[oldembed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/Qs_uGGAz8Jw?fs=1" width="374" height="300" resize="1" fid="21"]

In what can only be described as a fairly stunning display of hypocrisy, Freshman Rep. Richard Nugent (R-FL) says he will pay $9,000 to keep his health insurance through his "employer", not through the FEHBP plan for members of Congress because he might have an accident and need treatment he couldn't otherwise afford.

NUGENT: I will tell you this, what I will pay for insurance to get through my employer, not through the House, will be almost — will costs me $9,000 more a year. But I wan to remain with that, because I think it’s the right thing to do. Because I think that when you have Americans that are struggling, why should I get a cost saving because I just got elected to the United States House of Representatives?

How nice for Rep. Nugent. He has options, like keeping that insurance through his 'employer'. Only, isn't his employer the House of Representatives now? I paid a visit to his website to see who employed him before he was elected. It seems he was the Sheriff of Hernando County. In fact, in all of the literature I've been able to find about him, I cannot find any evidence that he has ever been employed by a business. He was in the military, and then in law enforcement.

It's possible he worked for the Sheriff's department long enough to have earned the right to keep his health insurance with them until he is Medicare-eligible, in fact, since his bio indicates he began his public safety career in 1972.

If so, then what we have here is a guy who is a career public servant with a public pension and a right to health insurance without fear of being dropped for pre-existing conditions, with a nice fat paycheck from the US government to help pay the premiums. And he would never, ever go without health insurance, right?

Here's another freshman Republican Representative who may be even more of a hypocrite than Nugent -- Rep. Michael Grimm, (R-NY). He's upset because he couldn't get on the Congressional plan fast enough and is quoted in a print article as saying this:

"What am I, not supposed to have health care?" Grimm told the New York Daily News (the article hasn't appeared online, only in print). "It's practicality. I'm not going to become a burden for the state because I don't have health care and, God forbid I get into an accident and I can't afford the operation...That can happen to anyone."

God forbid. Which is why Rep. Grimm thinks it's a great idea to repeal that access for everyone else. Got it.