[ad_1]
After two years of trying to repeal Obamacare, the president and some GOP candidates have suddenly said they support the protection of the Affordable Care Act for people with pre-existing conditions, even though they voted in favor the repeal of bills that could weaken them, or prosecuted. completely eliminate Obamacare. Other Republicans associate their Democrat opponents to the single-payer health insurance scheme "Medicare for All" of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders – a way to invoke socialism to scare voters, even when the Democrats of these races opposed Sanders' plan or said that it was unfeasible.
The reason for this reversal is clear: some parts of Obamacare have proved very popular and the Democrats have opposed the Republicans' opposition to the law and other efforts to ruthlessly reduce spending on rights in the countryside. the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Governor.
"Obamacare was unpopular because it was disruptive," said former representative Tom Davis, former chairman of the House GOP campaign arm. Since the 2016 elections, however, "Republicans were the disruptive group, and at this point, even in disarray, the disruptive is paying a price at the polls."
Davis said Republicans can not afford to leave attacks on pre-existing conditions unanswered. "I do not think you want to drop this accusation, because health care is the only bill that hurts this year," he said.
But Republicans' tactical dodging and, at times, their lies about their roles in trying to unravel the current system, whether through legislation or justice, have left some Democrat candidates frustrated – and led to a new wave. of democratic attacks against GOP inconsistencies.
Fletcher, who was considered a moderate in his main match against Laura Moser, defied Republican John Culberson for a Houston House seat. During the debate, she complained that Culberson had presented her as a single-payer supporter in television commercials and mailers, even after her opposition politically rendered her vulnerable during the primary.
"And yet, as a member of Congress, you allowed television advertising by saying exactly the opposite of what I said," Fletcher said.
Similar scenes are unfolding throughout the country, as Democratic candidates who have objected or expressed strong reservations about "Medicare for all" are seen as strong advocates of the progressive idea.
In Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, the first in the run for the governor's race, survived a Democratic primary in which she was the target of progressives to oppose a "Medicare for all" system at home. state level.
But earlier this month, in a TV commercial, the Republican Governors' Association accused Whitmer of pursuing "a radical takeover of your health care by the government" that would double taxes and under which "your employer-priced insurance scheme would be illegal ".
The GOP's efforts to focus on "Medicare for All" come as party candidates frantically attempt to fend off attacks on the health care problem that is central to almost all campaigns in the country: their history of coverage of existing Conditions.
Promises to protect people with pre-existing diseases
Obamacare was built on the premise that coverage of sick people would be made affordable by placing people in good health in the same pools of insurance and forcing everyone to take out this insurance.
Republicans have spent most of the Obama presidency and the first year of the Trump presidency attempting to repeal Obama's health care law. While they offered partial replacements designed to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions retained access to coverage, non-partisan experts said the alternatives would have made this coverage much more likely. more expensive.
This is a fundamental political challenge that has discouraged efforts to repeal the GOP: coverage of pre-existing diseases is one of the reasons health insurance costs have increased; One of the main ways to reduce these costs is to allow plans to discriminate against sick people and to offer less coverage or to spend more money to subsidize premiums or protect insurers from costly patients.
The reaction against the Obamacare GOP for the repeal of repealing efforts has opened a wave of enthusiasm for Democrats moving towards the middle. National polls have shown that health care is the main concern of many voters, and Democrats have focused most of the TV commercials on their health care campaigns – claiming largely that their Republican enemies had tried to undermine protections granted to people already affected. .
"Republicans will always protect people with pre-existing diseases," he said at a rally Saturday in Nevada.
What Trump does not say: his own Justice Department is fighting in court to overturn Obamacare's protections for people with pre-existing illnesses.
The ministry argues that these basic principles of Obamacare should be invalidated because Congress has removed the individual term of office. The case is part of a lawsuit filed by 20 attorneys general and republican governors seeking to overturn the law. Some of these attorneys general are on the ballot this year, including Josh Hawley, the Republican defying Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill in Missouri, who aired TV ads in which he says he and his wife learned that their eldest son was suffering from a "rare chronic disease". this year, and that it supports "the obligation for insurance companies to cover all pre-existing conditions".
Other Republicans followed Hawley's example and told personal stories.
During their debate last week, Nevada representative Jacky Rosen, the Democratic senator defying Republican Senator Dean Heller, challenged the outgoing president to look into the camera and tell the family of a child suffering from a cardiac anomaly "the truth about why you have broken your promise. why you are in favor of reducing protections for pre-existing conditions."
Heller dismissed the prosecution and said: "I have written a replacement bill for the Republican Party.I know exactly what it contains and what it contains includes pre-existing conditions ".
While Rosen pressed him on the subject, Heller insisted that the health problems in his own family meant that he could be trusted, despite the clear facts of his case.
"I have two grandchildren with pre-existing diseases," he said. "I think it's ridiculous, Congressman, to think that I would not be here for the health and safety of my own grandchildren."
"All pieces count"
Republicans and Senate candidates of the House of Republics have often cited the failure of Obamacare's repeal efforts last year to prove that they would maintain the protection of those who already had health problems.
However, independent analyst, analyst-by-analysts, have concluded that the repeal bill passed by the House would have actually weakened Obamacare's protections. This would have allowed states to allow insurers to charge higher premiums to those with pre-existing conditions if they let their coverage expire and if they put in place a high-risk program. It would also have allowed states to seek waivers to sell plans that do not cover all of Obamacare's mandatory health benefits, such as maternity, mental health and prescription drugs.
The bill included $ 138 billion to create a stability fund to help reduce the costs to consumers and insurers, including $ 8 billion over five years to help people with expensive health problems.
"All parts matter," said Karen Pollitz, senior member of the Kaiser Family Foundation. "If you had a dam blocking an entire river and you remove it and then put some rocks back in, with empty spaces, it would not be the same thing."
Nevertheless, Republicans insisted that industry and government experts were all wrong in one way or another – and that the non-partisan analyzes of the GOP bill were simply wrong. .
The advertisement ignores the fact that Obamacare has already forced insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions. Democrats are in favor of maintaining these protections. only Republicans fought to change the law.
To explain his claims, McSally referred to the bill rejected by the House of Representatives of the House of Representatives, including the $ 8 billion, which was added via an amendment co-sponsored by McSally.
In an email, McSally spokesperson Torunn Sinclair acknowledged that $ 8 billion was not enough for analysts, but that "these same estimates do not take into account the potential savings from lowering health care costs." enabling new methods of health coverage. "
In Phoenix, Sinema told reporters that McSally's new ad "is trying to pretend that it supports the protection of people with preexisting illnesses, but you can not escape from your Arizona voting record."
[ad_2]
Source link
