Forget Obamacare; the real problem is ‘Me-care’

Clearly, Americans cannot continue to handle the inefficiencies of the health care system. They deserve changes that will reduce costs, improve quality and ensure access to adequate medical care.

Ask your clients, especially those nearing retirement, what keeps them awake at night, and I bet many will say it’s the skyrocketing cost of health care.

So what seems to be the problem with Congress?

Let me tell you what I think is Washington’s real health care agenda.

Contrary to what everyone has been reading, it’s not about principle or economics. It’s not even about the specifics of keeping, reforming or junking Obamacare.

The real problem is that it’s about “Me-care.”

Take, for example, freshman Rep. Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican, who won his seat by promising to repeal the new health care law.

One of Mr. Harris’ first moves as a representative was to complain about the fact that the lavish free medical coverage afforded members of Congress — and paid for by the American taxpayer — doesn’t kick in for newbies for an entire month.

Now that the election is over, Mr. Harris feels entitled to taxpayer-subsidized health care coverage, and he wants it immediately.

Who can blame him, right? All he was seeking was coverage for himself and his family, while being afforded the peace of mind of not having to worry about a 30-day gap in which he, his wife and his kids would have no protection if they were to get sick. It’s ironic that he fails to realize that millions of American families want the same peace of mind he’s seeking.

Talk about hypocrisy.

For too many members of our pampered political class, the very idea of being without health care coverage for 30 days is an affront. The fact is that millions of American families face far greater uncertainty for far longer than 30 days. But I guess members of Congress are too far removed from the common folks, their constituents, to know that.

Consider another freshman congressman — Michael Grimm, R-N.Y.

Committed to the GOP’s repeal of the new health care law, he happily accepted his taxpayer-subsidized coverage and was annoyed when someone questioned the seeming dichotomy.

Last month, Mr. Grimm, in a New York Daily News story, said: “What am I, not supposed to have health care? It’s practicality. I’m not going to become a burden for the state because I don’t have health care.”

Mr. Grimm needs to wrap his arms around the fact that the millions of Americans who can’t afford medical care or insurance know all too well how precarious life can be.

Regardless of one’s views on President Barack Obama’s health care law, many of us would agree that members of Congress who zealously guard their taxpayer-paid Me-care are on thin moral ice when they denounce coverage for others that includes government subsidies.

Since it’s apparent that health care is about to go through the congressional sausage grinder one more time, let’s insist that our leaders in Washington be covered by their new concoction like the rest of us.

Jim Pavia is the editor of –InvestmentNews.

Related Topics: Just Thinking