Waste of time

The House of Representatives bets on removing health insurance coverage in its quest to defeat Obama
Sigue a El Diario NY en Facebook
Waste of time

For the leadership of the House of Representatives, 30 useless failed votes against the health care reform in a two-year period are not enough to show their displeasure with the law whose constitutionality was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why today, they will once again vote to repeal the law.

We think this waste of time and effort at the lower chamber is one example of why there is popular anger against a Washington that is perceived as disconnected from the concerns of Americans. There is no possibility, like in the 30 times before, for the Senate to even consider this.

Therefore, this is a political action devoid of any concrete purpose other than repeating what has been endlessly repeated, to see if someone new jumps on the anti-Obama train for the November election. For that, several hours of debate have been scheduled to repeat false claims, such as that the law is government intervention that interrupts a supposed idyllic patient-doctor relationship, ignoring the fact that insurance companies have already disrupted this relationship.

From here on out, the distortions multiply. The worst one is the claim that repealing the law-which has not been fully implemented yet and therefore, its impact is unknown-will help create jobs.

What is known for sure is that, if the health care law is repealed, retirees with Medicare will pay more for their medications and 6.6 million young adults under 26 will lose the insurance coverage they have today thanks to their parents. In addition, new consumer protections to prevent being arbitrarily rejected by insurance companies would be eliminated.

Republicans in general seem oblivious to the serious consequences of leaving more people uninsured.

For example, there are no positive proposals for health insurance coverage linked to the House of Representatives’ rejection of “Obamacare.” In addition, several GOP governors from states like Florida, Louisiana and Texas have rejected-or are considering rejecting-the free Medicaid expansion that under the new law would allow them to provide coverage for a large sector of the population that is uninsured.

Surely, the same lawmakers and governors who are rejecting coverage for many people in their districts and states do have excellent insurance coverage themselves. For them, the priority is preventing President Obama’s re-election at all costs, even if it means harming those who today enjoy the peace of mind of having health insurance.