Welcome to TBO.com. Skip directly to: our Keyword Search, Section Navigation, Content.

TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online

About This Blog:

The Jax Files is an interactive, quick-hitting blog devoted to any and all things Pasco, whether whole-heartedly, tangentially or merely psychologically.

Tom Jackson:

Tom Jackson is in a 12-step program for recovering sports writers; as part of his rehabilitation, he writes a column centered on the people, politics, passions and peculiarities of Pasco County. Email

Pasco County Links:

Most Recent Entries

Monthly Archives

The Jax Files: With Tom Jackson in Pasco

Pasco County News | Breaking News

Amending, extending and correcting our remarks

Posted Feb 14, 2011 by Tom Jackson

Updated Feb 14, 2011 at 02:07 PM

Alert reader William Jenkins of Land O’ Lakes points out an error—one of sloppiness and sloth—in Sunday’s column that we are only too happy to hasten to correct.

Writes Mr. Jenkins, correctly:

Are you aware that since Jan 1, 1985, members of Congress may choose from one of the many health plans offered to all government employees? They pay the same co-pays as any other government employee enrolled in the same plan. There is no free health insurance for congressional members. This myth of free benefits has traveled the Internet for years and I am shocked you would fall into the good representative’s attempt at obtaining good press. Certainly they have benefits not available to the general government populous, but they certainly are not free.

Indeed, “free” is a misnomer. FactCheck.org lays out the broad particulars:

According to the Congressional Research Service, the FEHBP offers about 300 different private health care plans, including five government-wide, fee-for-service plans and many regional health maintenance organization (HMO) plans, plus high-deductible, tax-advantaged plans. All plans cover hospital, surgical and physician services, and mental health services, prescription drugs and “catastrophic” coverage against very large medical expenses. There are no waiting periods for coverage when new employees are hired, and there are no exclusions for preexisting conditions. The FEHBP negotiates contracts annually with all insurance companies who wish to participate. There is plenty of competition for the business; FEHBP is the largest employer-sponsored health plan in the U.S. ...

Like other large employers, the government pays a large share of the cost of coverage. On average, the government pays 72 percent of the premiums for its workers, up to a maximum of 75 percent depending on the policy chosen. For example, the popular Blue Cross and Blue Shield standard fee-for-service family plan carries a total premium of $1,120.47 per month, of which the beneficiary pays $356.59. Washington, D.C.-based employees who prefer an HMO option might choose the Kaiser standard family plan. It carries a total premium of $629.46 per month, of which the employee pays only $157.36.

In addition, members of Congress also qualify for some medical benefits that ordinary federal workers do not. They (but not their families) are eligible to receive limited medical services from the Office of the Attending Physician of the U.S. Capitol, after payment of an annual fee ($491 in 2007). But services don’t include surgery, dental care or eyeglasses, and any prescriptions must be filled at the member’s expense.

House and Senate members (but not their families) also are eligible to receive care at military hospitals. For outpatient care, there is no charge at the Washington, D.C., area hospitals (Walter Reed Army Medical Center and National Naval Medical Center). Inpatient care is billed at rates set by the Department of Defense.

So, to reiterate, congressmen such as freshman Republican Rich Nugent are eligible to partipate in the federal employees’ range of plans. Their coverage is not gratis but, as is often the case in the private sector, is substantially subsidized by their employer—in this case, the American taxpayer.

Mr. Jenkins does not argue the fundamental point however.

To refresh: The several GOP congress members who have opted out of federal coverage and also voted to repeal the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as ObamaCare) have not, Politico’s recent article notwithstanding, undergone epiphanies about the nature of health insurance or delivery of medical care. Their misgivings are as they have been, and their experiences merely have reaffirmed their convictions about correcting what ails the nation’s health care industry without compromising America’s tradition of liberty and individual choice.

Challenging our position on that point we leave to alert reader Joe Ryan, who contends we’re just making stuff up:

First, you stated that “the trick” to getting to covering people with pre-existing conditions is how to get there “without the indvidual mandate that is noxious to a majority of Americans and almost certainly unconstitutional.” Poll after poll shows that the feelings of Americans towards the health care law is almost a dead split, sometimes 47 to 46 in favor, sometimes 47 to 47 against, hardly a “majority” of Americans. Second, two judges have ruled the health care law as constitutional, two judges the other way. Let’s see where it lands in the Supreme Court before we all declare ourselves constitutional scholars.

We can’t say for certain where Mr. Ryan finds the polls he is quoting. The folks over at Real Clear Politics, who serve as sort of the clearing house for all major polling outfits, cite Rasmussen Reports as the only pollsters sampling ObamaCare opinion on an ongoing basis. Rasmussen does not break out—as we did in Sunday’s column—the “noxious” quotient for the individual mandate. It does find, however, a persistent double-digit preference among likely voters (the only cohort whose opinion we respect) for having the whole thing repealed.

Moreover, Real Clear Politics lists polls from a variety of sources taken over the past six weeks on ACA here, and finds a healthy 6.9 point gap between adults who oppose the law and those who favor it.

As for declaring ourselves constitutional scholars, well, that’s columnist license for you.