EDITORIAL: Health care vote expresses values

May 07--House Republicans finally passed their Obamacare replacement Thursday, but some of them made clear they really don't care about helping sick Americans.

North Carolina's Robert Pittenger is one. The 8th District representative dismissed concerns that states could let insurance companies charge much higher rates to people with pre-existing conditions.

"People can go to the state that they want to live in," he told reporters Tuesday. "We're putting choices back in the hands of the states. That's what Jeffersonian democracy provides for."

North Carolina's legislature, based on its refusal to expand Medicaid coverage under Obamacare, likely would choose to deny people with pre-existing conditions affordable coverage. Under the bill passed Thursday, our state could create high-risk pools for people who would be charged the highest rates.

Since those rates would be unaffordable for most people, those with cancer, heart conditions, diabetes or other chronic health problems should move to more generous states, according to Pittenger? That's one way to drive down costs in North Carolina: Drive out sick people.

Another Republican congressman, Mo Brooks of Alabama, apparently doesn't think the sick have done enough to keep themselves healthy. He defended the bill's approach.

"My understanding is that it will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool that helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they're healthy, they've done the things to keep their bodies healthy," he said last week.

Brooks must think people who "lead good lives" never get cancer or mangled in car accidents, and aren't susceptible to debilitating conditions like multiple sclerosis or Lou Gehrig's disease. They shouldn't have to pay higher premiums for the sake of others who might need costly medical care.

Sadly, the statements by Pittenger and Brooks contribute to the Republican narrative about health care. They give the impression, rightly or not, that Republicans just don't care about people who find themselves in desperate circumstances.

A late-night television host offered a very different narrative last week. Jimmy Kimmel told his audience about the heart surgery that saved his newborn son.

"Before 2014, if you were born with congenital heart disease like my son was, there was a good chance you would never be able to get health insurance because you were born with a pre-existing condition," he said.

"Don't let their partisan squabbles divide us on something every decent person wants; we need to take care of each other. No parent should have to ever decide if they can afford to save their child's life, it just shouldn't happen, not here."

Kimmel's emotional appeal forced a response from the White House: "The point behind the state waiver program is that state governments know how to treat children like the Kimmel baby better than the federal government does," Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said. "If we give more control to the states, they can figure out a way to best provide for children like Mr. Kimmel's baby."

Providing for such children is simple: They should be covered by affordable insurance. So should everyone. Can states do better? They can do worse. If so, families without Kimmel's resources can follow Pittenger's prescription and move to a state that cares about babies' lives.

The bill has other flaws and may not ever get a vote in the Senate. What happened Thursday was really a statement about values. Kimmel's statement, about the value of a child's life, was more powerful.

___

(c)2017 the News & Record (Greensboro, N.C.)

Visit the News & Record (Greensboro, N.C.) at www.news-record.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.