POLITICS - Another Example of Republican Hypocrisy

"GOP FRESHMAN WANTS HIS TAXPAYER-SUBSIDIZED CARE -- AND HE WANTS IT NOW...." by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly 1/7/2011

It's often overlooked, but members of Congress enjoy an attractive benefits package, including extensive health care options and taxpayer-subsidized insurance. It's the kind of coverage millions of Americans would like for their families, but been unable to receive.

What's fascinating, though, is to hear congressional members celebrate their insurance, while fighting to deny coverage to their constituents.

Perhaps the best example of this came two months ago, when Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.),who ran on a platform in sharp opposition to the Affordable Care Act, demanded to know at an orientation session why he couldn't get his government-subsidized health care right away. Told he'd have to wait until Feb. 1, Harris asked if a public option would be available to help cover the gap.

The disconnect was reportedly lost on him.

Now, we have another example from the same freshman class, Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.), who also ran while railing against health care reform, and who now wants his taxpayer-subsidized insurance.

[Grimm] pledged to pursue his party's top agenda item in one of the most polarized political fights -- repealing health care reform.

And he flatly rejected Democratic charges that taking government-funded health care with his new job is hypocritical when he wants to repeal reform meant to give care to millions.

"What am I, not supposed to have health care?" he said. "It's practicality. I'm not going to become a burden for the state because I don't have health care, and God forbid I get into an accident and I can't afford the operation. That can happen to anyone."

Right about now, I'm trying to figure out how to type the sound of me slapping my hand against my forehead.

Let's put this in a way Grimm might understand. I'd like him to imagine what would happen if he and his buddies successfully gutted the health care system. For the tens of millions of Americans who'd get screwed over by such a move, what, are they not supposed to have health care? Is it not a "practicality" for them and their families?

What happens if, God forbid, someone gets into an accident and can't afford the operation -- a scenario that "can happen to anyone" -- and this happens after Grimm and his cohorts have scrapped the entirety of the Affordable Care Act? Should they become "a burden for the state"?

What we're left with is a politician who's absolutely convinced that, after a couple of days on the job, he's earned government-subsidized health care coverage, and equally convinced that it's his job to deny similar coverage to you.

It's amazing these guys get elected.