Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... - Newsweek.com

HEADLINE HEADLINE HEADLINE

SPONSORED BY
Full Post
Posted Thursday, September 10, 2009 4:00 PM

Joe Wilson: Healthcare Hypocrite

Newsweek

crossposted from The Gaggle

By Adam Weinstein

Poor Joe Wilson. The conservative Republican representative from South Carolina stepped in it Wednesday night when he broke with centuries of decorum by screaming, "You lie!" at President Obama during his health-care speech to a joint session of Congress.

Advertisement

Cut the man some slack. He's passionate! I know this because he told me, in the sole message that blazes across his campaign Web site: JOE WILSON IS PASSIONATE ABOUT STOPPING GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE!

Except that he's not—at least not when it comes to his, and his family's, government-run health care. As a retired Army National Guard colonel, Wilson gets a lot of benefits (one of which, apparently, was not a full appreciation of the customs, traditions, and courtesies that mandate respect for one's commander in chief). And with four sons in the armed services, the entire Wilson brood has enjoyed multiple generations of free military medical coverage, known as TRICARE.

Yes, it's true. As politicos and town-hall criers debate the finer points of the public option, employer mandates, coverage for undocumented immigrants, and who's more Hitler-like, they seem to miss a larger point: the United States has single-payer health care. It covers 9.5 million active-duty servicemen and women, military retirees, and their dependents—including almost a 10th of all Californians and Floridians, and nearly a quarter of a million residents of Wilson's home state.

Military beneficiaries like Wilson—who, as a retiree, is eligible for lifetime coverage—never have to worry about an eye exam, a CT scan, a prolonged labor, or an open-heart surgery. They have access not only to the military's 133,500 uniformed health professionals, but cooperating private doctors as well—whose fees are paid by the Department of Defense. It's high-quality care, too: surveys from 2007 and 2008 list TRICARE among "the best health insurer(s) in the nation" by customer satisfaction. Yet Wilson insists government-run health care is a problem.

To be fair, Wilson has been consistent in his policymaking if not his personal life: according to his last congressional opponent, Wilson voted 11 times against health care for veterans in eight years, even as he voted "aye" for the Iraq War (during the debate on the war vote, he even called one Democrat "viscerally anti-American"—several times). He voted to cut veterans' benefits—not his own—to make room for President George W. Bush's tax cuts. He repeatedly voted for budgets that slashed funding to the Veterans Administration and TRICARE. And perhaps most bizarrely, he refused—repeatedly—to approve Democratic-led initiatives that would have extended TRICARE coverage to all reservists and National Guard members, even though a disproportionate number of them have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan─and many lost access to their civilian work benefits when they did so.

There's one other notable exception to Wilson's tough-on-government record: In July, when the health-insurance debate just started heating up, he offered an amendment that would exempt TRICARE from any system of employer mandates in a health-care bill. It's not clear whether this is necessary, since most such bills in Congress keep government benefits exempt from the rules as a matter of course. But Wilson took the opportunity to make his stand.

"As a 31-year Army Guard and Reserve veteran, I know the importance of TRICARE," he said in a press release. "The number of individuals who choose to enroll in TRICARE continues to rise because TRICARE is a low cost, comprehensive health plan that is portable and available in some form world-wide." He went on to call TRICARE "world class health care," concluding on a personal note. "I am grateful to have four sons now serving in the military, and I know that their families appreciate the availability of TRICARE," he said.

What does that mean? Nothing—except that Joe Wilson was against government-run health care before he was for it. And now he's against it again. Just not when it comes to his own flesh and blood.

 Adam Weinstein, an Iraq veteran, is a freelance journalist. He is uninsured.

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: Hemioh (September 23, 2009 at 6:16 PM)

Paintthrower

I just briefly read your post.  I need more time to read it and looked over the links you sent.  There should be a flat rate for the same coverage no matter who you are or what company you work for.  That is my first thought when I read it.  

I want to read your post again and read over the links.  One of my dearest friends lost her 58 year old sister to Alzheimers disease today (yes, she had very good health insurance!) so my mind is a little tired tonight.  I will take a look tomorrow at your post.  I really am enjoying this conversation.


Posted By: paintthrower (September 23, 2009 at 10:46 AM)

hemioh...

but what kind of competition??? for example, as a small biz owner with a small number of associates (belonging to a larger group through an association with a competitive advantage of several thousand employees), on average, still costs several thousand dollars more per year per employee for the same basic insurance that workers at at&t get (and they have dental and vision plans included, ours doesn't)...shopping across state lines might save some money, but what could save a ton of money would be to become a member of that at&t group (funny how they can provide the same insurance for employees in all 50 states - obviously state lines don't get in their way)...and if we could get ibm and exxon and so on, in essence, get everyone to join one big plan, there would probably be even more savings...and yes I am aware of the dangers of creating a monopoly...bear with me...

there is already a plan out there that does all of this and more...it is the plan that the government makes available to their employees, the same plan senators and congressmen can enroll, which is described in extreme detail at:

http://www.opm.gov/insure/index.aspx (no pre-existing conditions, no waiting period or other exceptions)...

I am located in illinois, so the options available to me are found here:

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2009/states/il.asp

and if you take a look at the list for illinois, you will see there are 32 plans represented by every major health insurance company from blue shield to humana to united health care and so on...the government pays some or all premiums (depending on what an employee is eligible to receive)...and while the government pays for their employee's insurance, they are NOT an insurer, just an employer providing health care...just like me, an employer providing health care for their employees...

each employee can choose the plan he/she feels is best suited for them...CHOICE...right now my employees have no choice, they get what works best for me...

and while I'm sure it looks as though I am promoting a government PAID and RUN program, neither is true...I want to be able to join their group so I can offer the same plans to my workers and get the best group rates available for my employees...in the end I will save money that can be used to make my company more competitive...

now where I may differ from some, is that I believe everyone should have health insurance...the employer run system is clumsy at best, it costs me a great deal not only to pay for it but to administer it...but I believe if I want to be in business and reap the potential rewards associated therein, the least I can do is invest in the best possible health insurance and provide it to the workers that will help make my business successful...

right now the people that do not have health insurance fall into three main categories...people out of work, people employed without insurance coverage from their employer or people who do not qualify for medicaid, medicare or chips...remember, people over 65 get medicare, people on welfare get medicaid, children can get chips (if their parents can't provide them with insurance)...and somehow that number gets to 45,000,000...people that are out of work currently = almost 15,000,000, should get health care with their unemployment benefits...that leaves 30,000,000 that either work without insurance or do not qualify for social services, half of those 15,000,000 are uninsured workers, 3,500,000 are self employed leaving approx 11,500,000 that fall through the cracks...(finding good numbers here was difficult, some put the left-overs as few as 7,000,000 but I went with the higher number)...

personally I think all workers should be covered (my view is that if you want to be in business you are going to have costs of doing business; I have liability insurance, property taxes, license fees, accounting fees and dozens of other costs that have absolutely nothing to do with performing the actual service I provide)...that leaves those pesky 11.5 million (out of a population of almost 305 million) to continue abusing the emergency room option until we figure it is cheaper to do something, almost anything else...


Posted By: Hemioh (September 22, 2009 at 7:17 AM)

PAINTTHROWER

We definitely agree on some of the problems with our health care system.  You have listed some below.  Where I think we part ways is in how to correct those things.  

We need competition in the insurance field.  But, government-provided health care isn't a competitor; it's a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer. Consumers may be able to "choose" whether they take the service -- at least at first -- but every single one of us will be forced to buy it, under penalty of prison for tax evasion, or non payment of government fines. It's like a new cable plan with a "yes" box, but no "no" box.  

We do need to open up competition by allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines.  This is currently not allowed because of government restraints.

This issue for me is tricky, and I don’t claim to have all the answers; but what I do know is that it is 100% out of line to force hardworking American citizens to foot the bill for universal coverage via some sort of “public plan."   Not only are you taxing "to death" the more fortunate int his nation, but you are talking about a system that has proven in numerous industrialized nations to provide a much lower quality of health care.

I would really like to hear some suggestions from you and others on how we can overcome some of the issues with health insurance in this nation without a nationalized health care plan.