Md Congressman Harris - Against Government Insureance, Unless it is for Him

[Anonymous]

From the Baltimore Sun:

According to an account from a Capitol Hill staffer in Politico, newly elected Maryland congressman Andy Harris -- who ran on an anti-health care reform platform -- wanted to know why it was taking so long for him to get his government-subsidized health care.

He demanded to know during freshman orientation why his government health care wouldn't kick in for a month, according to the account. It starts in February, a month after he's sworn in, something he says is unusual and, according to one of his staffers, inefficient.

He ousted the Eastern Shore Democrat Frank Kratovil even though he voted against the health care reform package. Harris wants to repeal the law.

The staffer said Harris asked if he could buy insurance from the government to cover the month-long gap, and Politico said the aide "was struck by the similarity to Harris’s request and the public option he denounced as a gateway to socialized medicine."

So, is this a non-issue for a congressman entitled to insurance coverage from the government because he'll be working for the government? Or is Harris demanding generous health care benefits that he doesn't think other American's (employed or not) should enjoy?

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/health/2010/11/andy_harris_cant_wait_for_gove.html

[Anonymous]

If he had strong ethics and was vehemently against government subsidized health care, he would have forgone the federal coverage.

[Anonymous]

I am a supporter of health care reform. But I think that this is really a an issue of an employer and an employer-sponsored health plan. This is more like going to work at IBM and finding out that the health care did not kick in for a month. It's just that in this case the employer is Uncle Sam. He wasn't looking for government health care when he was unelected.

[Anonymous]

00:11 here. But if you are vehemently against tax-supported health care, why take the federal coverage? He's a realitively wealthy man. Also, I would be curious to know if he took the State of Maryland health care coverage while a State Senator or took his Hopkins Hospital coverage instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:00:11 here. But if you are vehemently against tax-supported health care, why take the federal coverage? He's a realitively wealthy man. Also, I would be curious to know if he took the State of Maryland health care coverage while a State Senator or took his Hopkins Hospital coverage instead.

Well it's not really federal coverage. It's employer-sponsored coverage. Individual health insurance is not only costly. It has many restrictions which make it inferior, which is why even wealthy people generally take their employer-sponsored health plan.

Saying it's tax supported, when he is a federal employee, doesn't make sense. His whole job is tax supported. It's supposed to be.