One of the arguments that my fellow progressives and liberals have been making, both in the blogosphere and in real life, in support of supporting the option of a public option is but don't you want for everyone to be able to have the same health care as Congress?

Well, of course. I'd be cool with that. But first a digression...

Your Congress critters will make $174,000 this year [2009].
Divide by 12. That's $14,500 per month.
Note that:

• $400 is 2.8% of $14,500
• $900 is 6.2% of $14,500

The median household income in the US in 2007 was $50,740.
Divide by 12. That's $4228 per month.
Note that:

• 2.8% of $4228 is $118
• 6.2% of $4228 is $262
• 2.2% of $4228 is $93
• 8.7% of $4228 is $368
• 4.75% of $4228 is $201

There are maybe 2.5 million federal government employees:

• 600,000 [give or take] in the Postal service
• 1.8 million non-postal workers
• plus some unknowable [if we told you, we'd have to kill you] number of employees in the various Nefarious Secrecy Agencies

Back on topic... Digby, in One From Column A:

One of the best arguments in the health care debate is the one that says every American should get the same health plan that members of congress have. Taxpayers pay for it so why shouldn't they be able to choose the same plan?

Why not indeed?

So we get a glimpse of the health insurance that Congress critters have. They can choose their preferred plan from among the hundreds offered to federal government employees through the FEHBP. Got a pre-existing condition? No problem. Gotta wait some required time for coverage to kick in? Nope, you're ready to go on Day 1. Got choice? CDHPs, HDHPs, HMOs, PPOs, FFS plans. Affordable? The government pays up to 75% of the premium. Wanna know ahead of time what your premium is going to be? Start here.

As Digby says:

That looks like a public plan worth having to me.

[Now, Digby fails to mention that 10% of government employees can't afford their employer-provided insurance. But hey, no biggie, that's what subsidies are for, so I don't have any real problem with that omission.]

But... the public plan isn't going to be anything at all like what Congress has. The article that Digby cites as a primer on FEHBP plans cites an article from the St Petersburg Times telling us a little more about the health care that Congress critters get.

First, how much do our august representatives of Democracy pay for their insurance?

Premiums vary, depending on how much coverage is desired, and costs are shared by the government and individual workers. On average, the government pays 72 percent. Members of Congress end up paying anywhere from $100 to $300 a month.

Next, what other health care perks do they get?

Members of Congress have their own pharmacy, right in the Capitol. They also have a team of doctors, technicians and nurses standing by in case something busts in a filibuster. They can get a physical exam, an X-ray or an electrocardiogram, without leaving work.

Cool! That must cost them a pretty penny, though. Nope:

The goodies are not part of their basic coverage. These are optional perks that cost about $300 a month for House members and about $600 a month for senators. Taxpayers kick in another $2-million.

So, for a total of somewhere between $400 and $900 per month, Congress critters, who btw make a very damn comfy salary, enjoy both Cadillac health insurance and Cadillac health care.

Would I support a public option that guaranteed everybody Cadillac health care for 3-6% of a guaranteed decent income?

OH HELL YES.

It's called HR 676, but if you don't like that one there's always S 703.

Under HR 676, employees and their employers would probably each pay a payroll tax of 4.75% of the employee's salary. Under S 703, employees would pay a payroll tax of 2.2% of their salary and their employers would pay a payroll tax of 8.7% of the employee's salary.