Congressional Healthcare.

[Guest guest]

This is an interesting artilce from MedPage. I'm not advocating anything, just

thought it was Washington's business as usual at our expense.

I don't know how much they pay or how many don't pay and get it free.

Public Options, Welfare, and Largesse

By: Bankhead | February 02, 2010

Recently, I learned that members of Congress have their very own medical clinic.

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised. Being a member of Congress is a tough

job, filled with stress and posturing and righteous indignation. I know that if

I had to decide whether to spend tax money on a Bridge to Nowhere or a pet

airport that has flights to nowhere, I would probably need an aspirin afterward.

The Office of the Attending Physician (OAP) provides low-cost (read: free)

healthcare services to members of Congress, congressional staffers, jurists on

the Supreme Court, and the occasional tourist who faints during a walk-through.

If President Obama showed up one day in need of medical attention, he probably

wouldn't be turned away.

In theory, legislators who want to take advantage of the healthcare services

(rumored to be the best that money can buy) pay an annual fee. I say " in

theory, " because our friends at ABC News learned that freeloaders occasionally

show up and, like dues-paying members, get the same level of care, provided by

Navy physicians. When necessary, specialists are brought in free of charge.

I was thinking about the OAP within the context of the ongoing debate in

Congress about healthcare reform. Without question, the most contentious issue

has been the so-called " public option, " which appears dead for the time being.

Do you think members of Congress consider the OAP a " public option? " After all,

the OAP is funded by taxes, almost $4 million a year. I wonder whether any

members of Congress who oppose a public option ever go to the OAP. Wouldn't it

be funny if some Senators and Representatives thought they should have a public

option but not the rest of us? Maybe funny isn't the right word.

A candidate for governor in South Carolina recently made headlines by comparing

recipients of public assistance to " stray animals. " Harkening to his

grandmother's advice not to feed stray animals, the candidate was quoted as

saying, " You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating a problem if you

give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially

ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do

is you've got to curtail that kind of behavior, because they don't know any

better. "

Do you think the candidate would include members of Congress among the " stray

animals? " After all, they're getting top-notch healthcare for free or at a

greatly reduced price. How is that different from any other form of public

assistance?

See where I'm going with this? I didn't think so. Keep reading.

(To digress for a moment: Lest you think the South Carolina gubernatorial

candidate is some off-the-wall blowhard with a snowball's chance of winning the

election, consider that he currently occupies the office of lieutenant

governor.)

My thinking finally came full circle, and I see a point on the horizon. If poor

people get something for free, it's called welfare. On the other hand, if you

can afford something but you still get it for free, it's not welfare. What is

it? Largesse?

Maybe some of you have a better term for it. I'm fresh out.