And They Want To Control You Health Care
June 10, 2008 3:43pm CST
As befits a government-run commissary, the Senate cafeteria has a decidedly Soviet attitude toward variety. It has averaged only two new menu items a year over the last decade. The food is so bad, every lunch hour Senate staffers rush to the House side of the Capitol like starving New Yorkers of the future storming the last Soylent Green vendor. According to auditors, the chain of restaurants run by the Senate food service, including the snooty Senate Dining Room, has almost never been in the black. It's lost more than $18 million since 1993 and has dropped about $2 million this year alone. If the food service doesn't get an emergency bridge loan of a quarter-million dollars, it won't be able to make payroll. So how will the Senate fix the problem? Well, with California Sen. Dianne Feinstein taking the lead, the Democrats - that's right, the Democrats - have called a classic Republican play: Privatize it. The House of Representatives made the switch in the 1980s, and its food service is now better. And profitable: The House has made $1.2 million in commissions since 2003. True to the Founders' vision of the Senate as the more slow-moving branch of government, the Senate has taken 20 years to follow suit. So if they cannor even run a cafeteria how are they going to run your health care?
• United States
11 Jun 08
Actually, they don't - want to control our health care, that is. I may be a liberal but as a former postal employee I know the government doesn't always do the best job at "running things", so I wouldn't be too thrilled with that prospect either. However, if you've paid attention to what any of the Democratic candidates have been saying for the past year you'd know they've been talking about making the same or a similar type of health care plan to what they have available for everyone else. The Senate doesn't run their own health care plan, they're all a part of a huge "pool" that includes all Federal Employees. I'm not sure if members of Congress have to pay part of their premiums but I know the rest of us do. We're give a huge choice of plans from which to choose which varies according to where you live. Federal employees and their families can choose from many different types of plans with different coverages, deductibles or co-pays and premiums which the employee pays a portion and the government pays the rest. You choose from all the popular plans such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Aetna or whatever happens to be popular where you live, some are HMO's and some are PPS. The advantage is that with so many potential clients the best rate and best plans can be negotiated. Federal benefits in general aren't as great as some think they are, some people think federal employees don't pay anything for their health insurance which isn't true but I do know that our share was always considerably lower than what others paid for the same plan so there is an advantage to being part of a large pool. It seems to make sense to me that if everyone in the country were to be in that one pool and be given the same choices so nobody would lose the right to choose their own doctors or hospitals, it would be much more affordable for everyone and with such a large customer base companies wouldn't feel compelled to deny coverage for preexisting conditions and people wouldn't be afraid to change jobs to better themselves because they'd lose their health insurance. Annie
• United States
11 Jun 08
Your point is well made. It is particularily interesting as a demonstration of Senate arrogance and stupidity that Senator Boxer is of the opinion she and her ilk could nationalize the oil industry and run that, too. Then not only will you not get decent health care, if the liberals get their way with that, there will be no gasoline to put in your car to drive to the doctor!
• United States
10 Jun 08
They won't... at least not well. The private sector is always better equipped to do a job than the government is. The old saying "It's good enough for government work" has a lot of truth in it , because the government will always turn out lower quality work than what privately held business will. That is an immutable law of economics... when the government is involved shoddy workmanship and services are the rule... when the private sector is involved there is a much more concerted strive for excellence. There has to be, because unhappy customers can mean the loss and closure of the business. When the government is involved... unhappy patrons mean nothing at all, because there is no competition and people are forced to either use the service or do without.