What really needs an ACA cure is our political process
Published November 26, 2013
by Pat McCoy, Action NC, published in News and Observer, November 26, 2013.
The political frenzy over the Affordable Care Act is an object lesson in what is wrong with American politics. Rhetoric equating the reform law with socialism, and even slavery, has abounded and belies its moderate scope and concessions to the market-based insurance system that had left almost 1 in 5 Americans uninsured.
Its complexity, and many of its implementation challenges, reflect the myriad compromises and deals among powerful special interests – and the elected officials they bankroll – that were necessary to limp the final bill to passage by a mere three votes in the House of Representatives.
It’s laughable that an effort to bring our health care system more in line with that of other developed democracies would be so loudly and relentlessly characterized as an existential threat to our way of life and basic freedoms. It’s like a sick joke that many attackers supported the individual mandate themselves for years as a necessary component of extending coverage and that the political party that has made opposition to the law its raison d’etre ran a candidate for president who had championed the mandate himself when it was politically expedient to do so.
The fact that the law is universally called Obamacare – becoming more about the president and politics than what is good for the uninsured and our future – speaks volumes about the tendency of our commercialized, profiteering political culture to turn debate into a sound-byte cesspool.
The Affordable Care Act does need improvement, and its proponents are not defending ineptitude in promoting and rolling out the new law. People can and should challenge its premise and weaknesses, as is our right. But their position should not be that we don’t need an adequate health care safety net or that folks can just go to the emergency room. Those who want to dismantle the ACA’s reforms need to propose a serious alternative, and they have not.
Can we live without health care reform? Sure, if we want to do nothing about 45,000 deaths a year for want of insurance coverage, runaway costs ultimately unsustainable, a delivery system riddled with inequality and injustice and overall outcomes that often compare more with impoverished nations than developed nations.
Can we live with a government that cannot rise to the challenge of health care reform? That’s less clear. This is the same government mired in inaction for years, and in some instances decades, on jobs, education, immigration, energy policy and climate change, growing income and wealth inequality, and deficit reduction. As polls show, the American people are deeply cynical about their cynical and unproductive government, and an appalling number don’t bother to vote.
It’s political reform we need most urgently. It won’t solve other problems, but it would give us a fighting chance to solve them. Many excellent proposals exist to reform campaign financing and lobbying, protect voting rights and increase voter participation, take partisanship out of redistricting, change Senate rules so a majority eventually can rule, and more.
Without improving the process of choosing a government and conducting its business, the progress we desperately need on health care and other major issues to keep our nation safe and strong will remain more mirage than reality. The time to take action for political reform is now. Let’s demand it.
November 26, 2013 at 7:27 am
TP Wohlford says:
So the upshot... The government centrally managing 4% of the world's economy really WILL work, it just hasn't worked yet 'cause 1) our opponents prevented us, and 2) those on our side just didn't do it right?
Gosh, where have I heard that one before?
Lots of jokes in the old USSR, like the one about the ice factory failing to meet Kremlin targets 'cause the man who knew the formula for ice died....
November 26, 2013 at 10:54 am
Norm Kelly says:
Truth in advertising is the law of the land. Too bad the same law does not apply to editorials.
'Rhetoric equating the reform law with socialism' is accurate. Even many of the Demoncrats who passed the law have said that it is only step 1 to get to a single payer system. Please note that 'single payer system' is liberal speak, disguised speak, for 'socialized medicine'. What's the difference between socialized and single payer? There is none. So having the feds decide what must be covered, how much it can cost, how much profit the insurance companies can make, how much doctors and hospitals can charge are all socialist moves. Because Obamacare is the beginning of socialized medicine. It's not 'rhetoric' when it's true; it's called truth.
'belies its moderate scope'. Moderate to some, but admittedly only temporarily moderate in scope. Just ask the central planners what their future plans are. The honest ones, like K Hagan, will tell you that 'single payer' is the ultimate goal. She would also tell you that she will work to make sure it's not a long-term goal, but a short-term goal. Moderate to someone who believes in socialism, maybe. Moderate to someone who believes in free enterprise, hardly. But since we can't even agree on this point, the rest of the discussion becomes an argument.
Why is bringing our health care system down to the lower standards of other developed 'democracies' considered a good thing? Why couldn't we make some modifications to our free-enterprise-based health care system, and encourage the other nations that moved to socialized medicine to follow our lead instead? Why is it necessary for us to dismantle the system we have and follow the failing lead of other nations? Contrary to Mike Moore, Cuba's health care system is not superior to ours.
What liberals/socialists miss when talking about Mitt Romney's implementation of health care in Mass is that this is exactly the way the founders expected the system to work. What works in one sovereign state might not work as well in another sovereign state. Each state is supposed to be allowed to implement the plan they want to take care of their citizens. Mitt didn't propose, never was a proponent of Washington taking over the health care delivery or insurance industries in our country. Having the central planners take over markets IS the definition of 'socialism'.
'Can we live without health care reform?' Is this a serious question? Again, from someone who should know better? Exactly who has proposed that there be NO health care/health insurance reform? Nobody has proposed this now nor in the recent past. I won't go back 50 years to prove this. But I can go back 100 years to show historically that liberals have been trying to implement socialized medicine. Socialized medicine is a plan that has not left the liberals for a full century now. They see Obamacare as the first step in achieving their goal. But no one who opposes socialized medicine has proposed that there not be SOME reform. It's just that opponents of socialized medicine desire a free-market alternative that allows state control, state level alternatives. Opponents of socialized medicine desire that I have a CHOICE in MY coverage that I PAY for.
I agree. I start demanding reform in Washington today. I start with getting the central planners out of government. I start with reducing the power of socialists. I start with reducing the number of socialists in elected office. I start with demanding that K Hagan be replaced with a non-socialist. I demand that K Hagan be replaced with someone who believes in the Constitution. I demand that K Hagan's replacement understand state sovereignty. I demand that the candidate who wants to run against K Hagan believe that the powers of Washington/the central planners is specifically limited while state powers are specifically NOT enumerated because they are so broad. I demand that the person who replaces K Hagan actually, demonstrably put NC citizens ahead of party. (wouldn't that be a dramatic change?!?! just this one change might be enough to vote against K.)
November 27, 2013 at 1:36 pm
Tom Hauck says:
If our President thought the PP ACA or Obamacare was so great why did he not tell us of all the benefits rather than misrepresenting his program with a "If you like your healthcare insurance policy and your doctor you can keep your healthcare insurance policy and your doctor. Period" in other words, you will not be forced into the PP ACA or Obamacare.
If PP ACA is so great, why has he given waivers to Congress and their staff and certain waivers to the unions. Why has he put off for one year forcing the law on large companies?
Anyone who has any pull with President Obama has asked for, and received, a waiver from the effects of PP ACA or Obamacare.
