Email #74, Subject: “Better Way”?

Thank you so much for your recent letter in response to my concerns regarding your intended ACA repeal. However, because your letter once again failed to address the specific details I raised, your continuing pattern of avoidance and contradiction increases my overall concern.

While you state that nothing “can resuscitate Obamacare from its failures,” your “Better Way” plan “notably includes proposals to protect access to coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions, allows dependents under the age of 26 to stay on their parents’ plans, and removes lifetime limits on coverage.” These are three signature elements of the ACA. Since your plan recreates them, in what sense is the ACA a failure? Is this political battle just about naming rights?

You also once again state that there needs to be “a stable transition period between repealing Obamacare and the new health care solution.” This is in direct opposition to the President’s promise. President Trump assured the country that the new health care program would be signed into law the same day or even the same hour that the ACA would be repealed. Why are you instead insisting that “it’s important that we have a transition period”? How long do you intend this period to last? In what sense will it be “stable” for those families who will lose their ACA coverage and have no other means of getting insurance during your transition? You state that you “want the families who are hurting under Obamacare to feel relief as quickly as possible,” but your “transition period” would accomplish the opposite. Why exactly is this period “important”? Is it, like naming rights, designed to bolster the appearance of the eventual replacement bill? The longer the period between plans, the more desperate and willing Americans will be for anything — no matter how inferior it may be to the ACA.

I commend your stated goal to “improves access to affordable health care for all Americans.” But if, as you also state, the replacement does not involve what you term “big government mandates,” it is unclear how you will pay for it. Since you have built your career as a deficit hawk, I can’t believe you will endorse radically unbalanced budgets. And yet without an ACA-like mandate, how can you provide health care “for all Americans.” Because your professed goals are so contradictory, could you please clarify to your constituents what exactly you intend to do?

Chris Gavaler

Author: Chris Gavaler

Chris Gavaler is an associate professor at W&L University, comics editor of Shenandoah, and series editor of Bloomsbury Critical Guides in Comics Studies. He has published two novels: School for Tricksters (SMU 2011) and Pretend I’m Not Here (HarperCollins 2002); and six books of scholarship: On the Origin of Superheroes (Iowa 2015), Superhero Comics (Bloomsbury 2017), Superhero Thought Experiments (with Nathaniel Goldberg, Iowa 2019), Revising Fiction, Fact, and Faith (with Nathaniel Goldberg, Routledge 2020), Creating Comics (with Leigh Ann Beavers, Bloomsbury 2021), and The Comics Form (Bloomsbury forthcoming). His visual work appears in Ilanot Review, North American Review, Aquifer, and other journals.

One thought on “Email #74, Subject: “Better Way”?”

  1. Please just do your job, this is getting ridiculous. Show up for town meetings, LISTEN to your constituents! Be the honorable man you swirn to be for this state. Stop this madness on every level… we will stand behind truth and justice, but you have to do the right thing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: