co-pays, etc), D) find ways to cut the pensions.

Personally I would prefer to see republicans refuse to add anything to the national debt instead of focusing on these theatrics. I don't mind paying for their health insurance or their vacations. I do mind the exemptions they have put in place to their own campaign promises. Want tax cuts, cut spending first to offset the revenue reduction. Want to repeal ObamaCare, cut spending to offset the increased costs. They promise to role back spending to pre-Obama levels then cut their office budgets by 5% when those budgets have risen by 14% in the last 2 years. If this was anything BUT business as usual the pubs would be paying a lot more attention to the recommendations made by Obama's debt commission.

[ugonow]

"Pre-existing coverage on health insurance is like auto insurance paying for the dents in the car you just bought."

I think it is more like your insurance company refusing to pay for dents you have in your car now because a different company paid to fix dents you had in your car last year.

While I am opposed to Obama care,I don't think this is a fair comparison. Cars do not contract diseases that cause chronic dents.I personaly feel someone that has been treated for cancer or any chronic illness in the past should not be denied coverage for that reason. That is worse than Obama's death panels.

[ChiTownVenture]

Without a doubt, every member of congress who voted for Obamacare should be automatically dropped from their current taxpayer-funded plan, along with their dependents, and put on the new government plan. Since they have told us the costs will be lower, this is a great way to save some taxpayer money. If it's good enough for us, it should be good enough for them...

I agree with Ed. If they voted for it, they should have it.

At least they are not being hypocritical by saying that the government isn't able to provide quality insurance and then turn around and accept their government issued policy.

Besides they are doing exactly what they said everyone in the US would be able to do, Decide. Decide if they want to keep their current plan, choose from a private industry plan or go with a government plan. A majority are on Blue Cross/Blue Shield, plans like these are available to non-government companies and individuals.

The only added benefit that I can see that Congress member's get that can't be given to the general public is;

Lawmakers also get special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities and, for a few hundred dollars a month, access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers.

It's a perk that comes with their job, and they have to pay something for it.

articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/02/nation/na-congress-benefits2

[ugonow]

Besides they are doing exactly what they said everyone in the US would be able to do, Decide. Decide if they want to keep their current plan, choose from a private industry plan or go with a government plan. A majority are on Blue Cross/Blue Shield, plans like these are available to non-government companies and individuals.

I believe they are even offered the services of federaly owned facilities and government employed providers,much as the VA is run.

[floridayankee]

Jan 7, 2011 8:08:41 GMT -5 zipity said:

Want tax cuts, cut spending first to offset the revenue reduction. Want to repeal ObamaCare, cut spending to offset the increased costs. They promise to role back spending to pre-Obama levels then cut their office budgets by 5% when those budgets have risen by 14% in the last 2 years.

Well, it's a new year and anything can happen...even the occasional agreement with zipity.

Solving the debt problem is going to mean losing funding on projects that someone, somewhere feels is important. It's going to cause "pain" somewhere. The problem is, whether you're talking dems or repubs in DC, not a damned one of them is willing to cut spending on their own pet projects.

[deziloooooo]

Jan 7, 2011 12:11:25 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Jan 7, 2011 8:08:41 GMT -5 zipity said:

Want tax cuts, cut spending first to offset the revenue reduction. Want to repeal ObamaCare, cut spending to offset the increased costs. They promise to role back spending to pre-Obama levels then cut their office budgets by 5% when those budgets have risen by 14% in the last 2 years.

Well, it's a new year and anything can happen...even the occasional agreement with zipity.

Solving the debt problem is going to mean losing funding on projects that someone, somewhere feels is important. It's going to cause "pain" somewhere. The problem is, whether you're talking dems or repubs in DC, not a damned one of them is willing to cut spending on their own pet projects.

, there you got it right...there will be pain, but there usually is , even when given drugs to mask it after a operation, and in this case, there is going to have to be some major surgery to solve these problems and in some cases , the drugs to mask the pain jusr won't be enough to mask all the discomfort.
The positive is, once the pain is over, the surgery is done, hopefully, then with rehbilitaion and a healthier life style, full recovery can begin.
{you got a Karma on that one kid}

[zipity]

Jan 7, 2011 12:11:25 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Well, it's a new year and anything can happen...even the occasional agreement with zipity.

I guess I could be wrong.

[mudflap81]

Personally I would prefer to see republicans refuse to add anything to the national debt instead of focusing on these theatrics. I don't mind paying for their health insurance or their vacations. I do mind the exemptions they have put in place to their own campaign promises. Want tax cuts, cut spending first to offset the revenue reduction. Want to repeal ObamaCare, cut spending to offset the increased costs. They promise to role back spending to pre-Obama levels then cut their office budgets by 5% when those budgets have risen by 14% in the last 2 years. If this was anything BUT business as usual the pubs would be paying a lot more attention to the recommendations made by Obama's debt commission.

If they did this and stopped, it would be theatrics. But if they're serious about freezing federal pay, they need to start with themselves or they'll lose all their credibility. On the benefits side, we've been dealing with a few years of reduced benefits and pay so companies can cut expenses and stay in business and it does man a lot if government does the same thing. I also don't buy the "it's so small, it's a round error" argument. A few hundred million saved on this, a couple billion saved on that, and things add up.

So I kind of agree with you in a sense that if this is just theatrics I'll be pissed, and quite frankly the voters will remember and most of these republicans, especially the first term people will lose in primaries.

[mudflap81]

I think it is more like your insurance company refusing to pay for dents you have in your car now because a different company paid to fix dents you had in your car last year.

Why should they pay for dents that were already there?

While I am opposed to Obama care,I don't think this is a fair comparison. Cars do not contract diseases that cause chronic dents.I personaly feel someone that has been treated for cancer or any chronic illness in the past should not be denied coverage for that reason. That is worse than Obama's death panels.

You're both right, it isn't the best comparison. A better comparison might be that if car or home companies offered coverage to pay for existing damage we'd have no problem paying extra for that coverage. Or if the Federal Gov passed a law saying that they couldn't charge extra for collision, they'd either stop offering collision or charge everyone else more for everything else.

I'm personally in favor of allowing health insurers to charge based on lifestyle (make smokers, heavy drinkers, and the overweight pay more) even though it means that I'd pay more. Again, we have no problem with life insurance doing this, so why not? I also don't buy the argument that health insurers would charge more because "your great grandfather might have died of cancer, so you pay extra." We keep life insurers in check, so why wouldn't we be able to do the same with health insurers?

[deziloooooo]

"make smokers, heavy drinkers" They do that , smokers definitly, not sure on the alcohol on certain policies...disability ones, health home care and such.
Your a smoker , you pay more..and in some you , denied coverage.