Lynn Woolsey has said all along that she isn’t satisfied with the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (PPACA), otherwise known as ObamaCare or simply the 2010 health care law. On the first day of the new 112th Congress she again introduced a public option bill, and as she has noted before in reality the public option is only an intermediate step in her view. Her true endgame is universal government-provided health care, nothing less.
However, in the meantime, the House majority has changed, and Speaker Boehner and fellow Republicans (joined by a number of Democrats) intend to vote to repeal PPACA this week. That the House will accomplish this is nearly certain, and so Rep. Woolsey is all aflutter and anxiously tweeting about health care protections that will be allegedly be lost. Her latest two messages state:
Let’s take the one about pre-existing conditions first. It is apparent that the insulated Rep. Woolsey does not pay attention to the utterances of House Republicans. If she did she would know that one of the Republicans leading the repeal action, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), said in a news conference:
“We too don’t want to accept any insurance company’s denial of someone and coverage for that person because he or she may have pre-existing condition,”
The House Majority Leadership comprehends the need for health care reform. These House members agree with the majority of Americans who want PPACA repealed (as shown in these poll results published today), and these House members will protect people with pre-exisiting conditions in new legislation.
As for Lynn Woolsey’s other tweeted claim, a quick glance may lead one to think that 419,000 people in our 6th District are in danger of having their workplace-obtained insurance cancelled if ObamaCare is repealed. However, that isn’t the case. This tweet refers to specific “consumer protections” granted by PPACA. The cited source document for this statement is one prepared by the House Minority Staff (i.e., the Democrats) and refers specifically to PPACA’s prohibition on insurance companies imposing annual and lifetime limits on coverage. This “protection” is one that, like others in the PPACA, has just gone into effect as of January 1, 2011. If it were to be eliminated again, it could not be considered a long-term entitlement that was suddenly being yanked after years. Also, although one can assume new legislation would consider this a protection worth reinstating, there needs to be further study regarding the overall cost granting such a blanket extension of coverage. We all know health care coverage is not free, and any so-called “consumer protections” such as waiving a coverage cap come at a cost to the system as a whole (and thus, to premiums in the final analysis).
Rep. Woolsey exhibits, in her opposition to repealing the 2010 health care law, her usual failure to understand the economics of legislation for which she votes. She disregards the financial costs in her zeal to hand out more “entitlements” to people. She believes in big government and its intrusion into personal health care (even though most Americans do not), and, consequently, she is tossing out all these “factiods” to try persuade constituents they should want (and feel privileged to have) this bloated, terribly expensive 2010 health care law.
And keep in mind again that Lynn Woolsey actually only sees PPACA as a stepping stone to a full-blown single-payer health care bureacracy run through and by the federal government.
Don’t be fooled by Lynn Woolsey and her tweets. Americans will be better off if PPACA is repealed and Congress legislates something far more reasonable and effective regarding health care reform