More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Ari Matusiak

GET UPDATES FROM Ari Matusiak
 

Repealing Health, Replacing Care

Posted: 01/20/11 08:38 PM ET

When Erin was 23, she woke up one morning feeling a little run down. Between jobs and without insurance, she decided to forgo the expense of a doctor's visit. A couple of days later, she awoke in a critical care unit, eventually developing a nerve disorder so severe that it limits her ability to perform even the simplest of day-to-day tasks. Now 26-years-old, simply changing positions makes her light-headed. Her life goals have gone from buying her first home and going to graduate school to simply being able to stand while taking a shower.

Erin did not have the benefit of health care reform. She did not have the option of staying on her parent's insurance. She had been turned down repeatedly by insurance companies on account of her pre-existing condition and was terrified that the insurance she had secured would be rescinded when the cost of her care tripped some unknowable line. It was why she would not speak on the record during the debate. Our broken health care system had forced this young woman into the shadows.

The Republican-led House of Representatives, by a 245 to 189 margin, just voted to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It was a determined, if largely symbolic gesture to undo the sweeping reform of our health care system signed into law by President Obama last March. And, though the Republican leadership has touted its steadfast opposition to "Obamacare" and its commitment to "repeal and replace" the law, their action last night leaves the millions of Americans now benefiting from health care reform -- like Erin -- wondering how undoing this law will make their lives better.

Erin's experience makes poignant, real and obvious the need for reform. She is now benefiting from experimental drug therapy that is very much the result of American medicine's sophistication and excellence. But she is, for the first time, secure in knowing that she will be able to access the wonders of American medicine, and to realize her original life goals as a result. The Affordable Care Act did that.

On Tuesday, a young man named Alexander Lataille, from Rhode Island, testified before a group of Democratic House members. He is a recent college graduate who studied to be an atmospheric scientist, and had a job lined up at a private company which contracts with the Federal Aviation Administration. When the economy went south, however, the opportunity evaporated and he went to University of Rhode Island to take a research assistantship. The job does not offer health benefits, but he has been able to deepen his expertise and increase his value on the job market and to a future employer, all while maintaining health coverage through his mother's plan. The Affordable Care Act did that.

The House vote may end up being symbolic, but the idea of repeal has real consequences for real people. For people like Erin, who struggle with illness, repeal could mean the end of a lifeline and a return to the fear of interrupted care and upended medical progress. For people like Alexander, who are riding out the end of an economic downturn, undoing health care reform represents just one more -- government initiated -- obstacle to independence and the freedom to pursue one's dreams.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act is a step backward. Just ask Erin and Alex, and the millions of Americans like them across this country, who will lose coverage and newfound freedoms if health reform is overturned. They deserve better than that.

 
When Erin was 23, she woke up one morning feeling a little run down. Between jobs and without insurance, she decided to forgo the expense of a doctor's visit. A couple of days later, she awoke in a ...
When Erin was 23, she woke up one morning feeling a little run down. Between jobs and without insurance, she decided to forgo the expense of a doctor's visit. A couple of days later, she awoke in a ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 17
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Jeff Norman
04:17 PM on 01/24/2011
Ari, you write about the Affordable Care Act as if the insurance mandate's constitutionality is a foregone conclusion. It is not. If you care about Erin more than political theater, maybe you should address that reality.
02:21 PM on 01/21/2011
In an Forbes article 7.3.09 (see http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/02/health-care-costs-opinions-columnists-reform.html) Bruce Bartlett points out that in comparison to the developed countries in OECD the US spent in 2007 most on health care ($7,290 vs OECD avg $2,964 2nd most Norway : $4,763) which is highest percent of GDP (5% more than second France and ~7% more than OECD avg %8.9)

US gets very little for its health care money:

The US life expectancy at birth is less than OECD avg. Apart for Mexico and Turkey US has the highest infant mortality, i.e 6.7 infants died per 1,000 live births.

Apart from Mexico and Turkey US has also the highest number of uninsured citizens, however unlike Mexico and Turkey the rate of uninsured has not improved over last 15 years.

Most of the 31 non US OECD countries have 100% public coverage, only the Netherlands and Germany have mixed (mainly public) coverage (mandated).

All in all, US gets very poor value for money relative to other developed countries. The Constitution in its preamble indicates its intent to be among other things to "promote the general Welfare" Thus a health care reform has a constitutional basis.

(see also http://www.slideshare.net/edocteur/docteurworld-bankoct09 )
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nkurland
I'm going to leave this planet alive
01:20 PM on 01/21/2011
If the Senate by some miracle passes repeal, then so be it. Let the GOP go squarely against public opinion. Let them open the door for a Medicare buy-in.
11:24 AM on 01/21/2011
Here is an idea;

Go to CREDO;

http://www .credoacti on.com/

And ask your Republican Representa tive to repeal their Government Supported Healthcare .
11:24 AM on 01/21/2011
Go to CREDO;

http://www .credoacti on.com/

And ask your Republican Representa tive to repeal their Government Supported Healthcare .
photo
BetterDeadthanRedState
Speech isn't free when only the rich can afford it
10:47 AM on 01/21/2011
If the GOP wants to do something that is more than merely symbolic, let them start by eliminating their own government-run health care.
photo
lemealone
It will take more than condiments to foil my brill
10:35 AM on 01/21/2011
Who wakes up a little run down and goes to the doctor, and gets an appointment the same day? HC would not help than fictitious story.
01:12 AM on 01/21/2011
It would be destructiv­­e to shut down the government to the nation and the government -- not to say anything about Congress as an institutio­­n.

Shutting down the government is bad enough. But to repeal health care? Even Republican­s are polling against repeal. Why? Because they can see the positive reports for their daily live

For the first time, people in hospice can simultaneo­­­­­­­­usl­y get therapy that might save their lives while in hospice. Before they had to make the awful choice as to whether they wanted to have hospice care or receive care that would save their lives.

From Kaiser Health News:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/May/10/Hospice.aspx

"This dilemma — that you must give up aggressive treatment to get end-of-lif­­­­­­­­e care — is a major reason many people resist entering hospice...

But the new health law could lead to a change of policy that allows patients hospice care."

A repeal of health care reform would also end prohibitio­­ns regarding pre-existi­­ng conditions for children.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HeartFailureNews/kathleen-sebelius-strikes-back-reports-health-insurance-companies/story?id=10245065

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29health.html

And sick people would be thrown off rolls once they became ill:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/demons-and-demonization/

http://businessjournalism.org/2010/10/04/reuters-and-milwaukee-journal-sentinel-receive-2010-barlett-steele-awards/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chichel
Yep, that's my bleeding heart you see on my sleeve
10:53 AM on 01/21/2011
I wonder if seniors would have to pay back their donut hole benefits...
miloiki
sweet as can be
11:31 PM on 01/20/2011
...and little Billy will never get the medicine he needs. And little Nancy will suffer from deformity forever. And poor Mrs Johnson cannot see a doctor. And..... PLEASE!!! Stop it. In America you can get whatever care you need even if you cannot pay for it. OK?
12:31 AM on 01/21/2011
No, only if you're sick enough to DIE from what you've got, then an ER HAS to treat you.

If you're just chronically ill in a way that makes you miserable and/or barely able to function, but never actually gets to the point where it might kill you...and you don't qualify for any other assistance, you're left paying out-of-pocket for your own care or not getting it.

There are a lot of people in that boat. I was. That's why I'm broke.
04:33 PM on 01/21/2011
Great response. I am and have been in the same situation, ill but not in a dying condition. I bled internally for 6 mos before finding a doc who would take my case and let me make payments.
THIS is reality. Nothing is treated if you are the working poor with chronic health issues. I see the GOP and Tea Party as cruel. Nothing will ever bring back the respect I used to have for the GOP.
04:38 AM on 01/21/2011
Huh?
09:05 PM on 01/20/2011
Republicans now claim they will not just repeal but replace the Patient Protection Act. Of the two Republican’s possibilities for replacement, Ryan's Roadmap 2.0 plan, and Boehner's "Common Sense" plan, neither would, on CBO analysis, cover anywhere near the 30+ million who would be covered under the PPA. (The Common Sense plan is estimated to cover only 3 million.) Each contains invitations to very RISKY choices. It's important to point out that the Roadmap is non-longitudinal, i.e., it fails to depict (or leave an ordinary American with an adequate safety net for) any of the "Badlands" in a 70 year adulthood, working and investing for 40 years for a 30 retirement (Badlands: asset bubbles, budget busting large wars with severe inflation, market crashes and massive job losses, severe unanticipated illnesses or accidents.) Both plans would leave most Americans MORE at risk than the current safety net. Also, the Roadmap is future-loaded with deep benefit cuts for our children when they reach adulthood. Opposition to health care extension started out appealing to selfishness, to become Bad Samaritans. Now, in the Republican plans, to avoid tax increases for the rich, it invites us to become like Goya’s Saturn, eating our own children.