Let's Add "Hypocrite" to "Hospital Grifter": Rick Scott on Your Dime

I would tell you that I'm surprised by this, but I am just not: Gov. Scott getting low-cost health insurance from the state.

Gov. Rick Scott, a critic of the federal health care overhaul, is paying less than $400 a year to provide health insurance to himself and his wife.

While Scott is accepting no salary for his job as governor, the multi-millionaire chose to enroll in the taxpayer-subsidized health insurance plan offered by the state of Florida.

Scott is among nearly 32,000 people in state government who pay relatively low health insurance premiums. Nearly all 160 state legislators are also enrolled in the program that costs just $30 a month for family coverage.

Look, I get that as a state employee, the guy is entitled to the insurance.  I can also appreciate the fact that he is not taking a salary while governor.  But given that he was so out front on fighting against the health care law, no reasonable person could call this anything but hypocritical.  Hell, he and Florida's Attorney General, the Robot Pam Bondi, are still fighting it.

I've said for a long time that even if you're of the liberal-progressive-Democratic stripe (as I am), you have to give Scott grudging credit for at least doing exactly what he said he'd do.  He is exactly the sort of ultra-conservative governor he promised he'd be. 

He hates government.  He hates what government stands for, he hates what government does.  This -- that Obama's plan amounted to "socialized medicine" -- was his central argument against health care reform:

"Before government rushes to overhaul health care, listen to those who already have government-run health care," intones Rick Scott, founder of a group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights. "Tell Congress to listen, too."

And then, when health reform passed, Scott refused to take the money:

The New York Times reported on Florida Governor Rick Scott's rejection of millions of dollars in federal grant money aimed at easing the burden of higher health care costs on Floridians. Scott, a former hospital CEO and health care profiteer, was made famous by his adamant and vocal campaign against the Health Care Reform Bill which he still refers to as Obamacare. Not alone in his position of power and stance against the new law, Gov. Scott joins Alaska, Oklahoma and Wisconsin Republican governors in refusing to accept or seek government assistance to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. However, Florida is different.

Of all the states, Florida has the fourth-highest unemployment rate, the second-highest rate of people without insurance and a $3.7 billion state budget gap. Given this dire situation, Scott has decided that it is more important to draw a line in the sand than to accept federal funding for a law he opposes. Florida is also unique in its demand for health care needs, with a significantly higher percentage of its population being retirement age compared to other states. Florida also has a high rate of insurance-less citizens (nearly 16% of the population is without insurance). According to the Florida Hospital Association, $788.9 billion was spent on hospitals alone last year.

What does all this amount to?

Government health care is great... for Rick Scott.

For you?  Forget it. 

 

Comments

[Susan]

But the Affordable Care Act is NOT socialized medicine. Those on the far right, which seem to be all that is left of republicans in office these days, claim that this is so; but this is utter nonsense.

There is no single-payer, though that would make it MUCH more efficient and less expensive--pronounced "cost much less!" There was way too much ranting and raving about single-payer, so the Affordable Care Act is still all about private insurance companies.

What in the world does that have to do with socialized medicine? Oh, because of the mandate? Apparently, many of our not-paying-attention fellow-citizens prefer having their insurance rates continue to sky-rocket because those who "choose" not to purchase health insurance and then just go to the emergency room when they are incredibly sick, so sick they can't afford to pay what it will cost. That means that YOU and I pay that bill by having our insurance rates go up.

Please explain how that is fair. Please explain why they can mandate that WE WILL PAY FOR THEIR MEDICAL BILLS and have our insurance rates go up, but WE can not mandate that they purchase health insurance so that the bills are spread around. Please explain that.

Especially because the Act includes subsidies for those who absolutely can't afford it. Those who have fought this Act are just not paying attention or, of course, part of the group who just want Obama to fail so much that they don't care if the country fails, too.