Why some can’t wait for repeal of Obamacare
For Linda Dearman, the May 4 House vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act was a welcome relief.
Dearman, of Bartlett, Ill., voted for President Donald Trump largely because of his contempt for the feder a l healt h l aw. She a nd her husband, a partner in an engineering firm, buy their own insurance, but late last year they dropped their $1,100-a-month policy and switched to a bare-bones plan that does not meet the law’s requirements. They are counting that the law will be repealed before they owe a penalty.
“Now it looks like it will be, and we’re thrilled about that,” Dearman, 54, said.
The voices of people like the Dearmans helped spawn a political movement after the passage of the health law seven years ago. But unlike the pro-Obamacare forces that have flooded congressional phone lines and town hall meetings, opponents of the health care law have been quieter as Trump and Republicans in Congress have worked to fulfill their promise to get rid of the law.
Yet even if the law no longer faces the kind of strident grass-roots opposition that helped hand the Republicans the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014, many who perceive themselves as losers under its policies are still anxiously awaiting its demise.
The challenge for Republicans is to reclaim the narrative, countering the intense resistance to repeal with personal stories of people struggling with high insurance costs, tax penalties and government rules.
Senate Majorit y Leader Mitch McConnell invoked those st rug gle s when he sent a Twitter message last week: “To those who’ve suffered from the failures of Obamacare: We hear you. Congress is acting.”
The American Action Network, a conservative group, is spending nearly $3 million on television and digital ads praising the House bill and those who voted for it. Future ads will include testimonials from people “about how devastating the ACA was for them,” said Corry Bliss, the group’s executive director.
They are competing with viral video moments like the emotional appeal to Congress by comedian Jimmy Kimmel to ensure that seriously ill people like his infant son can get treatment, and the furious response from a town hall audience to the assertion by Rep. Raúl R. Labrador, R-Idaho, that “nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care.”
House Republicans find themselves on the defensive for passing a bill that would weaken protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions, sharply cut federal Medicaid funding and require many poor and older people to pay a much larger share of their health insurance bill. Yet they are being rooted on by Americans like the Dearmans who expect the Republican legislation to bring them more choices and lower their personal costs.
In some cases, though, their zest for repeal has been tempered by concern or confusion about some specifics of the Republican bill, especially the relaxation of protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
In interviews over the last few days, people who support repealing the Affordable Care Ac t pointed to their long-simmering resentment of its mandate that most Americans have health insurance or pay a tax penalty. Many also said that they could no longer afford the comprehensive coverage avai l abl e on t he i ndivi dual market, and that they were eager to once again be allowed to choose skinnier policies without a penalty.
“Now I wi l l n o l o n ge r be expected to pay t wice what I should for a product I don’t need and be treated like a criminal with a fine if I refuse,” said Edward Belanger, 55, a self-employed business appraiser in Dallas. He is an independent who usually votes Republican but last year chose Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, over Trump.
L i k e t h e D e a r m a n s , Belanger canceled a plan that complies with the Affordable Care Act and bought a short-term policy that does not meet the law’s standards, paying $580 a month for his family of four compared with the nearly $1,200 a month he paid last year. Policies like theirs usually have high deductibles and primarily offer catastrophic coverage for major injuries. Once the policies expire, policyholders must reapply and may be rejected if they are sick.
Last year, the Dearmans pai d $ 1 ,1 00 a month fo r themselves and a college-age son, with a $2,000-per-person deductible. Both they and the Belangers earn too much to receive subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, which limits them to people with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty level, or $97,200 for a family of four.
Middle-class Americans who feel squeezed by the full cost of insurance under the law are among its fiercest critics, and could in many cases be winners of a sort under the House bill, which would provide subsidies to families that earn far more than the Affordable Care Act’s income limit. They would range from $2,000 a year for people in their 20s to $4,000 for those in their 60s, with a limit of $14,000 per family, gradually phasing down for couples earning more than $150,000. There is no guarantee, however, that deductibles would be smaller under the Republican plan.