Mitt Romney and President Obama Agree: Everyone in America should have health care insurance!
By: Dr. Judith Arvold, Duluth News Tribune
It is past time.
Dr. Atul Gawande, a Harvard surgeon and medical writer of bipartisan acclaim, recently termed the dysfunction of our health-care system a “wicked problem.” Wicked problems are a class of problems that are, he said, “messy, ill-defined, … complex ... and open to multiple interpretations based on one’s point of view.” Examples include poverty, obesity, “or how to provide all our citizens with adequate health care.”
For too many decades our country has not been able to even agree on how to begin to solve the health-care crisis. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) two years ago, Dr. Gawande declared, “We did something about it.”
What is striking to me about the ACA is how it directly addresses the most unjust provisions of private health insurance. As a result of ACA, you and your child cannot be turned down from affordable coverage for a preexisting condition. A woman cannot be charged more than a man for the same coverage. Policyholders cannot be dropped because they get sick. And there can be no annual or lifetime caps on coverage.
When the Supreme Court upheld most of the ACA, the American Cancer Society affirmed it as “a victory for people with cancer and their families.” The American Psychiatric Association asserted, “This will protect the rights of individuals with mental illness to have access to appropriate care.”
Most of my professional career has been spent caring for women. The benefits of the ACA for women are heartening, including comprehensive preventative and screening services without co-pays. Why this is so important is that we know from work in developing countries that to improve the lot of women is to improve the health, prosperity and economy of the whole country. Freely available contraception is counted as a benefit for women, which it is, but this is mis-
categorized. Contraception is surely a human responsibility and not solely a woman’s issue.
Much of the ACA was modeled after the health-care plan then-Gov. Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts. In April 2006 Romney signed the bill, requiring every citizen in his state to buy health insurance.
Romney said, “It’s a Republican way of reforming the market. Because, let me tell you, having 30 million people in this country without health insurance and having those people show up when they get sick and expect someone else to pay, that’s a Democratic approach. That’s the wrong way. The Republican approach is to say, ‘You know what? Everybody should have insurance. They should pay what they can afford to pay. If they need help, we will be there to help them, but no more free
ride.’ ”
In his 2010 book, “No Apology,” Romney reviewed the success of his health plan in Massachusetts, writing, “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.” In the newer paperback edition, this last line is deleted.
It is easy to adopt the rhetoric of intransigence that historically has been used against any expansion of human rights — that the reforms will fail, that they only will make the problem worse or that they will impose unacceptable costs on society. The ACA is only a start in solving this “wicked” problem, but it is a substantial start. If we want to continue to claim American exceptionalism in this increasingly globalized world we will have to ensure the health of our whole population. I fear that if the ACA is repealed, as Gov. Romney has vowed to do beginning the first day of his administration, meaningful health reform will have to wait for another generation.
It is past time.
Dr. Atul Gawande, a Harvard surgeon and medical writer of bipartisan acclaim, recently termed the dysfunction of our health-care system a “wicked problem.” Wicked problems are a class of problems that are, he said, “messy, ill-defined, … complex ... and open to multiple interpretations based on one’s point of view.” Examples include poverty, obesity, “or how to provide all our citizens with adequate health care.”
For too many decades our country has not been able to even agree on how to begin to solve the health-care crisis. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) two years ago, Dr. Gawande declared, “We did something about it.”
What is striking to me about the ACA is how it directly addresses the most unjust provisions of private health insurance. As a result of ACA, you and your child cannot be turned down from affordable coverage for a preexisting condition. A woman cannot be charged more than a man for the same coverage. Policyholders cannot be dropped because they get sick. And there can be no annual or lifetime caps on coverage.
When the Supreme Court upheld most of the ACA, the American Cancer Society affirmed it as “a victory for people with cancer and their families.” The American Psychiatric Association asserted, “This will protect the rights of individuals with mental illness to have access to appropriate care.”
Most of my professional career has been spent caring for women. The benefits of the ACA for women are heartening, including comprehensive preventative and screening services without co-pays. Why this is so important is that we know from work in developing countries that to improve the lot of women is to improve the health, prosperity and economy of the whole country. Freely available contraception is counted as a benefit for women, which it is, but this is mis-
categorized. Contraception is surely a human responsibility and not solely a woman’s issue.
Much of the ACA was modeled after the health-care plan then-Gov. Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts. In April 2006 Romney signed the bill, requiring every citizen in his state to buy health insurance.
Romney said, “It’s a Republican way of reforming the market. Because, let me tell you, having 30 million people in this country without health insurance and having those people show up when they get sick and expect someone else to pay, that’s a Democratic approach. That’s the wrong way. The Republican approach is to say, ‘You know what? Everybody should have insurance. They should pay what they can afford to pay. If they need help, we will be there to help them, but no more free*ride.’ ”
In his 2010 book, “No Apology,” Romney reviewed the success of his health plan in Massachusetts, writing, “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.” In the newer paperback edition, this last line is deleted.
It is easy to adopt the rhetoric of intransigence that historically has been used against any expansion of human rights — that the reforms will fail, that they only will make the problem worse or that they will impose unacceptable costs on society. The ACA is only a start in solving this “wicked” problem, but it is a substantial start. If we want to continue to claim American exceptionalism in this increasingly globalized world we will have to ensure the health of our whole population. I fear that if the ACA is repealed, as Gov. Romney has vowed to do beginning the first day of his administration, meaningful health reform will have to wait for another generation.
Dr. Judith Arvold is a general internist who retired this year after 33 years of practice in Duluth.
Dr. Atul Gawande, a Harvard surgeon and medical writer of bipartisan acclaim, recently termed the dysfunction of our health-care system a “wicked problem.” Wicked problems are a class of problems that are, he said, “messy, ill-defined, … complex ... and open to multiple interpretations based on one’s point of view.” Examples include poverty, obesity, “or how to provide all our citizens with adequate health care.”
For too many decades our country has not been able to even agree on how to begin to solve the health-care crisis. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) two years ago, Dr. Gawande declared, “We did something about it.”
What is striking to me about the ACA is how it directly addresses the most unjust provisions of private health insurance. As a result of ACA, you and your child cannot be turned down from affordable coverage for a preexisting condition. A woman cannot be charged more than a man for the same coverage. Policyholders cannot be dropped because they get sick. And there can be no annual or lifetime caps on coverage.
When the Supreme Court upheld most of the ACA, the American Cancer Society affirmed it as “a victory for people with cancer and their families.” The American Psychiatric Association asserted, “This will protect the rights of individuals with mental illness to have access to appropriate care.”
Most of my professional career has been spent caring for women. The benefits of the ACA for women are heartening, including comprehensive preventative and screening services without co-pays. Why this is so important is that we know from work in developing countries that to improve the lot of women is to improve the health, prosperity and economy of the whole country. Freely available contraception is counted as a benefit for women, which it is, but this is mis-
categorized. Contraception is surely a human responsibility and not solely a woman’s issue.
Much of the ACA was modeled after the health-care plan then-Gov. Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts. In April 2006 Romney signed the bill, requiring every citizen in his state to buy health insurance.
Romney said, “It’s a Republican way of reforming the market. Because, let me tell you, having 30 million people in this country without health insurance and having those people show up when they get sick and expect someone else to pay, that’s a Democratic approach. That’s the wrong way. The Republican approach is to say, ‘You know what? Everybody should have insurance. They should pay what they can afford to pay. If they need help, we will be there to help them, but no more free
ride.’ ”
In his 2010 book, “No Apology,” Romney reviewed the success of his health plan in Massachusetts, writing, “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.” In the newer paperback edition, this last line is deleted.
It is easy to adopt the rhetoric of intransigence that historically has been used against any expansion of human rights — that the reforms will fail, that they only will make the problem worse or that they will impose unacceptable costs on society. The ACA is only a start in solving this “wicked” problem, but it is a substantial start. If we want to continue to claim American exceptionalism in this increasingly globalized world we will have to ensure the health of our whole population. I fear that if the ACA is repealed, as Gov. Romney has vowed to do beginning the first day of his administration, meaningful health reform will have to wait for another generation.
It is past time.
Dr. Atul Gawande, a Harvard surgeon and medical writer of bipartisan acclaim, recently termed the dysfunction of our health-care system a “wicked problem.” Wicked problems are a class of problems that are, he said, “messy, ill-defined, … complex ... and open to multiple interpretations based on one’s point of view.” Examples include poverty, obesity, “or how to provide all our citizens with adequate health care.”
For too many decades our country has not been able to even agree on how to begin to solve the health-care crisis. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) two years ago, Dr. Gawande declared, “We did something about it.”
What is striking to me about the ACA is how it directly addresses the most unjust provisions of private health insurance. As a result of ACA, you and your child cannot be turned down from affordable coverage for a preexisting condition. A woman cannot be charged more than a man for the same coverage. Policyholders cannot be dropped because they get sick. And there can be no annual or lifetime caps on coverage.
When the Supreme Court upheld most of the ACA, the American Cancer Society affirmed it as “a victory for people with cancer and their families.” The American Psychiatric Association asserted, “This will protect the rights of individuals with mental illness to have access to appropriate care.”
Most of my professional career has been spent caring for women. The benefits of the ACA for women are heartening, including comprehensive preventative and screening services without co-pays. Why this is so important is that we know from work in developing countries that to improve the lot of women is to improve the health, prosperity and economy of the whole country. Freely available contraception is counted as a benefit for women, which it is, but this is mis-
categorized. Contraception is surely a human responsibility and not solely a woman’s issue.
Much of the ACA was modeled after the health-care plan then-Gov. Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts. In April 2006 Romney signed the bill, requiring every citizen in his state to buy health insurance.
Romney said, “It’s a Republican way of reforming the market. Because, let me tell you, having 30 million people in this country without health insurance and having those people show up when they get sick and expect someone else to pay, that’s a Democratic approach. That’s the wrong way. The Republican approach is to say, ‘You know what? Everybody should have insurance. They should pay what they can afford to pay. If they need help, we will be there to help them, but no more free*ride.’ ”
In his 2010 book, “No Apology,” Romney reviewed the success of his health plan in Massachusetts, writing, “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.” In the newer paperback edition, this last line is deleted.
It is easy to adopt the rhetoric of intransigence that historically has been used against any expansion of human rights — that the reforms will fail, that they only will make the problem worse or that they will impose unacceptable costs on society. The ACA is only a start in solving this “wicked” problem, but it is a substantial start. If we want to continue to claim American exceptionalism in this increasingly globalized world we will have to ensure the health of our whole population. I fear that if the ACA is repealed, as Gov. Romney has vowed to do beginning the first day of his administration, meaningful health reform will have to wait for another generation.
Dr. Judith Arvold is a general internist who retired this year after 33 years of practice in Duluth.
No matter what one's opinion is about the overall health care mandate, I think Democrats, Independents, and Republicans can agree that it's a good thing that:
ReplyDelete1. It will now be a law that a child born, or developing, pre-existing conditions will no longer be relegated to a life of poverty.
2. That adults who develop health conditions will no longer be tossed out of their insurance plan to fend alone, and, in poverty.
3. That requiring everyone to have health care will reduce
costs as individuals will be treated where the treatment
is most appropriate and not be forced to go to the
emergency room in order to have more minor things
treated, and covered.
4. That the number one reason for people in our country
having to go bankrupt will no longer be because they
got sick.
5. That children will be covered by their parents health
insurance to age 26.
Why was it necessary to have an Affordable Healthcare Act? · Share
ReplyDeleteIt was also necessary because insurance companies would not cover children with "pre-existing" conditions - ever!
It was also necessary because insurance companies would drop individuals to fend for themselves if they became too expensive for the insurance company!
It was also necessary because the only way that many individuals could get medical care was to go to the emergency room. That is a very expensive way to offer medical care. Perhaps, now, the emphasis can be on preventative medical care.
It was also necessary because citizens were afraid to change jobs because they would lose their health care, especially if they had develped a medical condition. They will now have the freedom to change jobs knowing that they will not be refused covereage by a future insurance company.
The affordable Healthcare Act was necessary because the last thing the family of a loved one, who has been diagnosed with stomach cancer, heart disease, kidney and/or liver disease, should have to do is have a fund raiser in order to pay for the necessary treatment of their loved one.
The Affordable Healthcare Act was necessary for all of the reasons listed above, and many more, and President Obama and the republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, agree with the nature of the penalty that takes place for those who would want to get medical care without getting health insurance. They both agree that the penalty is a "penalty" and not a "tax". They agree that the penalty is authorized through the taxing clause authority of the federal government.
The Affordable Healthcare Act was necessary because the insurance did a very good job of protecting themselves, and their shareholders, by placing caps on coverage that resulted in the individual to go it alone.......unreasonable biills,.......untold worry and frustration,........bankruptcy,..........death. Insurance companies managed to "insure" themselves but not their policy holders!
The Affordable Healthcare Act was necessary because churches and the Salvation Army were not able to keep up with all of the people who needed life saving medication and who would come to them for help.
Who benfits from Obama Care? The real winners are ordinary Americans — people like you.
The New York Times
by Paul Krugman
How many people are we talking about? You might say 30 million, the number of additional people the Congressional Budget Office says will have health insurance thanks to Obamacare. But that vastly understates the true number of winners because millions of other Americans — including many who oppose the act — would have been at risk of being one of those 30 million.
So add in every American who currently works for a company that offers good health insurance but is at risk of losing that job (and who isn’t in this world of outsourcing and private equity buyouts?); every American who would have found health insurance unaffordable but will now receive crucial financial help; every American with a pre-existing condition who would have been flatly denied coverage in many states.
In short, unless you belong to that tiny class of wealthy Americans who are insulated and isolated from the realities of most people’s lives, the winners from that Supreme Court decision are your friends, your relatives, the people you work with — and, very likely, you. For almost all of us stand to benefit from making America a kinder and more decent society.
The Affordable Healthcare Act was not a politcally smart move on the part of democrats but it was a very brave move. It is the right thing to do.
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, 120,000 more Minnesotans will be provided coverage through the expansion of Medicaid.
Minnesota has a proud tradition of providing health care coverage, not just for those who can afford it but for people in need.