Repealing the Affordable Care Act is a Bad Idea

Update: Find out how repeal or denial of funding will impact people in your Congressional District: Go to http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/impact-of-repealing-health-care-reform

Tomorrow, the US House of Representatives Republicans led by Republican Majority Leader John Boehner will vote on the repeal of health reform -- moving to end the law that keeps insurance companies in check.

If the health care law is repealed or gutted by denial of funding, insurers could return to denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, pursuing profits with no accountability, raising rates arbitrarily on families and businesses and canceling coverage when people get sick. Insurers could once again focus on promoting their own financial health at the expense of those seeking care.

And with repeal estimated to add $230 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, the Republicans' first agenda item delays our economic recovery and does nothing to create jobs.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act is bad for our health, our economy, and our country.

What you can do:
Call your Representative in Congress to let him or her know that, as an Involved Voter, you are against repeal, and that you're counting on them to protect the Affordable Care Act, regardless of party affiliation.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, repealing the Affordable Care Act will add hundreds of billions to the deficit, increase costs for those who are covered, and result in 32 million fewer people receiving coverage. Health reform continues to provide greater freedom and control in our health care choices -- it's no surprise most Americans oppose repeal.

Chances are the Affordable Care Act is already benefiting you or someone you know.
It is at work for you:
-- If you're a senior who fell into the "donut hole" of prescription drug coverage and needed help covering that cost;
-- If you're a young adult who can benefit from staying on your parents' insurance until age 26;
-- If you've ever worried about your insurer dropping your coverage unexpectedly if you or someone on your policy gets sick or injured;
-- If you're a small-business owner trying to compete with large employers while providing insurance to your employees; or
-- If you're a taxpayer worried about the national deficit.

It took two years of debate and compromise for the 111th Congress to pass the Affordable Care Act. Please let your Representative know you think undoing that work and restoring free rein to the insurance companies is a bad idea.

A Time for Healing

I'm passing along this post from Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly. It highlights some of the parts of President Obama's remarks at last night's remembrance in Tuscon that most inspired me as an Involved Voter.

"Those who died here, those who saved life here -- they help me believe," he said. "We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another, that's entirely up to us."

"We recognize our own mortality, and we are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this Earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame -- but rather, how well we have loved and what small part we have played in making the lives of other people better.

"And that process -- that process of reflection, of making sure we align our values with our actions -- that, I believe, is what a tragedy like this requires.

"For those who were harmed, those who were killed -- they are part of our family, an American family 300 million strong. We may not have known them personally, but surely we see ourselves in them."

Benen went on to say:

At a fundamental level, I just like the idea of an American family. As we've seen over the last five days, we bicker and shout, and we often struggle to get along, but the threads that tie us together are stronger than we sometimes realize.

Or as the president put it, "As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let's use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together....I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us."

Being Faithful to the U.S. Constitution

The 112th Congress opened with a reading of almost the entire U.S. Constitution. (Parts of the original seven articles in 1789 Constitution referring to slavery were omitted from the reading. Slavery was abolished in 1865 when Amendment XIX was ratified.)

Involved Voters who want to understand the U.S. Constitution better should consider reading Keeping Faith with the Constitution (Liu, Karlan, Schroeder; Oxford University Press, 2010). The book describes a "constitutional fidelity" approach to the document and lays out the limitations of "originalist" and "strict construction" approaches.

In the words of the great Chief Justice John Marshall, our Constitution is "intended to endure for ages to come, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." To preserve the meaning and authority of the Constitution and keep it a living document, it's necessary to add precedent, historical experience, practical consequences and societal change to attempts to determine the original understanding of the text.

As the book's authors point out, the U.S. Constitution contains "the basic structure of government and some of its important procedures while expressing our commitment to certain core values: liberty, equality, and democracy."

A "constitutional fidelity" approach brings advances such as Amendment XIX (ratified in 1920) which states:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Such an amendment is faithful to the core Constitutional values of liberty, equality, and democracy, but is not something those relying solely on the original intent of the Framers of the 1789 Constitution would make a case for.

The U.S. Constitution has been successful in preserving our nation because it is flexible enough to allow government to adjust as its citizens progress toward including all human beings in their vision of liberty, equality, and democracy.

We Need our Representative to Work for All of Us

Tim Walberg just doesn't get it. Almost half of the 7th district voters in the November 2 election did not vote for him. Yet he's once again parroting the Club for Growth talking points that show he favors the big money interests. For example: "I will be signing onto a bill as soon as I can to repeal 'ObamaCare' and restore the Bush tax cuts,"

Here's what I'd say to him:

Mr. Walberg, do some homework between now and January. There are many specific provisions of the health care bill that the majority of Americans want to see preserved. And, by the way, its proper name is the Affordable Care Act and it was passed by the Congress not the President, after much negotiation with Republicans. You haven't changed your plan since the last time you were in Congress. It features expanding the use of health savings accounts and putting a cap on non-economic damages and reducing "frivolous" medical lawsuits.

One big problem with your plan is that most of your constituents can't afford high deductible health savings accounts. Could the fact that those accounts are managed by big financial companies be why they appeal to you and fellow Republicans? And why would you feature making changes in medical malpractice as the key component of your plan for reducing health care costs? Malpractice insurance is a very small piece of the health care cost picture. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that limiting malpractice liability would reduce total national health care spending by only about one-half of 1 percent. The Affordable Care Act made changes in seven areas that will reduce the cost of health care over time. Yes, changes that would lower malpractice insurance premiums could save some money but there are many, many more important things to address when it comes to making sure all citizens have access to affordable health care.

And about "restoring Bush tax cuts" (or to be more accurate, extending them). According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year. Households earning more than $1 million a year would get nearly $31 billion in tax breaks in 2011, for an average tax cut per household of about $100,000. Mr. Walberg, this will not sit well with voters who are worried about the national debt, some of whom could work for 30 years and not earn $1 million.

You've said you are planning to pickup where you left off before being ousted by Mark Schauer in 2008. Well, things have changed in the past two years. Your plans weren't worth much in 2006 and they're worth even less now.

You've been quoted as saying, "I love meeting with constituents on a level that isn't scripted," and that you'll hold lots of meetings with constituents so you can be open and receptive to the needs of the district. Well, I attended some of those "unscripted" meetings last time around, and all I heard were Club for Growth talking points. We deserve better this time around. We need a representative in Congress who has breadth of knowledge, flexibility in thinking and the ability to compromise. You will have to prove that this time is different, that you have the what it takes to ensure that our district, Michigan and the country are well-served. This is 2010 not 2006.

That’s one way to send a message…

…but maybe not the only or the best way.

Was it really necessary to “send a message to Washington” by doing the electoral equivalent of tossing a brick through a window?

Come January 2011, as a voter in the 7th Congressional district, I will mourn the loss of Mark Schauer as my Representative. He’s hard working, intelligent, a good listener and acts with integrity to do what’s in the best interest of the district.

The message I want to send to Congressman Schauer is that people with the qualities he has are wanted and needed in government.

Were the message-senders on Election Day thinking about what they would lose by making the choices they did? Did those who didn’t bother to vote understand what the consequences would be? I don’t think so.

The next two years will be the test of whether the kind of brick-tossing message that voters sent brings change that works for all of us, or just gives obstructionists license to continue acting in their own rather than our country's best interest.

Do they care more about winning than about governing?

Our president mourns the current state of politics and urges those who win on November 2 to govern in the best interests of the country. A question that Involved Voters should be asking is: Which candidates are most likely to do that?

Here's a blog post on that topic from Steven Benen of The Washington Monthly:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026393.php
It's worth reading - especially if one is thinking about sitting out this election.

2010 General Election - You Choose

Are we voting with our heads and hearts - or with our spleens? I question those who would try to "send a message" about their discontent by electing candidates who believe there is no such thing as "good government".

Spleens have very short memories. They forget what "The Republican Team" mentioned in the campaign literature we're getting did the last time it was in office. How the Republicans who ran Michigan until eight years ago set in place policies that helped create the perfect storm when the national economy went into recession during the Bush administration.

We all want to see a return to prosperity at the local, state and national levels. Michigan, thanks in part to the economic diversification that Governor Granholm promoted but no thanks to the Republican-controlled Senate, is beginning to recover. And, we have benefited from the national Recovery Act spending on infrastructure projects and local police, firefighters and teachers.

If we vote with our heads and hearts, we'll select candidates who believe that government has a valuable role to play, who take it seriously and will devote their time and talent to serving the public good.

To keep Michigan moving forward, I urge you to vote for the entire Democratic ticket. Especially for Mark Schauer for Representative for the 7th Congressional district, Rebekah Warren for State Senate for the 18th district, Christine Green to succeed Pam Byrnes as Representative for the State House 52nd district, and Adam Zemke for County Commissioner for Washtenaw County's 1st district.

And remember, there's a non-partisan section of the ballot where you'll find the judicial races. Alton Davis and Dennis Morris are excellent candidates for the two seats on the Michigan Supreme Court.