GOP Plays Games With Health Care Disclosures

Republicans have made it clear that they plan on holding a vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, even if it is for purely symbolic measures. As part of this campaign promise was a pledge to bring even more transparency to the legislative process.

But despite this pledge for transparency, one of the first measures promulgated by the new Republican leadership was to block a proposal by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) 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. The measure failed on a strict party-line vote with Democrats supporting the measure and Republicans opposing it.

While the measure was largely symbolic by its own right, it illustrates the fundamental hypocrisy fueling the current crop of Republicans. They’ve had no issue campaigning on distortions and flat out lies concerning the new health care law and relentlessly push the these of shrinking the size of federal subsidies. Yet almost ever single one of them takes every federal benefit available to them.

So far only a handful of Republicans have decided to forego federal health insurance, though Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn) did so because he already receives federal health insurance in the form of Medicaid.

So far the battle between Republicans and Democrats has remained largely symbolic and as usual the Democrats have had only moderate success pushing the story of Republicans blocking transparency and remaining on the public subsidy.

But this is a conversation that needs to continue because it ultimately reveals a lot about the values of the current batch of Republicans. Like most their policy positions, it is not really a question of whether or not government subsidies are a good or bad thing, but rather, who deserves to receive the benefits of government largesse. Shrinking Medicaid, cutting Social Security and insisting on extending Bush era tax cuts make it clear that government handouts are just fine, so long as the handouts go straight to the top.

Read more: affordable care act, disclosure, gop, health care, politics, repeal

photo courtesy of House GOP Leader via Flickr

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

jane r.

7:54PM PST on Mar 11, 2011

It's my health and that is no concern of theirs. They only care about themselves.

send a green star

Michael C.

3:13PM PST on Feb 20, 2011

"The Repubs play games with EVERYTHING!!!

They are hypocrites and liars. Why can't their supporters SEE this?!"

Interesting thing is when members of the GOP lie, the talking heads the left decries calls them on it. Such is not the case in reverse. The left media NEVER calls out one of its own caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

As for the health benefits, they are no different than those available to anyone working in the Postal service or the reserve forces. I hear no calls for them to disclose if their are buying their health care from their employer?

Martha E.

7:48AM PST on Feb 20, 2011

The Repubs play games with EVERYTHING!!!

They are hypocrites and liars. Why can't their supporters SEE this?!

Frank S.

10:36AM PST on Jan 16, 2011

Typical conservative, Republican, hypocrites!

michael c.

2:46PM PST on Jan 15, 2011

This is news?! Pointing out the hypocrisy of the conservative party to conservatives is pointless. They'll still defend it, still be willfully oblivious. Conservatives are strictly partisan. The party of no, the ideology of "never admit being wrong". I KNOW!! I WAS a conservative (shudder). I remember the constant indoctrination. Nothing overt as brainwashing, just a subtle...culture. I remember it well (shudder).

Judith S.

7:45PM PST on Jan 12, 2011

What I am saying is that, yes, the government has too much control over our lives. Since 2000, they have created the Patriot Act, have been actively recruiting for "Homeland Security" (think about the significance of the name; who are they planning to protect?), been unsolicitedly wire-tapping our phones, setting up cameras on city streets so they can watch the people (in the name of crime reduction), setting up cameras on city streets so they can get a picture of you and mail you a ticket, interviewing people's neighbors and friends, gaining acess to people's private homes so they can set up cameras and wire-taps, putting people in jail for planning to attend a peaceful protest, actually even setting up cameras in certain jails and broadcasting the inmates personal habits on the Internet, advocating for torture, repealing Habeas Corpus, among many other atrocities. These are the powers of the government we should be protesting, not whether they are going to stop a corporation from trying to poison us for profit. Too many people buy into the ridiculous theory that protecting people from corporate greed is why there is large unemployment. The corporations will go wherever they can get the cheapest workforce so that they can show good profit for those who would make a living by investing in stocks instead of working.

Virginia B.

1:35PM PST on Jan 12, 2011

Paul B. Perhaps we should know our history better before ranting: Were you aware of "government interference" back at the end of the 19th or beginning of the 20th century, when Congress had to issue a law banning the use of arsenic to color canned vegetables? Is there a significant degree of difference between that and more tightly regulating the food sold to us today, which contains equally lethal substances??

Joanna C.

11:02AM PST on Jan 12, 2011

After posting the proposed Congressional Reform Act of 2011, I had some additional thoughts. The Act, as proposed, only solves part of the problem. We need to incorporate campaign reform into the Act, as well. Here are some of my ideas--e.g.

1) Limit Congressional and Presidential election campaigns to 90 and 120 days.

2) End 502s(?), 527s and PACs.

3) Limit contributions to a maximum of $25.00 per individual and/or corporation, to each candidate annually.

3) Limit use of personal or family funds to a maximum of the individual's state campaign filing fee. Put an end to wealthy trying to buy the office just because they have $153 million of personal funds to spend on their campaign.

4) Once they have received sufficient donations to cover their campaign filing fee, the candidate can accept no more donations. Each candidate gets a fixed and equal amount from a public trust, to spend on their campaign.

Feel free to add, delete, or revise any of these idea/suggestions.

10:35AM PST on Jan 12, 2011

Judith... you are wrong about the conservative movement, it is much more libertarian than the typical Republican. But you are also wrong about the Democrats/progressives in government. You might not want more control, but they do. They are already dictating so much, what food we can eat, our kids eat (which isn't all bad, but still controlling), What we can and can't say, what can be on the internet, (freedom of press and speech), No salt, no sugar, what cars we can drive, how much energy we can use, who we can get health insurance from, and what policies we can buy (coverage, etc) and the list goes on and on. Look closely at the legislation and what it really does to us and you will see how controlling it really is. Maybe we do have some common ground to rally against... government take-over of our lives.

Linda L.

2:07PM PST on Jan 11, 2011

I don't think anyone should die for lack of money in America or anywhere else. I thought that was just being humane, but I guess it makes me a bleeding heart liberal, a communist or a socialist, maybe a populist. Whatever lable you give me I haven't changed my mind. I don't know of any religion, creed, or motto people live by that says it's ok for people to suffer and die from preventable causes for lack of money-and yet politicians, big business, and many others decide so without a blush.