On Wednesday’s Good Morning America, co-host Diane Sawyer and Dr. Tim Johnson touted the treatment members of Congress get as an example of the unfairness of the health care system. Sawyer speculated, "The question is continually raised, in this land of equal opportunity, should all Americans have, do all Americans deserve the same access to health care that members of Congress have?"
Johnson, a well known fan of government-run health care, explained how, for a yearly fee of $503, representatives receive free access to X-rays, EKGs and minor surgeries. Talking to a Democratic Congressman who refuses to use this Office of Attending Physician (OAP), Johnson marveled, "In fact, [Steve] Kagen and his hundreds fellow members of Congress receive some of the best health care in the country, without even using insurance."
Johnson didn’t explain how, exactly, such a program could be extrapolated to the entire country. And only at the very end of the segment did Sawyer raise the issue of cost: Speaking of the representatives who partake in this service, she finally wondered, "Yes. So, good for you, that you have it. But make it the standard of care for everybody else, too. But, is that realistic, economically?"
What Johnson failed to mention is the fact that Democrats in Congress have voted against Republican calls that they themselves enroll in the so-called public option. After all, wouldn't that make sure representatives and Americans have equal care?
When asked by Sawyer why very few doctors or officials would talk about the OAP he replied, "I think they are embarrassed. Some of them, at least, by the kind of service they have and their constituents don't have." Of course, Johnson didn’t really go over how one would expand such a tiny program and still maintain the same level of quality or make it cost efficient.
On Tuesday’s World News lobbied for the public option: "One way or another, public option or regulation, the government has to play a role."
A transcript of the September 30 segment, which aired at 7:31am EDT, follows:
DIANE SAWYER: But, as this debate over health care continues to rage on month after month after month- by the way, the powerful Senate Finance Committee will have its health care reform bill hammered out as early as Friday. And the rest of Congress will begin to debate it- The question is continually raised, in this land of equal opportunity, should all Americans have, do all Americans deserve the same access to health care that members of Congress have? How good is that? Well, our chief medical editor, Dr. Tim Johnson, takes us behind some closed capitol doors.
ABC GRAPHIC: Special Health Care for Lawmakers? Unknown Office on Capitol Hill
REP. STEVE KAGEN (D-Wisconsin): Health care costs in this country, are impossible for everyone.
TIM JOHNSON: When Wisconsin Congressman Steve Kagan, an advocate for health care reform, needed knee surgery last winter, he paid for it out of his own pocket. That's because Kagan, a medical doctor, turned down the health insurance options offered to members of Congress.
CAMPAIGN AD: And refused coverage for himself.
KAGEN: I said, I tell you what. I respectfully decline. Until you can make that same offer to everyone that I have the honor of representing, I just don't think it's fair.
JOHNSON: But, while his surgery personally cost him thousands of dollars, Kagen says he paid nothing for the extensive rehab he needed. That was provided by the U.S. government. In fact, Kagen and his hundreds fellow members of Congress receive some of the best health care in the country, without even using insurance. And all right in the U.S. Capitol, at a little known and rarely discussed clinic called the Office of Attending Physician.
KAGEN: They have a small pharmacy. They have physicians and nurses that will see you on the spot, at the beck and call. And they have physical therapy available, which I took advantage of when I had my knee surgery.
JOHNSON: And I assume the members of Congress pays for this somewhat?
KAGEN: It's one of the, quote, benefits of being a member of Congress.
JOHNSON: How much of a benefit? For a flat $503 yearly fee, members of Congress have access to almost all of the care they could ever need, right behind this door. From exams and EKGs to X-rays and minor surgeries All provided by Navy doctors and nurses. Last year, about half of Congress paid the fee. And sources say, if a particular specialist is needed, one will be brought to the Capitol. All of this, for no additional charge.
DR. EDUARDO BALBONA (Fmr. Staff physician, OFC of the Attending Physician): Cardiologist, pulmonologist, dermatologist, gastroenterologist, rheumatologists. Just a wealth of specialists that run the office.
JOHNSON: We wanted to talk to the attending physician on camera about these services. But our repeated requests for denied. And when we tried to visit the office, we were asked to leave. Dr. Eduardo Balbona is now in private practice. But, he spent two years as a staff physician in the '90s.
BALBONA: The customer service is excellent. A member walks in and generally walks right back into a physician's office. They're not rushed. They're examined thoroughly. Any task that is helpful, is done.
JOHNSON: In addition to serving members of Congress, the OAP also provides emergency care and first aid care for congressional staff and tourists at small clinics and ambulances located on Capitol Hill. The office talks publicly about those services. But rarely discusses the first item listed on its mission statement, providing primary care to Congress.
REP. LEE TERRY (R-Nebraska): We have a Cadillac plan.
JOHNSON: Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska doesn't use the office. But talked with us about it. This thing called the Office of the Attending Physician.
TERRY: Oh, yes.
JOHNSON: Which you smile and say oh, yes. Why do you do that?
TERRY: Well, it's a great asset. Somebody passes out on a tour, it's our attending physicians that are there right then. But, there is an option. You can use them as your, in essence, family practitioner while you're here.
JOHNSON: What do you think of the Congress people who do use it? We have heard stories of Congress people who are just doing all kinds of things down there. Bringing in specialists to see them. Things that ordinary Americans just can't do.
TERRY: I haven't explored it enough. I know that it exists. And it's a good deal.
JOHNSON: Terry is introducing a bill to offer the same federal health insurance options provided to Congress to all Americans.
TERRY: I'm sitting here thinking, if you're going to introduce this bill for the federal health plan, why not throw in something like this office, that is, provide primary care. If Congress can handle those kinds of things, why can't we?
TERRY: That's a fair question. And they should have that. Because, frankly, having a physician that you can call and contact, actually drives down the costs.
JOHNSON: Again, we couldn't ask the office about this idea because it refused our interview requests. In fact, getting anyone to talk about the office was difficult. Some former staff were willing to talk off camera. But said they would get in trouble if they appeared on TV. In the end, only Dr. Balbona would agree to sit down with us because, he says, the office serves an important service.
BALBONA: It's not a political perk. Much like a medic who’s in combat, It's not a perk to the soldiers. It's part of the mission.
SAWYER: And bringing in our medical editor, Dr. Tim Johnson from Washington D.C. Tim, the unwillingness to talk about this says it all.
JOHNSON: Well, I think it does. I think they are embarrassed. Some of them, at least, by the kind of service they have and their constituents don't have. And more importantly, Diane, I really worry that this kind of readily available care at a very low fee, desensitizes them to what the rest of the country struggles with in trying to find primary care. We can do all we want to increase coverage. That’s a good idea. But unless we increase primary care availability, people will have insurance and won't be able to get a doctor. So, I hope these people will think about what they have. And say we have to have something like it. Not necessarily the exact thing. But we have got to have in our bills, improving primary care. Having more primary care available to our constituents.
SAWYER: Yes. So, good for you, that you have it. But make it the standard of care for everybody else, too. But, is that realistic, economically?
JOHNSON: Well, in the long run, in theory, good primary care saves money because it cuts down on unnecessary visits to specialists, unnecessary testing. Experts estimate 70 to 80 percent of what we need can be done in a primary care office. So, while there might be an up-front investment, in the long run, it would be money-saving. Not to mention, better medicine.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This "equal access to healthcare" line is a red herring
September 30, 2009 - 11:08 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltWe all have "equal access" to a Mercedes Benz, but we don't have a right to it. You have the ability to purchase it, IF you have the money. Why is healthcare any different? It's a service provided by someone who needs to be paid for their services. Unless you're telling me that I'm bound from birth to be a slave for another person, then you don't have a goddamn RIGHT to any good or service!
A "need" or a "want" is not a claim on my labor.
Hear hear!
September 30, 2009 - 11:40 ET by KC MulvilleI agree entirely. Well said.
WJG...
September 30, 2009 - 12:02 ET by retroconI'd actually argue that we all have a "right" to own a Mercedes Benz - if it's available, and if we can afford it. Just as we have a "right" to keep and bear arms -- but the government does not have a responsibility, duty, or even a the power, to provide those arms. And, by attempting to limit our access to arms, they infringe that right.
The ninth amendment says we have plenty of rights not enumerated in the constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Here's the mobius loop in the discussion: A "right" cannot mean that it's provided for free. A right means that the government cannot infringe on our ability to exercise our right. By definition, when the government provides something free, on a limited budget, they actually take away, or infringe, or limit our rights by altering the market. i do have a right to seek the best medical care that i can afford. But, if the government hands it out or controls it, i loose that right, i now just receive a limited entitlement, and can no longer exercise my right to seek the best medical care that i can afford. Medicare? limited choice of doctors, procedures, and hospitals. Social Security? Limited no investment choice. Look at what could happen with GM... maybe you won't be able to get a Mercedes when everyone is required to buy a GM envirollerskate because of limited markets and environmental laws that will favor Gov Motors.
I have lots of "rights," but those rights cannot infringe on others "rights." Rights are not goods and services. No one has a right to products produced by others, we would call that slavery.
I guess the point is, rights are about freedom of action, not about entitlement to product or service.
Agreed. Having a "right"
September 30, 2009 - 12:53 ET by motherbeltAgreed. Having a "right" to own a M-B only means that if I can afford to buy it, no one can stop me. It doesn't mean that M-B's have to be priced so that everyone can afford one.
And besides, when talking about "affordable" health care, like "affordable" housing, the question is: Affordable to whom?
HC PLAN U CAN'T GET
September 30, 2009 - 12:18 ET by reelman46THE HC PLAN U CAN’T GET (congress has)
Ever
wonder why people spend a million to get a job paying under $175k? Our
arrogant congressional royalty…you know, the one that raises its own
pay in a severe recession and lusts only for 40 years in the D.C. power
bubble, that royalty.
Ever realized their health care coverage WE pay for with taxes?
According to the May 2009 CR…
this is what they have in their FEDERAL Employees Health Benefits Program:
1…No annual or lifetime limits for major services
2…$300 deductible per person and $600 per family
3…Limited 5k a year they pay with preferred providers (which includes most deductibles, co-insurance and co-pays)
Covered Services are:
1…In and out-patient care, visits, surgery and mental health care
2…Prescriptions and diagnostic tests
3…Preventative care including routine shots
4…Chem and radiation therapy
5…Family Planning and organ-tissue transplants
6…Durable med equip and artificial limbs
7…Physical, occupational and speech therapy
They pay $152 a MONTH each or $357 a FAMILY.
Okay, take out your family policy and compare.
The folks that “understand” your family struggles have this program.
The feds are special, you and your family are not.
Ask yourself why we can’t have the same coverage.
They are exempted from any new gov-meant Plan too.
http://conservablogs...
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Re Plans
September 30, 2009 - 14:40 ET by slickwillie2001We lack some real data on employee healthcare plans and what they include and cost. I'd like to see the federal plan compared to a typical state plan, a UAW plan, a typical big company AT&T/Comcast/Big Utility non-union etc plan, a typical small-company non-union plan, and over the counter plans from someone like Blue Cross. Also included -what medical benefits are included in the retirement plan, if any.
Retirement healthcare components are nearly unheard of in private non-union industry as far as I know, but they are a pretty standard feature of Big Union plans and government plans.
Someone get on that please.
Healthcare reform is best done
September 30, 2009 - 11:34 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonBy trimming out all the unnecessary regulations placed on the medical providers by corrupt politicians that grant special treatment to the trial lawyers association to enrich the members of that 'upfront and honest' organization.
Doing away with special regulations on pharmaceutical companies to aid in the bribery business for congress and their friends.
Limiting the ability of congress to control who gets paid how much for what service in the medical community.
Getting rid of restrictions on insurance companies that would allow them the ability to compete in a FREE MARKET and offer plans the PEOPLE need and want.
In essence, get the federal government the hell out of PRIVATE ENTERPRISE all across the board, in every field of endeavor.
http://gjresult.com
Exactly, but even
September 30, 2009 - 12:01 ET by mattmExactly, but even more....
The federal government should get out of regulatory areas of government where it has no constitutional authority.
The FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act - Clinton got us) is one example. My employer just announced that if we are out sick for 3 or more days, we have to get a Doctor's note to return to work...this is a federal regulation, not a work policy.
"Statism only works for those who control the state." - Publius
Titilating media Dr. Tim Johnson. OAP, a Cadillac perk.
September 30, 2009 - 12:01 ET by Gary HallScott - you've opened a big one here, I thinks.
Johnson.. "All of this, for no additional charge."
.. oh, and if you need additional services and specialists, they bring them in for free?
Yea, we get those mattres commercials here on late night TV, as well. Freeeeeeeeeeeee!
First of all, the members of congress already have an employer's (Federal gov't, in their case) large group private heatlh insurance plan. Their boss pays for most of their premium - they pick up part of the tab. Hint - we pay most of the tab - the taxpayers.
Are we to buy that this OAP program, on site for the most part (except for when they bring in specialists, etc.) is 100% funded by the "flat" $503 fee paid for by some members of Congress?
I would think not. Look, this is a perk - a golden handcuff's sort of a perk. I'd bet you that Tim Johnson is opposed to big fat perks for corporate America.
According to an ABC GMA piece:
Oh, let me guess. Somewhere in the buget, congress is funding this operation.. and I'd bet that the cost is thousands of $'s per member of congress - whether or not they use it.
This is a rich perk. The Democrats are calling for such benefits to be penalized in their legislation.
Heard the term Cadillac Plan? Oh, as a matter of fact - it was floated right there in front of Dr. Johnson. Congress is trying to get rid of Cadillac Plans - did he miss the note?
The Baucus Bill (and Pelosi has promised to follow suit) calls for insurance companies that provide rich benefits; in other words, fully comprehensive health plans [Cadillac Plans] w/ low, or no deductibles, low co-pays, low out-of-pocket costs and lots of preventative benefits to be penalized - to pay a tax.
What a joke.
(;~/ gary
Update: Silly me.. it was right there in the ABC news piece:
Let me guess; for $20,000-$30,000/per person at your place of work, a year you too can have a Dr. on call 24/7.
Right on Dr. Johnson, the government should do that for everyone in the US.
Gee you would think that if
September 30, 2009 - 12:17 ET by ninerdogGee you would think that if what they say is true about everyone wanting this they would just use the votes they have instead of trying to run around behind our backs and pass this. I wonder why? Could it be a corner stone to begging taking over our lives?
Rep. (R) Lee Terry proposed
September 30, 2009 - 13:01 ET by pwozRep. (R) Lee Terry proposed that citizens could buy into the same private plan enjoyed by federal employees.
House Dimocrats never let it pass committee.
Dr. Johnson must have been one of those who couldn't hack it...
September 30, 2009 - 19:27 ET by R D Helm...in the private sector.
I wonder what he is going to say if ObamaCare passes, and 40%+ of our nations docs throw up their hands and bail.
-Dave
The election of 2010 will be our last chance to save our republic. -Neal Boortz
What will he do?
September 30, 2009 - 20:46 ET by slickwillie2001The obvious solutions, he will go to his buddies in Cuba, Venezuela and the rest of the third world and he will ask for doctors. We will be flooded with doctors of questionable education that will work for peanuts.
With control of student loans he will have control of colleges, and they will loan money to 'the right kind of people' to go into med school. Standards will go in the toilet, medical degrees will be handed out on an affirmative action basis, and if you complain you will be called a racist.