For weeks, critics of the Affordable Care Act have labeled me an emotional, uninformed liberal for expressing my concerns about the American Health Care Act (AHCA). They speak of waivers and potential loopholes as if these are comforting assurances. They urge me to calm down, insisting that it “probably won’t affect” me, as if my hypothetical safety somehow diminishes the plight of millions of others. They claim it’s too early to worry, suggesting that concern should only arise after the bill is signed into law. Ironically, they tell me I need to do my homework, as if I lack the knowledge to understand the implications of this legislation.
Let me clarify something about mothers of children with special needs: we are researchers. We dig deep into information as if our lives depended on it—because, often, they do. We understand that no one cares for our children the way we do, and that not even experts or lawmakers will advocate for our kids with the same fervor we possess. So, any attempts to dismiss my understanding by telling me to research more will only elicit laughter or a fierce retort.
Health care discussions tend to be tedious and insurance policies are often convoluted. I suspect this complexity is intentional, designed to distract us while lobbyists and politicians enjoy their perks funded by those of us struggling to afford basic medical needs.
At its core, health care should be straightforward: it must be affordable for everyone, and access should be universal. Ideally, health care should be a right for all, as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and demonstrated by more compassionate nations.
During Donald Trump’s campaign, he made several promises regarding healthcare: premiums would remain stable, no one would lose their coverage, and pre-existing conditions would still be covered. It baffles me that 63 million Americans chose to trust a known con artist with their health, but what’s done is done. Proponents of the AHCA might argue that it doesn’t explicitly revoke protections for pre-existing conditions or increase premiums. Technically, they are correct.
However, the AHCA allows states to seek waivers that enable them to charge older individuals significantly higher rates compared to younger ones and to eliminate essential health benefits like maternity care and mental health services. States could also deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions or impose annual and lifetime caps on benefits.
One argument supporting the AHCA is that as long as you maintain continuous coverage, pre-existing conditions won’t raise your rates. But what happens when you lose your job? In one unfortunate moment, your premiums could soar due to a health condition your child has. A lapse in coverage often occurs during challenging times—losing a job, upgrading to a better position that disqualifies you from Medicaid, forcing you to choose between rent and health insurance. Losing coverage when it is needed most and making it financially impossible to regain is essentially the same as outright exclusion based on health history or age.
Access to health care is not a mere abstraction; it has profound personal implications. In 2015, I welcomed my wonderful son into the world. While much of his early development seemed normal, it soon became apparent that he was not meeting key milestones. Despite my professional background in early childhood education, I was told to wait and see. By the time he reached eight months, I recognized that his development was atypical.
The following 18 months were filled with assessments, therapies, and ultimately, a diagnosis of cerebral palsy. The therapies and services we have since accessed have been essential for his development. Cuts to Medicaid, which would occur under the AHCA, threaten these vital services. For many children, especially those without existing healthcare, these programs are their only access to necessary support.
These are just some of the reasons we must contest this inequitable legislation. I channel my inner warrior, ready to combat the detrimental policies embodied by the AHCA. This should transcend partisan politics; it’s about what is morally right. There is no justification for considering legislation that overlooks our most vulnerable citizens: our children, the elderly, the ill, and the impoverished. This is the proverbial battle of good versus evil. Stand up and join the fight.
Summary
: The AHCA poses significant risks to health care access, particularly for vulnerable populations. While proponents argue it doesn’t directly eliminate coverage for pre-existing conditions, the potential for increased costs and reduced benefits through state waivers raises serious concerns. As a mother of a child with special needs, I highlight the importance of fighting against such inequitable legislation, emphasizing that health care is a fundamental right that should be accessible to all.