Las Vegas Review-Journal (Sunday)
Heller turned against Nevadans by backing Senate’s health bill
The Senate’s last-ditch assault on the Affordable Care Act appeared to be all but dead heading into the weekend, but Nevadans are going to remember it even if it never comes to a vote. That’s because Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., not only supported the horrible bill, he doubled down by lending his name to it. Considering how badly the bill would hurt Nevadans, that was like Goldman Sachs taking credit for helping cause the recession.
How awful is the Cassidy-Graham-Heller-Johnson proposal?
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, who picked Heller for his Senate seat, signed a letter with nine other governors opposing the measure. Pick virtually any health industry organization, and you can be sure they’ve blasted it. A sampling:
• American Heart Association: “This legislation fails to provide Americans with what they need to maintain their health. In fact, much of the proposal just repackages the problematic provisions of the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), which we opposed.”
• American Medical Association: “Similar to proposals that were considered in the Senate in July, we believe the Graham-Cassidy Amendment would result in millions of Americans losing their health insurance coverage, destabilize health insurance markets, and decrease access to affordable coverage and care.”
• American Academy of Pediatrics: “This bill may be disguised under a different name, but it contains the same dangerous policies as the legislation that failed to advance out of the Senate earlier this summer. In fact, Graham-Cassidy goes even further in its attacks on Medicaid.”
• AARP: “Overall, the Graham/Cassidy/ Heller/Johnson bill would increase health care costs for older Americans with an age tax, decrease coverage, and undermine preexisting condition protections. In addition, this bill would jeopardize the ability of older Americans and people with disabilities to stay in their own homes as they age and threaten coverage for individuals in nursing homes.”
Insurance companies hate the bill, too. “The legislation reduces funding for many states significantly and would increase uncertainty in the marketplace, making coverage more expensive and jeopardizing Americans’ choice of health plans,” the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said, echoing concerns raised by other insurers. “Legislation must also ensure adequate funding for Medicaid to protect the most vulnerable.”
Whether Cassidy-Graham-Heller-Johnson would ever see the light of day was questionable Friday afternoon, thanks to Arizona Sen. John McCain’s announcement that he couldn’t support it. Senate Republicans, with their slim majority of 52 and with Rand Paul, R-Ky., having already announced his opposition, appeared to be facing long odds in steering the bill toward a vote this week. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, have expressed concerns about it and both voted against the Senate’s last health bill.
However, Senate leadership hadn’t formally pulled the plug on the bill, so the threat remained that the GOP could dial up pressure to get enough votes to bring the measure to the floor.
That would be terrible for Nevada.
It’s unclear exactly how the measure would affect the state, but a widely referenced analysis by the left-leaning Center on Budget Policy and Priorities says it would cost the state at least $639 million and possibly as much as $2.7 billion in federal funding. The Center for American Progress said the bill, which would eliminate key provisions of ACA and convert federal spending on it to block grants, would result in 243,000 Nevadans losing their health insurance.
And Nevada would hardly be alone. An analysis by the Washington-based consulting firm Avalere Health said 34 states would suffer losses, with the plan slashing funding to states by a staggering $215 billion over the six years after the measure would go into effect in 2020.
So why would any sitting senator attach his name to something so risky and so potentially damaging to his home state? Why would a senator who said he wouldn’t support the Better Care Reconciliation Act unless “the Republican governors that have expanded Medicaid sign off on it” now push ahead with a measure that Sandoval and his nine counterparts oppose?
Is it possible the Trump administration has offered Heller a position in exchange for his vote? What incentive could there be for Heller to do something so detrimental to his 2018 re-election bid? It certainly looked like he’d made some sort of deal, because he most definitely was not representing the interests of the people he’s supposed to represent.
McCain, Collins, Murkowski and Paul have stood for Nevadans more than Heller has.
Nevada families won’t forget that when it’s time to go to the polls, regardless of what happens this week.