Kudos to four Republican congressmen, New Yorker Mike Lawler and Pennsylvanians Brian Fitzpatrick, Ryan Mackenzie and Rob Bresnahan, who broke with their weak Republican Speaker Mike Johnson and joined the Democratic minority to put Affordable Care Act subsidies to a full vote.
The move by Lawler and his Keystone State colleagues is being framed as a rebellion against Johnson, but isn’t it just a move to potentially protect vulnerable voters, the very people who sent these people to Washington to represent them? More than 20 million Americans will see their Obamacare health insurance premiums double in 2026 without the subsidies.
Are these four taking this action because they are politically vulnerable to challenges from angry voters? Maybe, but who cares? That’s politics for you; motivations range from deeply moral and ideological to purely practical and transactional, but ultimately what matters is the results, and in this case the result is of paramount importance to millions of people across the country.
Unfortunately, this effort was not fast enough to avoid the catastrophic scenario of subsidies expiring, which would have consequences even if aid were later reinstated. Across the country, people may be dropping out of insurance after seeing their premiums rise by two or three times, and they may not come back even if the subsidies return.
That’s the problem with unpredictability and instability in government: it causes people to ignore everything. Even for those who will resume coverage if and when subsidies are reinstated, what will happen if they become ill during this time? What happens if they need emergency care or stop treatment for a chronic illness? Not only will their health suffer, but we will all end up paying the price anyway through extraordinarily ineffective stopgap measures like emergency room visits.
All this assumes that these efforts succeed and that the subsidies are actually restored. But this is far from certain. Even if these defections succeed in forcing a vote, will a full floor vote result in adoption? Even if that were the case, will the Senate, which Republicans also control by a slim margin, take up the bill and pass it itself? These are the questions Republican senators and congressmen across the country should be asking themselves.
What is their representatives’ response to these looming spikes in health care costs, which will affect not only those using the Obamacare exchanges, but also all other beneficiaries of private health insurance, who will likely see their own premiums rise as insurers attempt to recoup lost revenue? What is their response to health care providers, particularly those in more suburban or rural areas, who will be forced to treat more uninsured patients and may have to close specialties or close their doors entirely?
So far, we haven’t really seen anything resembling a compelling plan from the Trump wing and its backers, who have had over a decade to try to find alternatives to a plan that, incidentally, began as a Republican-led proposal under Mitt Romney? “We will find a solution” is not an acceptable response when the health and safety of the voters who put their trust in them is at stake.
If they really feel like they have a better idea, that’s wonderful. They are invited to present and vigorously debate it in Congress next year, but only after approving the subsidies the public needs now.
