Driving in today, I heard a congressman from the Freedom Caucus speaking to Steve Inskeep on NPR. He said he was from Maryland, so I assume he's Andy Harris, although I didn't catch his name on the air. Regarding his opposition to the Trumpcare/AHCA, he spoke eloquently of "state's rights to choose" and when Inskeep pointed out that his caucus is holding out so that "essential health benefits" such as maternity leave (among others) should be removed, he that Maryland already had such ESBs in place, with or without the ACA, and so why should he force Mississippi to continue to have them under the ACA. State's rights to choose.
Prima facie: sounds good. He is there to represent his district in Maryland, not Mississippi. States should have more autonomy always is a popular selling point.
But let's peel it back a little: Yes, he represents his district in Maryland, but he doesn't ONLY represent his district in Maryland to the detriment of all others. He is there to be the voice of his constituents, and to look out for their interests. But since he admits that the EHBs under the ACA are ALREADY THERE, then it does his constituents ZERO problem regardless of how he votes for Trumpcare. Essentially, his vote is to allow other states, such as Mississippi, to kick people off their care, which he knows will happen.
As Americans and as patriots, we should be concerned for the well-being of all Americans. Say a cop from his district in Maryland were vacationing in Biloxi and saw an attempted robbery and, using his training, stopped the robbery. The cop's training and experience were from Maryland, but he used to help those in Mississippi. Would this congressman say, "No! You should only use your public service skills to help those in Maryland!"?
The Freedom Caucus uses flawed arguments that at their core are rooted in ensuring that not all citizens of the USA enjoy the basic guarantee of life. Life begins with a standard basic level of health care coverage ... Essential Health Benefits.
No comments:
Post a Comment