Editorial: If the Affordable Care Act is Repealed, We All Lose

On November 10, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the Trump Administration’s arguments in its lawsuit to abolish the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or “Obamacare”). One of the promises Donald Trump ran on in 2016 was to strike down Obamacare, which he frequently calls “a disaster.” Ten years after the Obama Administration passed the Affordable Care Act, many Americans are still confused or completely in the dark about what it is, and how it impacts them. This is due in large part to misinformation and conspiracy theories spread (and even paid for) by opponents of the Affordable Care Act.

Though Donald Trump has promised a bigger, better health care plan to replace Obamacare, the unveiling of his plan has been “two weeks away” for more than three years. The GOP has made some weak efforts to create a replacement plan, but they have not been able to reach agreement on a bill. It’s clear that destroying the ACA is more important to Donald Trump and his base than ensuring that Americans have viable access to affordable health care.

If the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate Obamacare are successful, it will impact most Americans with health care coverage in some way, even if they receive private health insurance through an employer. Many Americans are not aware of the protections the Affordable Care Act has created for all health care recipients in the U.S., regardless of where they get their health care coverage. Some of these are benefits that we all have come to take for granted. Others that impact all of us are less well-known.

Pre-Existing conditions

One of the most popular aspects of The Affordable Care Act is its requirement that insurers cover patients with pre-existing conditions at no additional charge. This means that insurers may not deny coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, and they are not allowed to charge higher premiums. After the passage of the Affordable Care Act, many Americans could, for the first time, afford to purchase competitive health insurance.

Though Donald Trump promises that his health care plan will continue to cover those with pre-existing conditions, he has not committed to how it will cover them; will they be covered, but at an exorbitant cost, as was the case with many insurers before the Affordable Care Act? Will they be subjected to extended waiting periods, or only be offered limited coverage? Will Trump disregard this promise regarding pre-existing conditions altogether?

This is an important consideration, as it’s estimated that, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, 19 to 50 percent of non-elderly Americans have pre-existing conditions. The spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. will increase that number, as many “long-haulers” who have survived the virus continue to suffer organ damage, respiratory issues, neurological issues, and more.

Wellness and preventive visits

Before the Affordable Care act, many private insurance companies didn’t cover wellness exams, or they only covered a percentage of the cost. The Affordable Care Act requires that all wellness and preventive visits be covered, and that they require no co-pay. In this category are not just basic annual physical exams, but regular gynecological exams, chronic disease management visits, domestic violence screening, and maternity and newborn care. Covering preventive and well-patient care keeps costs down for everyone, since health care providers can often find and treat illnesses before they become costly and even life-threatening.

A complaint that many Americans who oppose Obamacare have is that they have to pay for services they don’t need (such as maternity care). In reality, all insurance plans cover services that not every subscriber will need. Covering preventive care, and including maternity and newborn care in that coverage keeps costs down for everyone by reducing the number of emergency room visits, neonatal ICU admissions, and other costly services.

Coverage of pre-existing conditions and wellness visits are the two most widely-known and widely used benefits and protections we’ve gained from the Affordable Care Act. Here are some additional ones that could also disappear with the dismantling of the ACA.

Medicare expansion

Though the Affordable Care Act expanded the Medicaid program, it also expanded Medicare benefits. One change has been to close the prescription drug “doughnut hole” that left some Medicare recipients, even those with health insurance, with huge drug costs. In addition, the ACA required coverage of more preventive benefits for seniors with Medicare.

Medicare recipients should note that Donald Trump not only wants to do away with the Affordable Care Act, he has also said he plans to eliminate the federal payroll tax. He wants Americans to think he’s giving them a tax break, but it is the payroll tax that helps fund Medicare.

Mental Health and behavioral health treatment

The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover mental health care (though often with a co-pay), as well as treatment for drug, alcohol, and other substance abuse issues. It’s notable that the people who want to blame mass shootings on mental health issues rather than on the availability of combat weapons to civilians, are often the same people who are in favor of doing away with the ACA.

Generic biologic drugs

A less-known benefit of the ACA is that it created a pathway for copies of costly FDA-approved biologic drugs, called “biosimilars,” to be available to patients who might otherwise not be able to afford such treatments. These drugs treat serious and life-threatening illnesses such as rheumatoid arthritis, macular degeneration, and cancer.

Before the Affordable Care Act, there was no regulatory pathway for approval of the generic forms of these drugs, and thus, they would have been completely out of the question for many Americans.

Funding to train more health professionals 

The Affordable Care Act assumes that if more people have health care coverage, more people will seek health care. Based on this idea, the ACA includes provisions for funds dedicated to training programs to increase the supply of health care providers— including physicians, nurses, therapists, and community health centers.

The Trump administration has a knack for shortsighted, non-strategic actions: the act of separating migrant children from their parents in 2018 without a plan for reuniting them, which resulted in some families being lost to each other to this day; the hasty Muslim ban in 2017 that left many stranded in airports, unable to re-enter the U.S., even with legal visas; the impulsive threat, via tweet, to send missiles to Syria; the many sudden firings of key government officials. The Trump administration’s plan to strike down the Affordable Care Act is just another such impulse without a plan or strategy.

If Donald Trump is successful in doing away with the Affordable Care Act, 29.8 million people in the U.S. would lose their health insurance, according to the Economic Policy Institute. That would more than double the number of people who are currently uninsured. But overturning the ACA would ripple through the economy, resulting in an estimated loss of 1.2 million jobs— and not just in health care.

According to a projection by the Economic Policy Institute, based on 2019, “The combination of tax cuts and spending cuts embedded in ACA repeal would reduce national job growth by almost 1.2 million… all else equal. That is because the spending cuts would hurt job growth more than the tax cuts would help it.”

Many Americans are sick, jobless, and in desperate financial straits as a result of the pandemic and its mismanagement by the same president who now wants to end their access to affordable health care. Though some Americans are oblivious to the  impact this will have, it will reverberate through not only our social welfare system, but also our health care system, and what’s left of our economic system, touching nearly all Americans in some way.

Sen. Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court and the future of health care |
CNBC [2020-09-28]

Biden on Barrett: Affordable Care Act is at stake | Associated Press
[2020-09-27]

Editorial: Republicans Embrace Double Standard as They Rush to Fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Seat

Minutes after news of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing on Friday, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell was announcing plans for her replacement. Without even a pause to pay respects, and with no regard for Ginsburg’s legacy or for her dying wish that she not be replaced until after the presidential election, McConnell was joined by various other Republican lawmakers announcing their support for Donald Trump’s immediate appointment of a Supreme Court justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Republicans are already explaining away the fact that they’ve changed their imaginary rules mid-game. In election year 2016, they blocked Obama’s nomination to replace deceased Justice Antonin Scalia, saying that the next president should select the next justice. “Let the American people decide,” they said then. The GOP held the seat open for nine months.

Now, facing a vacant seat just weeks away from the 2020 presidential election, they’ve crafted an opportunistic rationalization for their eagerness to appoint a right-leaning justice, based on a non-existent “rule” that “If both the White House and the senate are of the same party, they go forward with the nomination.”

Even though numerous Republican lawmakers are on record as agreeing with McConnell in 2016 that a new justice should not be appointed until after a presidential election, these same lawmakers are ignoring the hypocrisy in their support of McConnell’s recent conveniently revised stance.

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who said in 2016, “Why would we squelch the voice of the people? Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh in on the makeup of the Supreme Court?”

In 2020, however, when Fox News’ Chris Wallace challenged Cotton and the apparent hypocrisy of the GOP, Cotton said, “The Senate majority is performing our constitutional duty and fulfilling the mandate that the voters gave us.”

Among the many other GOP lawmakers who spoke in 2016 “on behalf of the American people” to oppose a nomination by Obama “in an election year,” are these:

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who said in 2016, “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), whose 2016 position was: “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term – I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

Right.

Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said in 2016, “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations.”

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), held in 2016 that “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

To date, only two Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine, have spoken up to say they don’t think the Senate should vote on a nominee before the presidential election. Both have acknowledged the standard set in 2016, when Republicans blocked even a hearing for Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump says he wants to “act fast” to get a confirmation before the November 3 election. Trump said that a nominee may be announced as early as Friday or Saturday (September  25 or 26). We can only hope his announcement follows the timeline of his imaginary health care plan that he has said for three years was coming “in two weeks.”

Trump has floated a number of possible nominees, saying he wants to appoint a woman because “I like women.”

Demonstrating the stringency of his requirements for a nominee, Trump said of one possible nominee, Barbara Lagoa, a Florida judge of Cuban descent who has the backing of many evangelicals, “She’s excellent. She’s Hispanic. She’s a terrific woman from everything I know. I don’t know her. Florida. We love Florida.”

Another possible nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, has stood out as very likely to be Trump’s choice. Barrett, a Chicago 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge, was in the running for the Supreme Court justice seat that ultimately went to Brett Kavanaugh. Coney, a favorite among religious conservatives, has a record of ruling in favor of various “pro-life” (anti-abortion) efforts to restrict abortion access, though she has never ruled directly on abortion. Barrett has also shown support for expanded gun rights and hardline immigration policies, and has voiced opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

During the 2017 confirmation hearing for her post on the Circuit Court, Senator Dianne Feinstein said to Barrett, “The dogma lives loudly within you.” This, no doubt, continues to make evangelical fundamentalists howl with the glee of possibility.

By nominating a woman who is “pro-life,” who favors expanded gun rights, who favors tougher immigration laws, and who might elect to strike down “Obamacare,” Donald Trump would be checking a number of his base’s boxes. He no doubt expects more votes from outside his base, too, by the sheer act of appointing a woman.

We can be sure, though, that even if Donald Trump nominates a woman to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she will be a darling of the evangelical right, and therefore, the opposite of Ginsburg, who led the liberal arm of the U.S. Supreme Court. She will be in a position to overturn what Ruth Bader Ginsburg spent her career working for, and she will be no champion of other women.

NPR’s Nina Totenberg said of Ginsburg, “She changed the way the world is for American women. For more than a decade, until her first judicial appointment in 1980, she led the fight in the courts for gender equality. When she began her legal crusade, women were treated, by law, differently from men. Hundreds of state and federal laws restricted what women could do, barring them from jobs, rights and even from jury service. By the time she donned judicial robes, however, Ginsburg had worked a revolution.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg championed women’s rights, as well as LGBTQ rights and minority rights because she acknowledged them as human rights. Many Americans can scarcely remember when women weren’t allowed to purchase a home without a husband or a male co-signer, or when a woman couldn’t open a credit card without the signature of a male. Many Americans also can’t remember the days before affirmative action.

The Republican lawmakers who currently fill the seats in the U.S. Congress have consistently shown that they value Donald Trump’s endorsement over honor; and personal gain over the good, or the will, of their constituents. Though they continue to try to justify their hypocrisy, this instance is no different from every other time they’ve chosen self-preservation over integrity. it does no good to try to appeal to their consciences by pointing out the hypocrisy in their rush to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat… they have squelched their consciences for so long that conscience is no longer of any consequence.

What McConnell, Graham said about Supreme Court vacancy in 2016 |
The Hill [2020-09-19]

What Senate Republicans have said about filling a Supreme Court vacancy | Washington Post [2020-09-18]