Members of the United States Congress currently have better healthcare coverage than the average American Citizen (illegals excluded). They should have to pay for their healthcare coverage and stop getting “Cadillac” healthcare plans while the average American must pay for “Used Yugo” healthcare coverage.
176 Likes
YES!
Watch how fast the National helthcare system would get fixed.
51 Likes
Agree 100%
22 Likes
Also consider the following:
and
and
and
8 Likes
Yes! Ssi scaling and none of this while salary forever stuff. Plus term limits, congress should not operate as a assisted care facility
13 Likes
Policy Proposal: Replacing Existing Medical Benefits for Members of Congress and Their Staff
Overview
This policy proposal evaluates the potential benefits and drawbacks of replacing the current healthcare benefits for Members of Congress and their staff with either Medicare or medical care through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in their home states.
Pro and Con Analysis
Option 1: Medicare
Pros
-
Universal Coverage: Medicare provides a standardized healthcare option that is widely recognized and accepted, potentially simplifying the healthcare process for Congress members and their staff.
-
Cost-Effectiveness: Medicare has lower administrative costs compared to private insurance, which could lead to savings in taxpayer money.
-
Access to a Broad Network: Members would have access to a large network of providers, enhancing their choices for medical care.
-
Public Accountability: Utilizing Medicare would align Congress with the healthcare system that most Americans use, promoting empathy towards constituents facing similar challenges.
-
Simplified Enrollment: Medicare has established processes for enrollment and care management, reducing administrative burdens.
Cons
-
Potential Overload: Shifting more beneficiaries to Medicare may increase demand on the system, potentially leading to longer wait times for care.
-
Political Resistance: Some members might oppose this change, viewing it as a reduction in their benefits or as politically motivated.
-
Coverage Gaps: Certain services may not be covered under Medicare, which could limit options for specialized care.
-
Transition Challenges: Moving existing Congressional staff to Medicare could be complicated, requiring adjustments to existing systems and processes.
Option 2: VA Medical Care
Pros
-
Dedicated Services: VA facilities often provide specialized care for veterans, which can be beneficial for Congress members who may have service-related health issues.
-
Cost-Effective for Veterans: VA care is typically funded through government appropriations, which can minimize costs for members.
-
Improved Access for Veterans: If Congress members utilize VA services, it may highlight the needs of veterans and advocate for better resources and reforms within the VA system.
-
Local Care: Members could receive care in their home states, potentially improving their access to healthcare services without needing to travel.
Cons
-
Quality of Care Variability: The quality of care at VA facilities can vary significantly, which may lead to concerns about whether members are receiving the best treatment.
-
Bureaucratic Challenges: VA systems are often criticized for inefficiencies and long wait times, which could frustrate members accustomed to quicker access to care.
-
Political Backlash: Using VA services could be seen as a political statement, potentially alienating constituents who have had negative experiences with the VA.
-
Limited Scope: VA care is primarily focused on veterans, which may not address the broader healthcare needs of Congress members and their families.
Conclusion
The decision to replace existing medical benefits for Members of Congress and their staff with either Medicare or VA medical care presents both advantages and challenges. Policymakers must weigh the potential for cost savings and improved empathy through shared healthcare experiences against the risks of increased demand on the systems and variations in care quality. Engaging in a thorough discussion with stakeholders, including healthcare experts and constituents, will be crucial in determining the best path forward.
2 Likes
These should be their own policies.
1 Like
I don’t agree with replacing their insurance with Medicare or VA care. Both of those need to be changed for citizens on Medicare or VA care. Neither one is sufficient for anyone. Medicare pays less than cost to Providers. Doesn’t even cover the electric. VA care varies depending which center but is known to have several issues that negatively impact Veterans. It would be better to address those issues.
3 Likes
The benefits of Congress go way beyond what they deserve.
7 Likes
Yeah, how about we make their pay commensurate with the average teachers salary as well. I’m sure there’ll be some change there. Let’s see how far education turns around then.
6 Likes
Yes! 100%
2 Likes
With the implementation of PL 111-148, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, changed available health care options for members of Congress and certain staff from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB) to health plans offered through health care exchanges established by the act. It also eliminated the $3000 tax deduction for living expenses for members of Congress.
They can just afford to purchase a better plan through the marketplace with salaries averaging $193,000 year.
Maybe if they can only access plans available in the most rural communities in their district, maybe things might change? Or if we start paying our Representatives 125% of poverty?
Eliminate all salaries until social security is repaired?
5 Likes
And no member of Congress should be permitted to receive care at any military facility, e.g. Walter Reed or Bethesda, unless they qualify as a current or former member of a military service.
9 Likes
Id add to that must abide by laws they pass. Obomacare was big example. They pushed it on everyone while not being on it themselves.
6 Likes
Members should be limited to max salary of average income of THEIR constituates. For example if you represent an area where average salary is 80k then their salary should not be higher than 80k at max. You’ll find they will work on their areas better. Their pay raises should also be voted on by their represented area. Not just a vote from themselves.
7 Likes
I found it interesting the number of times pay raises have been proposed and not approved.
I’m mostly looking at median household income. If they represent an area where the median household income is 60k for example. Do you think it’s right the congress seat is getting 120k? I don’t see that as right at all. Limiting it to the median household income. Would make them actually focus on who they’re representing. As they would now also be financially tied to that.
But as mentioned i do think it’s ridiculous they vote on their own pay raises.
2 Likes
Plain and simple. Members of Congress should pay for their insurance as any other government employee without special considerations. Eligibility for Medicare should be as other citizens are eligible. Why should Congress have special healthcare privileges. Additionally they should pay the additional costs for Medicare as other high income earners have too.
Lastly they should have to follow insider trading regulations as private citizens do. No excuse for their exemption from these regulations.
5 Likes
No, not their constituents… their constituents who are veterans. They are members of the government, instead of using tax money, their care should be provided by the VA, since they are “serving” their country, just in a political capacity.
Agree, If that would have been the case while writing the bill, I guarantee our health care would be so much different/better
1 Like