Grassley's Government Health Insurance Hundreds Of Dollars A Month Cheaper Than Average Health Insurance
Earlier today, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)--the powerful ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee--lashed out against a public health insurance option, and government involvement in health care generally.
Well, thanks to the government's involvement in health care, Grassley himself saves a pile of money insurance costs himself. In a letter to the Des Moines Register earlier this month, Grassley wrote, "I pay $356 a month for Blue Cross insurance coverage, a plan that is available to federal employees."
That, of course, is significantly cheaper than the average monthly cost of insurance for American families--and that's notwithstanding Grassley's age, which makes him a significantly riskier insuree than the average citizen. But Grassley opposes a public insurance option, which supporters say would lower the cost of insurance for all consumers.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
A a member of the public over 50 faced with 300% to 400% increase in premium payments based not on my current health but age, I have one message for Senator Grassley ...FUCK OFF !!!
June 24, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would say that if everybody could get the same policy as Senator Grassley for the same price there wouldn't be any need for a public option. As an employer who pays multiple times that amount for each of his employees who are over 50 in exchange for crappy coverage I don't think the FUCK OFF comment is out of line. Senator Grassley is living in a dream world completely out of touch with real life. Or as my late father, a veteran of the US Navy, might have said, "he has his head up his ass."
June 24, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is worse, that isn't just Grassley's premium. That is his family premium. Both he and his spouse are covered by the $356. Where do I go to sign up, or do I have to get elected to the Senate to be a good enough American to deserve such a perk.
June 24, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
and it's for a "souped up" plan. there are even less expensive (and just fine) plans he could have.
http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/index.asp
June 24, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
$356 a month? You gotta be shittin' me.
June 24, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm calling my two Senators now to find out how much they pay for health insurance. Lets see what they say.
June 24, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should be used in every discussion. No need to single out Grassley by name, but it should be pointed out at every opportunity that Republicans pay less than $400 a month for family coverage, but they don't want the rest of us to have the same deal.
June 24, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget the Blue Dogs.
June 24, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That amount is close to what COBRA would have cost me when I became unemployed and I am single with no kids. He should have kept that info to himself. That amount is pennies compared to what Americans pay.
June 24, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Compare Grassley's insurance plan to the average working minimum wage worker.
Grassley - Annual Income - $174,000 or $14,500 monthly
Monthly Premium - $356 - percent of monthly income = 2.5 %
Minimum Wage Worker - Annual Income - $10, 712 or $892.66 monthly
Monthly Premium - $283.33 -percent of monthly income = 31.74 %
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
And that jackass, Grassley, thinks he's paying a lot???
June 24, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an outrage, but I am glad it came out! I agree that if every American family could get the level of coverage that Congresspeople get for that price, we would all sit down and shut up, because we wouldn't need a public option.
Does anyone know if the coverage stops once they leave office, or do they get it for life?
June 24, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why hasn't anyone asked Grassley to put his action where his mouth is and immediately opt out of his health coverage so he can get a better, private plan?
I am sick of the folks we have been putting in power these past decades. We have lost outr ability to choose ANYONE whose desire for his/her country is greater than his/her own power goals.
If these clowns (and I mean BOTH parties) had been around during our fight for independence, NONE of them would have put their wealth or ppower on the line for this nation, because there IS no patriotism in Washington... just mobsters and self promoters whose desire is to be import and and lord over commoners. We are now a nation of about 500 kings, queens and royalty... much worse than England ever was... or will be...
Sad, also, that MOST of these same folks will be reelected by the masses, who are more interested in football and reality shows than freedom and equality... IMHO
June 24, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
That amount is actually in line compared with what many workers pay for employer-sponsored health care. A typical family group insurance might cost $1000-1500 per month, of which employers might pick up anywhere from 50% to 100% of the cost. The key is that last percentage - it varies all over the map, but if he's paying one-third of the cost, that's not particularly low. I pay less than that. Lots of people pay less than I do.
June 24, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I pay $350 every pay period (two weeks) for myself only. I don't think your example is typical. Also, the federal coverage is golden; far better than what I have.
Remember all policies are not the same; some have huge deductibles and co-pays. The fed policy does not. I never had to pay more than $5 for any of my mother's prescriptions, and my father retired from the federal government in 1975. There is most definitely a public (or government-sponsored) option for the elite who are in the federal cocoon.
June 24, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What percentage of the actual
cost is Grassley paying?
I know that in my case my company pays 85% of the cost for the employee, and 75% of the cost for spouse and/or children. The amount has climbed over the years and the coverage has declined somewhat.
If you are looking at a non-taxpayer funded public option, you might have a true monthly cost in line with some of the numbers others here have mentioned, with in some cases employers subsidizing part of it.
The key for the public system is to have a broad and diverse population in the pool, both age wise and health-wise, without the private alternatives being able to cherry-pick those who use the least health care and thereby creating the phenomenon known as "adverse selection", where only the sickest choose the public option. If that happens the public option will fail.
If you think this out fully, you end up at single payer as the best solution for the public as a whole.
June 24, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calm down everyone and follow the link provided by nova voter above. Federal employees like me get a menu of health care options. The government pays about 3/4 of the cost. What Grassley is paying is the other 1/4. The choices are not "government health insurance." They are the similar to what private employers offer. (Being the USofA and not some socialist European country, this means large employers who decide they want to provide this perk, not small companies or independently employed workers or all the "contract workers" who should be regular employees but aren't, mainly so employers can escape stuff like this.) If his plan is a gold plated one, it is his choice and he pays more (although only 1/4 the full cost). These are not free prescriptions/no copay plans like maybe some union employees get (used to get?) Or like what you might get in some of the above mentioned socialist places. On my high end Aetna (yes, unfortunately a for-profit HMO except it's really more of a PPO) government plan I pay $25 or $30 to see a doctor and $10, $25, or $50 for a prescription. (three tier price structure). Grassley's Blue Cross plan is probably similar.
June 24, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what? The government (read me, as a taxpayer) is still subsidizing your insurance, which they are not doing for me, or for the millions who don't have it. Stop feeling so effing entitled. You are no better than the rest of us. So some of us work for a small company and we should pay more --- Why, exactly?
I know that government employees feel like they deserve what they get, but trust me -- you really don't deserve it more than the rest of us! I know!
June 24, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's less than half of what I pay.
Add to that this fact: my family was kicked off of Blue Cross (our preferred insurance) because the state we live in unilaterally decided that Blue Cross premiums were too high. We agreed, yet we paid them because Blue Cross provided better coverage than the alternatives.
Now we are stuck with a provider that denies more claims, has shitty customer service (when you can get them on the phone at all), and still requires high premiums. Less high, but still high. Oh, and did I mention they deny claims and provide shitty service?
I want Grassley's insurance! Either we get what Mr. Twitter gets, or he should be kicked off and forced to find his own, just like we would in our 70s. Good luck, Senator Twitter, finding anyone who will cover you. Maybe AARP for four times the price.
June 24, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to know if Congresspeople continue to get this gold-plated health care after they leave office. My guess is that they do. Why wouldn't they have built this in for themselves, because who would complain -- the unwitting taxpayer?
No wonder they don't want single-payer -- they would be on the same playing field as the hoi palloi --> us!
June 24, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've tried several times to google this, and absolutely nothing comes up. Wonder why?
June 24, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink