Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows: Americans want results, not ideology in healthcare reform

Lamenting his party’s failure to learn from the lessons of the American Health Care Act, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C., said frankly, “The only thing we will be judged by is, do premiums come down?”

Meadows, who believes House Republicans have already repeated mistakes this week that they should have learned to avoid last week, emphasized in a Thursday afternoon interview with the Washington Examiner that everyday Americans “could care less about policy.”

All they want, as Meadows sees it, are results.

“When John Smith the manufacturing worker opens that insurance premium,” Meadows asserted, and his family realizes it didn’t go down, they will say, “‘that Republican plan didn’t work.'”

“They will make a judgement call,” he warned, “and the plan that’s on the table right now won’t do that.”

An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office estimated that insurance premiums would rise for the first three years under the repeal and replace legislation proposed by Republicans in the House of Representative and the administration. As the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, Meadows’ opposition to the bill was instrumental in its failure.

In the interview, both Meadows and Freedom Caucus founder Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, insisted they would have voted for the legislation if it had repealed the essential health benefits and community rating mandates.

Adding repeals of both mandates to the AHCA, “would bring the vast majority of the Freedom Caucus to a yes,” Meadows said. Jordan agreed.

When asked later in the interview whether he worries about the potential electoral consequences of delayed reform, Meadows emphasized again his firm conviction that “the real reason that people want Obamacare repealed is because their premiums went up. They could care less about the policy.”

“If the policy had been in and their premiums went down they’d say ‘let’s keep Obamacare,” he argued.

“Let’s face it, it’s not an ideological argument that says Obamacare is inherently bad because it’s named Obamacare,” Meadows explained, “It’s because premiums went up.”

Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Related Content