Congressman Tom Reed voted this evening in favor of repealing the “Obamacare” health care reform law which was passed in 2010. “The people spoke last November,” Reed explained. “The message I heard loud and clear was that they wanted this 2500 page monstrosity repealed.”–Tom Reed, January 20, 2011
Perhaps many more object to loosing current health care benefits than supported ACA from the start. The above quote makes clear that Tom Reed counted on Obamacare being unpopular. I remember Reed running strongly against ACA every time, but I had to check the views of his opponents: Nate Shinagawa, Martha Robertson, and John Plumb.
The ACA is …beneficial to families and actually helps small businesses. Under the Affordable Care act, businesses with more than 50 workers would be required to provide insurance, but would also be eligible for tax credits and assistance.
“This bill helps patients, it makes health care affordable, it protects people from health insurance and their whims, now you get coverage for pre-existing conditions,” comments Shinagawa. “You have young people up to the age of 26 [on their parent’s insurance]. This bill helps families.” —Nate Shinagawa, July 3, 2012, in WENY news
Robertson: Criticized Reed for being a medical debt collector and cited medical bills as number one cause of personal bankruptcy; ACA not perfect but can be reformed; told an anecdote about a friend named Phil who, without Obamacare, would have gone bankrupt; criticized Reed for voting 50 times to repeal Obamacare, 50 times to “bankrupt Phil” — Casey Breznick, October 24, 2014, Cornell Review
Plumb said that while there were issues with the Affordable Care Act, such as the way in which it can discourage small businesses to grow past a certain size, but felt that the law should be improved instead of scrapped. — Ithaca Voice, November 3, 2016
These articles may not do justice to the candidates views. However, Nate was perhaps the most forthright in his support for ACA; the other two less so. All seemed to realize the health care issue might be dangerous for them.
Have things changed? Could a Democrat run in open support of ACA today, expecting that to be a plus. One might easily be fooled by the current outrage against ACHA:
- Angry people may represent a minority who depend on ACA benefits and know it
- Angry people may not be among those who have voted for Tom Reed.
- Angry people may not have bothered to vote.
- There may be a “silent majority” who are indifferent to the health care debate, and who vote Republican.
On the other hand, there may be a silent majority who want to keep current benefits.
The views of Democrats are divided between those who support ACA and are satisfied with it, and those who favor “Medicare for all.” Can a Democrat appeal to both groups and yet attract tens of thousands of Republicans and Independents to the cause?