This morning, as the House of Representatives begins debating H.R. 2 Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, the majority of Republicans in the House will still be receiving insurance through the Federal Employees’ Health Benefits Plan — a federal exchange which offers subsidized coverage to federal government workers, including members of Congress. According to a ThinkProgress analysis, seven, or just three percent of all the Republicans in the House have agreed to give up their insurance while they vote to repeal coverage for some 32 million Americans. “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?,” Rep. Richard Nugent’s (R-FL) — one of the seven Republicans — explained two weeks ago. Rep. Bobby Schilling (R-IL) agreed, saying that Congress “shouldn’t have anything better than the American people.”

But the majority of the GOP still sees nothing wrong in purchasing tax-payer subsidized insurance while trying to deny coverage to the taxpayer. In fact, a number of Republicans are defending their right to stay insured by citing the very arguments put forward by proponents of reform:

– REP. VICKY HARTZLER (R-MO): Freshman Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) said she would not forgo her congressional health care plan. Hartzler spokesman Steve Walsh explained the congresswoman’s decision because “The issue was and always has been government-RUN health care …not government providing PRIVATE insurance to its employees.” [PolitcoMo, 1/7/11]

– REP. AARON SCHOCK (R-IL): Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL) said he continue to receive health care through his congressional health plan, noting that by doing so would help reduce the costs for everyone else. “So I think it’s kind of interesting how people make such a big deal out of the health care coverage we have, which is not bad by any means. But I haven’t given it much thought because quite frankly I think I’m helping out the institution by lowering the risk pool for some of my older guys,” he said. Later, Schock added that the Affordable Care Act was “completely different” than the type of coverage Members of Congress receive. [Think Progress, 1/7/11]

– REP. MICHAEL GRIMM (R-NY): Freshman Congressman Michael Grimm (R-NY) rejected claims that it was hypocritical for him to receive health coverage that provided the same consumer protections he was trying to repeal for others. “What am I, not supposed to have health care?” Later, he said the reason to have coverage is “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.” [Hotline On Call, 1/6/11]

Indeed, by 2014, uninsured Americans will be able to enroll in “PRIVATE insurance” through a series of state-based exchanges that will attempt to attract younger and healthier enrollees — like Schock — who could bring down premiums for the entire risk pool. The mandate will require these individuals to purchase insurance so that they don’t “become a burden for the state” once they require medical attention.

The seven Republicans who have opted out of their Congressinal plans include: Richard Nugent (FL), Sandy Adams (FL), Bill Johnson (OH), Mike Kelly (PA), Bobby Schilling (IL), Joe Walsh (IL) and Daniel Webster (FL), and Rep. Frank Guinta (R-NH).

This morning, the Department of Health and Human Services released a new report showing that up to 129 million Americans have a pre-existing condition and would likely be denied coverage in the individual health insurance market. During an appearance this morning on MSNBC, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted that most of these individuals already have coverage, but argued that they would have a hard time finding insurance if the law were repealed and they were to lose their job. “A number of people are in jobs with large employers where people can’t be underwritten because of their health condition, that’s good news. But those folks frankly can’t look at leaving that jobs, can’t start their own business, can’t have the freedom to retiring early before they have qualify for Medicare because they are terrified they will lose that insurance coverage,” Sebelius said, pointing out that insurers deny coverage to 1 out of every 7 who apply for it in the individual market.

House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) dismissed these concerns while responding to the report on Fox News, but apart from questioning the timing of the release of the study, Dreier didn’t challenge the report’s conclusion or provide a clear explanation for how Republicans would help the 129 million Americans find access to affordable insurance:

DREIER: I think that if you look at policy providers they’re saying that many of those people who fall into that category are already insured and it’s very interesting, very interesting that that study has come out literally the day that we begin the debate on this issue. We all want to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions have their needs addressed and I think we can find effective ways to do just that.

Watch it:

Republicans have suggested that they would cover sicker Americans in high-risk insurance pools, which are already part of the existing legislation and are designed to provide insurance to the sickest Americans before the exchanges become operational in 2014. Unfortunately, the high premiums associated with covering only sick people has kept these programs out of reach for most of the eligible population.

In fact, Republicans — who have long championed the pools as a means of extending coverage to those who don’t qualify for insurance in the individual market — have criticized the programs as ineffective and underfunded. The ACA provides $5 billion to run the temporary pools for three and a half years while the Republicans have proposed spending $25 billion over 10 years to keep the pools running on a permanent basis.

Last night, Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren pressed Rep. Steve King (R-IA) on how repeal of health care reform would help the uninsured or the poorest Americans who can’t afford to purchase coverage. King tried to dodge the question by arguing that just 12 million would be left without coverage should the law be eliminated. “That’s less than 4 percent of the population. And it’s wrong for us to try to change 100 percent of the policy to address less than 4 percent of the population in America,” King said.

But Van Susteren pressed further, asking, “With that 4 percent, that 12 million, what would you do with them?,” and exposing the GOP’s lack of a solution for extending coverage to the uninsured:

KING: You know, that’s a little bit different kind of a situation, and the states can deal with that. And we can subsidize some of that. Some of those people that are in that list are those who have pre-existing conditions.

VAN SUSTEREN: What do we do about them?

KING: We can step in and help the states establish those policies to address those high risk pools. That’s one of the ways to deal with preexisting conditions, and I think that will go a long ways towards — and it’s constitutional.

VAN SUSTEREN: What about the very poor?

KING: The very poor have always had access to Medicaid. And the Medicaid policy is there, and there’s something like 9.7 million Americans who qualify for Medicaid that just simply don’t sign up. So that policy’s there for those who are the very poor. We will take care of those. But we need to also make sure that the incentives for those who will take care of themselves are there, that we don’t lower everybody down to the lowest common denominator and punish people for being personally responsible.

Watch it:

King’s solution to help states establish insurance programs for the sickest Americans — so-called high-risk insurance pools — is already part of the Affordable Care Act, but the programs have thus far failed to attract enough enrollees. The problem is that insuring large groups of sick people who need constant medical attention is expensive and even though the law requires premiums for the high-risk plans “to track those charged by private insurance plans for customers in good health, those rates have still proven unaffordable for many,” charging approximately $300 per month for coverage.

A more sustainable solution would be precisely what King suggests — ensuring that there are incentives “for those who will take care of themselves” that don’t “punish people for being personally responsible.” He is inadvertently making the case of an individual mandate, without which it’s very difficult to encourage healthy people to enter the risk pools and offset the costs of treating the sick.