Latest attempt to appeal ACA recaptures public’s attention

The latest attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the Graham-Cassidy bill, has reinvigorated public interest and discussion as to the fate of President Obama’s signature legislation. Proposed by South Carolina’s Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, the bill would overturn or amend the provisions established in the Affordable Care Act, often called ObamaCare, which went into effect in 2010. According to CNN about 11.4 million people, a large portion of which come from low socioeconomic statuses, are covered by the policies.  With the wide spread enrollment of ObamaCare, any revision is accompanied by both short term and long term effects that must be considered.

Congress’s decision carries implicit legal repercussions. Presently, there is minimum precedent regarding health care. Mr. Ron Gottlieb, a veteran attorney of over 30 years, said in regards to Congress’s discretion, “Whatever Congress passes would be the legal healthcare provisions for citizens”. In this particular matter, Congress is almost entirely unrestricted by prior cases and laws so they possess the ability to structure the health care that will be used by the country in the long term. This lack of oversight has given space for ideas of opposite ideologies. Some, like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, believe that ObamaCare should go further in its attempt to provide access to universal healthcare.  Senator Sanders’ bill as opposed to the current system would implement higher tax rates for the purpose of offering higher subsidy rates to pay for medical services.  

Besides the long term legal precedent on the outcome of the public health care, the more pressing question Congress faces is the degree of the government’s responsibility to provide a health care system to the public.  The repeal of ObamaCare, while decreasing coverage, would allow eligible citizens to receive increased access to healthcare.  The Graham-Cassidy bill proposed a statute that would prohibit insurance companies from denying healthcare because of pre-existing conditions, an aspect forgone by President Obama’s original legislation.   Some Republican Senators argued for the bill as they predicted a $133 billion cut in the deficit.  If, as many Republicans claim, it is not the role of government to offer healthcare, then the money saved but replacing ObamaCare  would go towards the overall welfare of the country.  

While some Republicans were content with the incremental removal of ObamaCare, others such as Texas Senator Ted Cruz believed that the bill was insufficient in its proposed policies.  This lack of cohesion illustrates the reality that issues are not simply partisan, but that each party holds a spectrum of beliefs.  

Politicians have been sending out a repeated message regarding health care: that there is a clear answer beneficial to all citizens. Its advantageous for Congress members to simplify the solution into three words (repeal and replace) because it makes the pitch easier to sell to constituents. However, these statements do not appreciate the complex and delicate issues that come with Obamacare. Rather, it is the duty of each free thinking person to decide about the Affordable Care Act, and about health care in general.