You are hereForums / Issues / Healthcare / Can't handle the question? Just run away!

Can't handle the question? Just run away!

By John Martin - Posted on 08 February 2011

This is fun video. 
It's one thing for Representative Bill Posey (R-FL) to oppose providing healthcare for the uninsured, while accepting it for himself, but it's quite another thing to run away when questioned about his hypocritical stance.
I don't see what the big deal is. A lot of these R's have made a decent living before getting elected. If you really feel strongly about not using taxpayer funds for the otherwise uninsured, just go buy yourself some coverage on the open market.
How do they sleep at night making a career pretending to be against something they're not? 

It's the "gotcha media."


And that's another thing. Shouldn't these guys have a decent response for this by now?

LOL - Seems like business as usual.

Good to see you around a little more, John. 

The comments on the video itself are right too. I wish they'd fight the term "Obamacare" more. He didn't craft the bill. It's there for good now it seems. They won the fight big time for that now common name that doesn't sound incredibly positive. The GOP usually do win the PR battles these days while at the same time losing their integrity. 

Thanks, Steve. I'm slowly migrating back.

Umm, the guy answered the question. He's a "federal employee". Plus, like most private-sector workers who are provided a health-insurance benefit, he has to share premiums and pay co-pays and etc.

I'm in favor of health care reform, but this particular argument is ineffective; at least as inneffective as right-wingers asking congressmen to "be on Obamacare" or others to demand that we all get a health plan "as good as Congress gets".

But hey, ignorant rhetoric is what gets both sides fired up, eh? 

But why do federal employees get guaranteed coverage, and how do people like Rep. Posey justify it. It's so convenient that the mandatory federal coverage that he favors is the one that benefits him.

Federal health insurance costs the taxpayers an enormous amount of money. I don't think the the founding fathers ever envisioned it.


Health insurance coverage for Federal Employees is a perk, a job benefit, designed to lure workers TO federal jobs.  While this coverage is guaranteed, it is not mandatory that employees participate.

A majority of federal jobs would be classified as "white collar", and in many private white collar occupations, compensation (actual salary) is oftentimes higher than the federal government's GS wage scale.  Job perks; access to health insurance, sick and annual leave, and increased job security; are designed to attract and retain top-flight talent to the federal government.

Good to have you posting again, John!



Yeah, what wcolin said better than I did.

I doubt that I would even consider a job which didn't offer health insurance, even though I'm a blue-collar guy. I've always been offered health insurance from the military until now. The only exception was the times I was a temp (which I always got hired full time afterwards) when it was offered but the cost was not subsidized by the company and was therefore too expensive. 

And it's good to be back.

Health coverage, job security and a pension are all perks offered to federal employees that were put into place at a time when the salaries of federal employees did not match those of their private sector counterparts. They were needed to help attract talented workers. Today, a person is probably going to make just as much-- if not more-- working for the feds as he or she would in the real world. 

But I'm not saying that federal employees shouldn't have health coverage available to them. I'm only saying that it's a little too convenient that these hypocritical tea party-backed candidates support using taxpayer money to cover for some (federal employees-- including themselves), while denying it to others.

There are practical advantages to using taxpayer money to cover the healthcare of federal employees, but there are also practical advantages to covering the currently uninsured.  

John, you mentioned pension (retirement); something which I had left out.  I would point out one thing, however, in regards to federal retirement; since 1984 (Reagan administration) federal employees (except, woulnd't you know it, Congress critters and a few other high profile SES members) are no longer guaranteed a level benefit retirement.

Since 1984, CSRS (Civil Service Retirement System) was phased out, and new federal employees were placed under FERS (Federal Employees Rertirement System) which is far less generous as far as federal contribution is concerned, and depends much more on employees saving and investing on their own.

So basically, federal employees' retirement benefits are now much more in line with private sector corporate systems (at least with those private sector systems that have  not gone under in the last 10-15 years).


I don't think the congresssman thinks that he answered the question.  I think he was well aware that he was being asked a question about his hipocrisy otherwise he would have stopped and simply answered the question, Yes, I am using my benefit as a federal employee and then explained how he felt it was different than offering such benefits to all American people.  I would be happy to pay his premiums and co-pays for his benefits.  His body language is clear that he is not comfortable with his rhetoric matching his actions.  I thought the person asking the questions was quite polite too, by the way he was asking... it didn't seem like an ambush and after the congressman ingnored him for several questions, he said, thank you congressman.   


"Peace Cannot be kept by force.  It can only be achieved by understanding."

Albert Einstein

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook




RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for We will never share or sell your email address.