Getty Images
Since the Affordable Care Act became law two years ago, 2.5 million young adults have been able to get health coverage through their family's plan. One of them is Sen. Scott Brown's (R-Mass.) daughter.
Senator Scott Brown, who won office vowing to be the 41st vote to block President Obama's health care law and who has since voted three times to repeal it, acknowledged Monday that he takes advantage of it to keep his elder daughter on his congressional health insurance plan.
"Of course I do,'' the Massachusetts Republican told the Globe.
Brown is insuring his daughter Ayla, a professional singer who is 23 years old, under a widely popular provision of the law requiring that family plans cover children up to age 26.
Brown's younger daughter is 21 and getting ready to graduate from college, and she, too, will be able to be covered thanks to the Affordable Care Act.
Brown, in case this wasn't obvious, opposes "Obamacare" and has already voted to repeal the landmark reform law in its entirety. The senator hasn't made any exceptions, and continues to support eliminating all of the protections in the law -- including the provision that allows young adults up to age 26 to get coverage by staying on their parents' plans.
For the Republican senator, this isn't necessarily hypocrisy. Brown's voted to take this benefit away from millions of families, but he's glad to have this benefit in place for his own family.
And what happens if Brown succeeds and the law is eliminated? The senator's family doesn't have much to worry about -- Brown and his wife made over a half-million dollars last year, and they're in a position to help their adult kids pay for insurance and medical expenses.
Whether Brown understands this or not, the larger problem is everyone else.
Since 99% of American households make far less than the senator and his wife, if Brown and his party are successful, young adults will once again find themselves without coverage.
As the Republican lawmaker sees it, there's no reason to worry -- states might consider passing similar measures and protections if "Obamacare" is destroyed, which he thinks would solve the problem. But if your state is dominated by Republican policymakers and chooses not to take this step? From Brown's perspective, you're out of luck. Maybe you should have picked a better state (or wealthier parents).
Remember, this is what passes for GOP moderation on health care policy -- a confused senator who hates the Affordable Care Act, despite not knowing why, who wants to benefit from the law he thinks he finds offensive, while taking those benefits away from everyone else.
Leave a Comment:
But, but, he's sooooo handsome!
And Elizabeth Warren is a Haaavaaad Perfesser!
Mr. Brown of Massachusetts will be equally handsome when he moves his office to K Street next year. He will also be much, much more wealthy. However he will not longer have a vote. Ms. Warren of Massachusetts will have a vote and she will still be listed in the faculty section HAAh - vaaad catalog as is their habit.
After Ted Kennedy, who was loved yet such a liberal, I was very surprised to see Brown win the election. He is cute but I think Warren could do a better job. Why is he moving to K Street? Expensive!!!!!!
If this man had any moral fiber, he would refuse to take advantage of a law with which he disagrees. That's what people of conviction do.
hypocrisy , Republican is thy name
How can a politician who votes down a bill, use the bill for his own agenda? It reveals his character. It is such hypocrisy! I don't know why all the republicans have to vote the same way regardless of their own stance on issues.
Did I miss your comments calling for Warren Buffet and President Obama to go ahead an pay more in taxes since they believe that their tax rates are too low? Did you make that comment or is that "different."
Also, no one is saying there aren't good things in Obamacare that should be considered or continued once Obamacare is deemed unconstitutional. One can be against part of a law and for other parts. And, since it is the current law, it makes sense to abide by it.
But thanks for the hypocrisy illustration.
The law doesn't *require* that adult children be insured on their parents policy, it simply *allows* it, where it wasn't allowed before. There is nothing in the law that says Mr. Brown must keep his children on his insurance policy, therefore he is not "abiding" by it. He is taking advantage of a clause that *allows* it.
Why is it that conservatives cannot grasp the concept of hypocrisy? Both of these men vote in favor of higher taxes. They support it. They are taking action to support what they think is right.
Also, Brown IS saying that the entire law is wrong and has voted to repeal the entire thing.
But thanks for demonstrating conservative comprehension fail.
I have to agree with RobDon on this call, it's definitely not hypocrisy to take advantage of a favorable provision of a law with which you disagree. As an example from the left, I disagree with the preferential treatment given by our tax code to capital gains and dividend income, but I take all the deductions to which I'm entitled.
There are plenty of real examples of hypocrisy emanating from the Republican side of the aisle every day, there's no need to stretch the definition.
No. You cannot donate an unlimited amount to the IRS when you file your taxes. It is completely disingenuous for Rob Don to make this claim. The POTUS cannot just donate 50% of his income to the IRS. Now Rob could be making the argument that the POTUS shouldn't be taking any tax deductions, but the POTUS never stated that tax deductions were bad. What the POTUS claimed was that the base rate tax level should be higher for people of his income bracket. And of course since you cannot voluntarily raise that base rate this therefore makes Rob Don's argument of hypocrisy a complete joke. PBO has advocated that his taxes go up (meaning he has advocated the base rate for his income bracket) and has never stated otherwise. If you want to show hypocrisy than show hypocrisy on what PBO has actually argued. Otherwise you are making a nonsense claim on the basis of nothing in a feeble attempt to show hypocrisy. Remember Rob red herring arguments do NOT equate to hypocrisy being existent on the left.
Hypocracy is telling Democrat to just opt in to paying more in taxes if they are for tax increase (like the Republican keep saying about President Obama and Warren Buffet to do) and then turn around and say..."Of course I do,'' in taking advantage of something he wants to get rid off.
The only answer from all the republican I know about tax adjustment (I really just refuse to call it an increase since they are only calling for the rate to get back to it was before...not even that) is the same talking point RobDon and Fox News keep bringing over and over again (speak about indoctrination)....why don't they just opt in to pay more.
If that's the case, then why don't all the Republican on food stamp and welfare and medicaid and medicare give up and stop collecting their check? Why don't the Republican in congress say: "Hey...stop paying healthcare for my family, give me my Paul Ryan voucher instead."
It is really a simplistic point of view. You don't like your tax dollar being used for social program, we don't like our tax dollar being used to enrich Halliburton. So lets just agree to think that your tax dollar all go to Halliburton and the oil company and our portion goes to help the people.
Certainly he can, unless you know something I don't...here's the address:
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782
You can even designate it towards the debt if you like...
Of course, my comment is not so much that I think the President is being hypocritical but that the accusation has just as much validity as saying Scott Brown is being hypocritical on Obamacare by allowing his daughter to continue on his insurance. That's the point...they are equal...equally non-relevant.
Your argument Rob was that he can do this as a portion of his taxes. He cannot do this. No one can just write a check to the IRS for half of their income when it comes to their taxes. Either the tax law has to be changed or they cannot. You deliberately misconstrued my statement here. I am getting sick and tired of you doing this. You dismiss the behaviors of Republicans and excuse their behaviors in order to downplay what your party is doing and then make wild accusations of Democrats and upplay things that are otherwise non-hypocritical on their behalf. And then you hide behind Steve stating that because he uses language that you don't like he's therefore being more aggressive and turning the blog more left leaning. When in reality you are just employing progressively more misrepresenting tactics.
Scott Brown wants to repeal the law that allows him to do what he is doing. He states that he should not be allowed to do what he is doing.
The POTUS wants to increase his base tax rate. Until that base rate is increased he does not have a choice as to what he pays.
The two are not the same. Either come up w/ a logical counter or stop being disingenuous.
Mouzer, I quoted you! How in the heck am I misconstruing your words when I quote you?
He could donate 50% of his income to the government. No, they would not then be called "taxes" but they serve exactly the SAME purpose. But to say, "Oh, if it's not called taxes then he's not being hypocritical keeping all his money," is ridiculous and "disingenuous" to me.
As to Brown, I don't know if his insurance would have covered his daughter or not with or without Obamacare. Many policies already cover as long as the "child" is in college, some even if not. So do we know if his would have covered without Obamacare?
Here's proof of my assertion:
I was on my parents insurance when I was in college but that was 30 years ago. So if we are going to be nitpicking and say since Obama's "donation" would not technically be called "taxes" then his not being hypocritical. I say unless someone has proof that Walkers insurance would not have covered his daughter even without Obamacare, I think you can't make the case he's being hypocritical.
Of course, my bottom line point on Obamacare is that you can be for some of the provision but think the law as a whole is unconstitutional and unworkable. Lawmakers on both side vote against a bill they support because one part of the bill is not to their liking. It doesn't mean they are against everything in the bill.
You are assuming he IS a man of convictions....nope, just another GOP hypocrite.
Can someone please explain to me why it is the agents of government will degrade and belittle other politicians and the government with which they represent and are still able to get re-elected? Moreover why is it that these jack wagons are allowed by their constituency to be able to take advantage of such horrible and draconian services especially while they're talking them and voting them down? Why is it that he and the rest of the RePubicans can down talk the stimulus, Healthcare and anything else on the Obama agenda yet no one in their constituency or their party for that matter will hold them accountable to values they say they stand for and on?
I understand that quite a bit of the stimulus money has been paid back and the republicans want it to go towards the deficit. Sounds fine but I don't know what happened with the money. I also heard their was stimulus money not spent yet. Don't get it. Before they wanted a larger stimulus but didn't get it.
I so agree with you!
If Scott Brown actually believed the things he said, he wouldn't use it. Principle is principle. Clearly, Brown doesn't have many.
There are two kinds of problems in Scott Brown's world: The ones he perpetuates with his votes and the ones he solves with hair dye and barn coats.
I have a 23 year old daughter, who is still in college. She also has diabetes. If we were to lose this insurance coverage it would devastate us financially to insure her. Because if course, it's a pre-existing condition, and no insurance company would want to touch her with a 10 foot pole. Maybe there are pieces of Obamacare that should be modified, but to "blow it up" completely is foolish, and selfish. I'm so tired of those with endless means, thinking that the rest of the population should just suck it up!
I know people who are married to Type 1 diabetics. They know perfectly well that in this job market the money they make is good and important, but the access to insurance for their spouses is, literally, life or death.
As a result, they might as well be in chains -- and they know it.
The Rebumblicant's are lying hypocrites, plain and simple. It's up to US to hold them accountable.
@ Joseph ,well lets see the lib's had a field day making fun of stay at home mothers Romney's wife at the head of the list and you want to toss out the hypocrite word,,check the mirror baby...
Liberals didn't make fun of stay at home moms. That was your interpretation as an exaggeration to a statement made by Hilary Rosen. What was stated is that Ann Romney does not understand what it's like to be a working mother because she has never worked a day in her life. Now you can certainly disagree w/ the idea that "working" can only be meant in the realm of monetary gains in exchange for products and services. It's completely legitimate (and quite a feminist argument) to state that both are forms of work. W/ that said what Rosen meant was that Mrs. Romney has never had to juggle between employment and being a stay at home mother. She has had that luxury and that makes her out of touch w/ women who do not have such luxuries. Now you can again state that it's OK for her to be out of touch, but this doesn't negate the truth of Rosen's comments.
You cannot call out hypocrisy when you are the one manipulating a person's statement to make it sound like a person is making a claim they never actually made. Rosen never stated that women who stay at home are bad or that Ann Romney being a stay at home mother was bad. What she stated was that this makes Ann out of touch w/ women who have not had that luxury. The only thing that this proves here is not hypocrisy on the left but stupidity and manipulation on the right.
@Wolfette: I really wish that Hilary Rosen's comment was repeated in full, and not edited. Here is what she actually said:
"(Romney's) wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing."
It's the second sentence that is relevant, and which is always omitted when quoting her. No one says that full-time motherhood isn't "work". Hilary was speaking of women who must work to pay the bills, and that is something that Ann Romney has never had to do.
And lets not forget Hilary Rosen was talking about Ann Romney specifically. There are lots of stay at home mom, but how many have maids, gardeners, over 250M in the bank?
Ann Romney might have had her struggle raising 5 kids with MS and breast cancer, but with all due respect, at least she didn't have to worry that the very fact she had MS and Breast Cancer would mean her family had to make a choice between affording her treatments, put a roof and feed their kids, or putting them to college. When she was sick she can concentrate on her treatment and healing herself without having to worry about who was going to take care of her kids while she was in bed. These are not something all stay at home mom have the privilege on and that was what Hillary Rosen was trying to convey before the nitpicking of the meaning of "worked a day in her life" being used against her.
There are wealthy Americans who believe that the wealthy should pay more taxes. They don't (necessarily) pay more taxes voluntarily, but they believe they should have to pay more taxes and will gladly do so when they're forced to. I find this practice as hypocritical as what Senator Brown is doing here - which is to say not at all. They are following (or taking advantage of) the law while they push to try to change the law. That is neither immoral nor hypocritical. It's lawful. That said, I hope Scott fails in his attempt and that he and millions of others continue to use such provisions of Obamacare.
Poor example. It's more like someone chowing down on a juicy Angus burger while saying (and voting to the effect) that no one should be allowed to enjoy beef.
That's not a good comparison. The rich who say they will pay more taxes don't have the ability to vote on their tax increases , whereas, Brown has the ability to vote on the Health Care bill.
Tell me something: How do you "volunteer" to pay more taxes? I've never seen a line item on a tax form that says "amount volunteered".
At least President Obama is WILLING to put his money where his mouth is. As is Warren Buffet.
You cannot voluntarily raise your tax. What you can do is refuse to take your rebate (assuming you're entitled to one) and refuse to take deductions. You can then donate that amount, instead, to pay off the national debt. It's a completely made up argument.
There are plenty of rich people in Congress (and the President) who say that they should pay more taxes and CAN vote to that effect, but don't pay more taxes while they aren't required to do so. The law is the law. You can work to change the law while following the law you want to change without being a hypocrite. There's so much hypocrisy to choose from, I just think it's a shame that we have to call it out when it's not really there. This is just like the fake outrage that the reactionary right uses. I like Obamacare. I want everyone to use it. So I shouldn't beat up on someone for doing just that. That would be hypocritical.
Neh I suppose I see your point here Steve. What you are saying is that it's not hypocritical for someone to use the law to their advantage while the law exists, even when they disagree w/ the law.
OK I suppose I can see that. To me it shows a lack of character because to me it means that person really is just touting the party line and isn't doing anything to change it. This is especially true when Brown is choosing to cover his daughter but PBO cannot choose to pay his taxes. BUT I suppose you could argue that he could choose not to take deductions (although that isn't what he's railed against). So I guess I can meet you half way =)
He's the perfect republicant. "I've got mine, screw you." it's not hypocrisy, it's their personal religion and party platform.
Insurance coverage for my daughter -- Stimulus funds for my district -- Hidden same-sex relationships -- Time and again we see the utter hypocrisy of Republicans on full display. They scream like banshees against certain policies which they proclaim will destroy the republic as we know it . . . and then quietly let those policies grease their hands or protect their hides. Have you at long last no decency? At least say, "No thank you" to the policies you rail against.
Voters . . . WAKE UP.
Unless they are completely honest with their base, the religious, gun owners, those on a higher "moral ground"?, the rich, the selfish, and the hateful will vote republican.
Let me see if I got this right. Claim that health care reform is not necessary and smacks of socialism. But then use the reform to profit, even though you have the funds to do what you profess to be the morally correct thing. Time for the voters to do the morally correct thing and get these hypocrites out of office. Our country is not their playground for personal gain. Enough!
This is the m.o. of the modern Republican Party. Gold-plated benefits, privilege, government aid, an obstructed path to untold riches and the American Dream...all of this is perfectly fine for conservatives to attain. But the GOP wants to keep all of this out of the hands of real, ordinary Americans. Scott Brown and his Republican colleagues are basically turning this country into one with a brutal caste system, keeping things like health care, a decent income and higher education for themselves and their supporters, whil denying it for everyone else. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
He isn't the only guilty culprit. Even if people aren't crazy over Obama, this is the time to vote on the issues that concern you. It can't be a popularity test.
In the GOP play book, subsidizing the lower orders of life only breeds dependency. Privilege is only for the already privileged, not the hoi polloi.
Where did the half million dollars he and his wife made come from? He gets elected and gets rich.Using political office seems to be the norm in Washington nowadays.No wonder he lies and cheats to stay in office.Must be nice!
His wife is in broadcasting. I'm also guessing that they have some very nice investments.
There is no way that politicians get rich on their service to the gov, they have to be up to something else. Like being bought by people in those super pacs.
Except that a big part of their proposed replacement agenda is to have a national market for health care. If, for instance, Texas approves an insurance plan that denies coverage to children over 18 (no exceptions), it could be marketed in Massachusetts regardless of what Massachusetts wants to require.
No, it is not hypocritical for him to use this beneficial provision. This really *is* the same as my advocating for higher rates on my tax bracket at the same time as I take the available deductions. The law is the law for everyone, and following the law is what counts. I may believe that we should change certain laws, but collective problems require collective solutions, and are collective precisely because individual actions would be fatuous.
It *is* a failure of empathy to lack the understanding that the same law that benefits you is beneficial to everyone else. It is a major failure of empathy to understand that your wealth makes this a choice, while for others who are less wealthy this is a lifeline.
So I think hypocrite is a charge that can't stick. But we have a word for people lacking in empathy that I suspect Sen. Walker would like much less than hypocrite.
We call people like that psychopaths...
It would be interesting to look into the early childhood development of Republicans. They may have had a problem with "sharing."
You're all giving him grief for following the law? And if he did not- then all of you (the sort of willfully ignorant fools who drink Maddow's kool-aid) would STILL be up in arms. Scott Brown is heralded as an innovative moderate Republican. He should be embraced by Dems., Libs. and Leftists alike.
Lastly, I make dirt for money. In fact, my employer pays me just under the limit to qualify for a certain health plan. I was competitive enough to get my job which, despite the insultingly low pay, I still enjoy doing and take pride in doing. I therefore find it abhorrent that people would criticize another's wealth unless it was gained by illegitimate means (Brown's was not, Romney's was not, even Frizzy-Lizzy Warren's was not... and don't even try to tell me Bain Capital was a bad-boy under Romney, read the WSJ for all the proof and more that you need.) This brings me to my last point on wealth: Elizabeth Warren is the hypocrite, not Brown. She is self-annointed Queen of OWS and yet of the 1% and lives in an ivory tower.
Fin.
Did you hear that Elizabeth Warren classifies herself as a minorty? Native American - evidently she has a great x 5 grandmother who was Cherokee. Evidently, being 5% Cherokee means she's a minority - this is listed as her status at Harvard.
Kathy- you are considered Native American up until 1/16th. After 1/16th you are no longer able to claim Native American status. Did you know that? It has to do w/ a law made yearrrs ago.
Anyways people wouldn't be up in arms if Scott Brown wasn't covering his daughter on health insurance. Was he doing this before ACA was passed? No. Were people complaining about it then? No. You might find a blog here or there, but there wasn't a massive left wing outrage over it. Scott Brown states that he doesn't like the law but then willingly follows the law.
Hell I'll be willing to meet the post above who said let's not call it hypocrisy lets call it a massive lack of empathy. Scott Brown is talking advantage of something that could help millions of people and then stating that he thinks it's OK for him to use this right, but not okay for the other millions of people out there. At the very least you could state that this makes him a jerk
Scott Brown is simply taking advantage of the Massachusetts healthcare law which permits uninsured children under the age of 26 to remain on their parents' healthcare plan. The Obama plan is remarkably similar to Massachusetts' plan (thanks, Mitt!). The MA plan also penalizes uninsured people. It's also extremely expensive for small employers - who, yes, are penalized if they don't insure their people. Sadly, most employees expect to be offered perks like insurance and don't consider the cost of this for their employer. Seriously? If there is to be national health insurance, let it be real universal insurance, not this poor excuse that requires businesses to insure their people. The company I work for (a large corporation) has yearly fitness/health tests (which include the need to submit bloodwork) with a monetary incentive...The testing is oluntary, and I've refused to take it each year it's offered. I see no reason to willingly give up my DNA, however other employees don't have this luxury - the additional $200 is too much for them to refuse. In the near future, if it isn't happening already, I expect to see companies discriminate in their hiring practices based on the perception that a potential employee might cost them money in health care costs, i.e. overweight, over a certain age (happening now), perception that the person is a smoker, etc. Most companies already do drug testing...health screening is just around the corner.
The ACA does not require businesses to insure their people. Now the health care bill signed by Romney may indeed do that, but I just wanted to clarify that ACA does not. A lot of people seem to be misinformed about this. What ACA requires is that if you decide to provide health insurance to your employees you must either provide a compensation salary to your employee so that he/she can pay into the plan out of his/her wage or you must report to the government (when the business files it's taxes) how much your health care costs per employee are defunct from that of the employees wage. The government will then issue a subsidy to the employee on the basis of this and the employees W2.
But I do agree that universal health care is better and that we shouldn't have the insurance industry as our primary caretaker. I do think this was a mistake- but that is what PBO gets for adapting Republican ideas to his party platform.
It's the wrong time to ride the Republican bigotry and anti-social obstruction bandwagon. Like so many other high ranking Republicans, they have their times mixed up. This is 2012, not 1948. America wants to move forward, not backward. The seniros with their Tea party "ideas" are dying off. The future belongs to those with clear vision, not blind faith.
I agree only with your last sentence there vinyl. We do need clear vision, and the Democrats are running completely on blind faith. Clear vision, and simple logic, indicates that we cannot, as a country, continue to tax the crap out of anyone with money just so we can give it to those with no desire to work. Obamacare is yet another of these handouts that we simply cannot afford to give. I want my child to grow up in the America I know and love. If the Democrats get to keep steamrolling intelligence in favor of fantasy then America will go the way of Greece. As for Brown, well, I can freely admit that I find this to be right in line with any politician of any political flavor. Every one of them will take what they can get, regardless of it's moral consequence, right up until it hits them in the voter booth. Romney will do the same, but at least he has experience running a business. That alone makes him more qualified on fixing the economy, which is what we, as a country, so desparately need.