If I was on the Energy and Commerce committee that Mimi Walters serves on, I would have voted against the proposed ACA replacement for the following reasons:
First, I have stated that any replacement must provide affordable health coverage to all Americans. Paul Ryan’s proposed replacement does not even attempt to provide affordable coverage to all. If a young healthy person pays $500 month, under this plan, a person between 50 and 65 years old would pay a whopping $2500 a month ($30,000 a year!). Even after the tax credits, the senior citizen would pay about $25,000 a year. Paying $25,000 a year for health insurance is not affordable.
This proposal is simply going back to the old days when health issues caused 60% of bankruptcies in the United States and some states had up to a quarter of their citizens uninsured.
The second reason that I would have voted against the ACA replacement is because the process has been rushed. Health care impacts nearly 20% of the United States economy and will impact jobs in our district. Bills of this magnitude deserve full hearings that include experts in the areas impacted. As a fiscally responsible representative, I would require that the bill has cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office before a committee vote. HOW CAN MIMI WALTERS CLAIM TO BE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE WHEN VOTING ON A BILL WITHOUT KNOWING ITS COST?
It is mind boggling that our representative would vote in favor of a bill which impacts jobs in our district and will effect over 30,000 individual’s health coverage in her district without some basic information on its impact.
Our Representative’s support of this bill has been irresponsible and CA-45 deserves a representative who will act ethically. I believe rushing a bill that impacts nearly 20% of our economy through committee before the cost and impact is known is unethical and irresponsible.