Many on Facebook blatently oppose the Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010, and to them, I say: So, would you rather tweak the new healthcare form law, or go back to the way things were before? Personally, I’d rather tweak. I mean, the new law is not perfect. But that’s because it’s new. Give it time. I’d vote for Obama again because he’s actually accomplished quite a bit in just two years. I voted for him the first time too, and am proud of that; especially after the bold move he’s taken to secure affordable healthcare for all.
The healthcare reforms aren’t socialism; not even close. Yet I’d argue that certain aspects of our culture need to be socialized: infrastructure, regulatory standards at work, Wall Street, the police forces, and such. Healthcare needs a bit of socialization too. Why? Because an all-privatized healthcare system has not worked for tens of millions of people. So it’s time to try something different. Free enterprise is not ALWAYS the best solution for every problem friends. Yes, it may cost workers more initially. But then the Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010 will eventually pay for more when they become ill.
In the main, it’s the republicans that want to repeal the whole thing. As noted, the new reforms are not perfect. But we know from years of experience that taking no action to fix our healthcare system is not the answer either. At least, Obama was able to make an honest effort at reform; something that the republicans did NOT manage, even though they controlled both houses of congress as well as the White House for the first six years of the 21st century. In fact, they fought like dogs to prevent Obama from doing what he did, and they’re still fighting it today.
Oh, and I didn’t mention the six years prior to George W. Bush that the republicans controlled both houses. They didn’t do anything then about reform either; even though the president at the time (Bill Clinton) had worked with them on creating a balanced budget and numerous successful bipartisan efforts. Clinton was perhaps the most willing democrat president to work with republicans in recent times. Yet, though republicans controlled congress for a total of twelve years (from 1995 through 2006), health care reform still did not get done. It took the democrats gaining control of congress and the White House in 2009 to do it. Then of course, let’s not forget that republicans relentlessly blocked Hilary Clinton’s efforts in 1993 to establish universal health care, and they opposed Jimmy Carter’s attempts at it in 1979. Hmmm. You see any pattern here? It sure seems like republicans just don’t want everyone to have affordable health care. At least, that’s how they’ve appeared for the past 31 years.
Check the voting stats for the reform bills in 1979, 1993, and 2009. You’ll find that consistently, a higher percentage of republicans voted against these bills than democrats. Further, in all cases, had the republicans voted for these bills, they would have passed.
So, should we blame democrats for not getting healthcare reform passed? if so, then what’s happened this year alone would refute that; particularly since almost no republicans voted for this bill. Again, the bill would have failed if the democrats were not in control of congress this year. This is plain, statistical fact. Can anyone refute it with other facts?
Someone then quipped that a healthcare law as sweeping as the Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010 would take too long to read for anyone wishing to read the whole thing; including congress. Well, I suppose it could take congress 20 years to read all 2200 pages of the new law; especially if they’re dragging their feet. But let’s see, that’s roughly a hundred pages a year. Geez, I can read a hundred pages a day. No, I think they’ll have read it way before 2030 and be able to divise some of the necessary tweaks to perfect it. Indeed, there’s a lot in the bill, ranging from the elimination of life-time maximum insurance coverage limits to the elimination of the part D donut hole for seniors, to preventing insurance companies from denying someone coverage because they have a pre-existing health condition, and allowing children to remain covered by their parents’ health plans until the age of 26. There’s much more too. But those are some of the bigger ticket items.
Would you not agree that a basic objective of reform should be (and was in fact) to cover way more Americans than what were covered before? It’s also intended to keep people from being driven into the poorhouse who aren’t covered, but who develop expensive illnesses to treat — such as breast cancer or heart disease. In a nutshell, the government, with this healthcare reform initiative, is attempting to make sure that more Americans have a better chance at living longer, healthier, and as a result, more prosperous lives. A society less laden with health worries (concerns over how to pay its medical bills) would not only be good for the people, but good for the country as well.
The healthcare reform act has a lot of preventative measures in it as well, to teach people how to live healthier to begin with, so that they don’t have to seek medical attention so often. That’s compassion. In fact, preventative education is a cornerstone of this reform as I understand it. Getting the word out about healthy living is a big way this plan will save money over the long haul. Why? Because with obesity rates being so high, and with much of the bandwidth of the healthcare system going to treating complications from obesity (diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, et al), the current system is bogged down. Yes, people need to be told (educated). In our culture of sugary refined carbohydrates with added artificial fats, and more processed food on the market than whole foods, a person can’t make wise food choices without first learning how to do it. But, people aren’t learning because our country is among (if not THE) fattest country in the world and our rates of diabetes and heart disease as a result, are correspondingly high. Yes I say. People need to be told. Preventative education about the reasons for weight control does help, and it will help here if we give it a chance.
Why would anyone not want affordable healthcare for all? Are they that selfish as to deny people less fortunate than themselves access to quality and affordable health care? What will happen to the opposition someday should they suddenly take ill with strokes or are paralyzed in auto accidents? Could they afford to pay for ALL of their care then? Somehow, I doubt most of them could. Insurance companies pay at best 80%, and even at that rate, one can still receive a hefty medical bill for most surgeries. Does the opposition take ALL the credit for their successes? It seems like they wish not to credit their government and community at all for at least SOME of their good fortunes and prosperity. After all, they could not achieve nearly the success they do without the infrastructures and security that government provides. Do they believe that it’s equally easy for everyone to achieve success in life, and do they think everyone has equal opportunity to succeed? If they do, then put simply: They’re wrong. Let’s debate that.
Now it’s taken over seven presidential administrations and over forty years (at least) for our healthcare system to evolve into the overly profit-motivated yet inefficient institution that today leaves so many not covered, and leaves many others who thought they WERE covered high and dry when they actually get sick. The new bill, while admittedly imperfect, is nonetheless a good first step toward fixing these problems. It represents the biggest step anyone has taken in modern times to address them, because it attempts to provide consistently decent quality health care to everyone; regardless of their income. True. This does mean that people who HAVE more will be asked to GIVE more so that people with less can receive affordable care. But then, I do not find this objectionable. After all, the purest water and best education should not go to only the folks who can pay the most for them; but to ALL the folks. Share and share alike. That’s what nations do in war time and other crises. The over fifty million people who do not receive healthcare represents, IMHO, one such major crisis. We need to come together on this; not only for ourselves, but for the future of this country. But we won’t take care of the country at large as long as we overly care for the haves while leaving tens of millions of have-lesses and have-nots to fend for themselves.
Tom Hesley
References
Related Posts