David B. Grinberg in Lifestyle, Healthcare, Healthy Living Strategic Communications Consultant • Independent Mar 31, 2017 · 5 min read · 3.2K

Why All Americans Should Care about Obamacare

Why All Americans Should Care about Obamacare

How much do Americans care about affordable healthcare? Just ask President Donald J. Trump and the Republican-led House of Representatives.

How ironic that after voting over 50 times prior to 2017 to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), the House failed miserably last week in attempting to pass a similar bill -- even with the national media spotlight squarely focused on Capitol Hill. This was a conspicuous failure to secure a simple majority vote in the first big legislative test for the new Republican Congress and President Trump.

So what gives?

One would think that after electing a new president and assuming full control of Congress, the Republican Party (or GOP) would have no trouble repealing and replacing the signature domestic achievement of the Obama presidency -- which the GOP has consistently denounced and demonized. In fact, the early so-called "conventional wisdom" in Washington was that such a victory would be the proverbial equivalent to a slam dunk in basketball.

But not so fast.

That's because all the House Democrats -- joined by a handful of Republicans in the self-proclaimed "Freedom Caucus" -- expressed their intention to sink the bill if a vote was held. This was a stinging rebuke to the new Administration and Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, who had to shelve the vote at the 11th hour. Perhaps this unexpected turn of events should not be so surprising after all. Here's why...

Yes, Obamacare remains controversial despite some initial success. Yet most Americans are wise enough to recognize that tens of millions more taxpayers now have long-awaited and badly needed access to affordable healthcare. There's also the potent point made by the President Obama that America now has the lowest uninsured rate in history.

Most Americans also appear to recognize the intrinsic value and fundamental freedom of universal access to basic health care.

Nonetheless, Americans are still deeply divided on the overall effectiveness of Obamacare in their own lives. These concerns are also being felt by employers, especially small business owners. However, which one of the naysayers out there is ready to give up their own healthcare coverage and pay out of pocket for all medical expenses?

While I’m not an attorney or economist, and therefore won’t attempt to address the legal and fiscal merits of Obamacare, there is still a strong social justice argument to make about the significance of this groundbreaking law. The argument centers on why affordable healthcare should be considered a fundamental freedom and a moral imperative for all Americans, particularly indigent citizens who need it most.

Health Security

Does government have an inherent responsibility that extends beyond national security to basic health security, as part of providing for the general welfare of all citizens? Some proponents of Obamacare go so far to assert that basic health security is indeed a form of national security in the broadest sense of the term.

Access to affordable healthcare is more important now than ever, especially as the chasm over income inequality becomes more gaping nationwide.

It’s worth noting that fundamental change does not happen overnight. It takes time and effort. But significant progress has already been made despite a host of legislative and judicial obstacles meant to derail Obamacare.

It’s important to recall that open access to affordable healthcare is commonplace in most modern industrial democracies worldwide.

America could not have continued to be recognized as the greatest global democracy, and a shining beacon of freedom, had we continued to fail in providing basic health security for all taxpayers.

Prior to Obamacare’s enactment, America had already experienced too many decades of partisan gridlock regarding healthcare. This came at the literal and figurative expense of the neediest citizens among us, those who lacked access to basic healthcare services for themselves and their families.

How could the USA have upheld our nation’s long cherished morals and values by leaving Americans who lack basic healthcare to wither on the vines of desperation? Put simply, America's healthcare system had been stuck in the ditch for too long.

For instance, officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated back in 2012 that, "The U.S. health system ranks 37th in the world — just behind Costa Rica.” 

While Costa Rica is a beautiful place to visit, would you and your family want to move there for healthcare security? What if that was the only way to access affordable life-saving surgery?

If not Costa Rica, then how about Canada or the other 30-plus countries which had healthcare systems ranking higher than ours before Obamacare became law?

Fortunately, that’s a Hobson's choice no American has to make any longer.

Fierce Resistance

It is not uncommon in American history for groundbreaking laws, like the Affordable Care Act, to be met with fierce resistance at first. Consider Medicare and the Civil Rights Act, for example. Both pieces of landmark legislation went through tough transitions from public scrutiny to public acceptance over many years and decades.

This transition took place from the time the sweeping laws were introduced in Congress, through enactment and national implementation. Medicare was a legislative milestone created by Congress in 1965 via the Social Security Act. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 opened the doors of equal opportunity on myriad levels to tens of millions of Americans who had been left behind due to discrimination. But public acceptance did not come easy.

Similar to Obamacare, opponents of these historic laws predicted gloom and doom for America. Yet, interestingly enough, just the opposite occurred.

As the aforementioned major laws were implemented, their success became more apparent over time. In fact, most Americans came to recognize and accept the intrinsic democratic values and fundamental freedoms provided by Medicare and the Civil Rights Act. This, in turn, helped to make America a better country and a global role model for civil rights and human rights.

Moreover, with the passage of time and the advantage of hindsight, these groundbreaking laws were improved upon by the enactment of critically important amendments. Thus, it’s also likely that Obamacare will follow a similar legislative path of improvement in the decades to come.

If parts of Obamacare are in desperate need of enhancement -- as critics are quick to claim -- then Congress should mend it, not end it.

The fact is that the sky hasn't fallen because of Obamacare, despite the demonizing discourse to the contrary. Rather, for now at least, America has a strong universal healthcare foundation in place to build upon.

B-12 Shot for Middle Class

Among the socioeconomic merits of Obamacare, it has strengthened the middle class by providing access to much needed healthcare that it otherwise lacked. Remember, the cost of paying for the uninsured and under-insured only resulted in skyrocketing insurance premiums for the rest of us.

Additionally, Obamacare provided the struggling middle class with a much needed B-12 shot in the wake of the Great Recession. Workers without health insurance hurt the economy when they and their families face unforeseen severe illnesses.

For instance, according to widespread published reports, about two-thirds of Americans are either obese or overweight, including many children. This is an alarming health trend.

So who pays for it? We all do in higher costs for health-related services. Employers pay for it as an added cost of doing business. These costs trickle down the economic food chain to low-wage workers who can least afford it, causing the substantial gap between rich and poor to widen.

Prior to Obamacare, there were millions of productive American workers and other citizens who could not afford basic health insurance. This broad range of individuals included those who were:

  • Self employed,
  • Unemployed,
  • Part-time workers and temps,
  • Qualified applicants who could not find jobs with employer-provided health insurance, and
  • Employees or applicants with pre-existing conditions.

Therefore, it just makes good economic sense – not to mention common sense – that a physically and mentally healthy labor force contributes more to overall economic prosperity. But the millions of employees who lacked basic health benefits only added to labor costs through increased absenteeism, prolonged sick leave and poor job performance, as well as other economic ramifications for employers.

Obamacare = Freedom

Thus, as efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare continue, let's not forget the most vulnerable among us: those living in poverty and despair for whom affordable healthcare was once a pipe dream.

For these downtrodden Americans, Obamacare represents the very freedom necessary to live an independent and more healthful life.

That means the freedom to see a doctor, freedom to receive needed medical treatment, freedom to obtain prescription drugs, and freedom from the stranglehold of greedy and corrupt insurance and pharmaceutical corporations.

The federal government has always had an inherent responsibility to safeguard and protect the general welfare of its citizenry.  Therefore, it shouldn't be surprising the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld major parts of Obamacare over the years in the face of fierce legal attacks at the lower court levels.

In essence, no American should ever be denied basic medical care due to low income, pre-existing conditions, or other discriminatory factors. The USA is better than that. No American should ever be faced with the grim reality of paying for medical care versus putting food on the table.

That’s simply anathema to the American way.

Note: This post also appears on GovLoop.com ("Knowledge Network for Government").


ABOUT THE AUTHOR: I'm an independent writer and strategic communications advisor with over 20 years of experience in the public and private sectors -- including work in the White House, Congress, federal agencies, and national news media. I'm also a Brand Ambassador for beBee Affinity Social Network. In addition to beBee, you can find me buzzing around on Twitter, Medium, Thrive Global and LinkedIn.

NOTE: All views and opinions are those of the author only and not official statements or endorsements of any public sector employer, private sector employer, organization or political entity.

Tracys Matts Jul 24, 2020 · #73

User removed

Lisa Gallagher Dec 12, 2017 · #72

A reminder: For those who get their insurance on the open market aka: healthcare. gov. Froday is the last day for enrollment. Glad this came across my radar again @David B. Grinberg

Deborah Levine May 29, 2017 · #71

Great article that generates much discussion @David B. Grinberg. I'd like to address your point that 2/3 of the American population is obese or overweight and the numerous medical issues generated by this situation: heart problems, diabetes, and more. Should there not be an uprising over this fast track to disease and death? Health insurance addresses the results & symptoms, but not the root cause. What are the tax subsidies to manufacturers of fast foods? Why would we permit fast food to be sold in schools and substituted for real food in school lunches. The amount of sugar and salt in American diets is terrifying. The availability of crap food vs. real food in poverty-stricken areas is shameful. The fancy terminology for bad stuff in ingredients' label are too often indecipherable.

Yes, we have made some progress. Many soda manufacturers now invest in bottled water. Many restaurants now label their food. But these are drops in a sugar lined, salt infested, pre-packaged , MSG loaded culture. If 2/3 of our population came down with the measles or TB, there would be a major revolt beyond more access to healthcare. Leaders should lead by example and NGOs and government should unite to fight!

+1 +1
Michael O'Neil May 7, 2017 · #70

User removed

Phil Friedman May 7, 2017 · #69

#68 That's true, Michael, to some extent. But we should not mistake what is for what could be. There is no inherent reason that a government run program has to have higher management overheads than the same program in the private sector. Indeed, the reverse is true, since the government-run program does not need to account for uber-high C-suite exec salaries and bonuses, nor for profits.

Yes, there is waste and incompetence in government run programs. But so too in the private sector. Are you going to tell me that in recent years private sector companies "too big to fail" have not been bailed out at taxpayer expense? Talk about incompetent and avaricious management.

BTW, the kind of cherry-picking I'm talking about is best illustrated by trying to compare, for example, UPS and FedEx with the U.S. Mail Service. Being a government service, the U.S. mail has to service all manner of routes that are so sparse as to be inherently "unprofitable", whereas the private companies can choose only those routes which are sufficiently dense to be profitable. Cheers!

Michael O'Neil May 6, 2017 · #68

User removed

+1 +1
Harvey Lloyd May 5, 2017 · #67

#66 Extraneous facts and references do not change the reality of the $100. The dollars will be spent within products and services in this country and represents a wage earner and a consumer. Your constant moving the debate off the reality and on to some polarized debate of we need a boogie man to support a single payer system is the true dogma.

Government is expensive. This has been a fact in evidence since the beginning. This is also acceptable in my eyes, not an accusation. Government has many concerns that the private sector does not have.

My discussion is the need to look at the $95 dollars as the true cost of healthcare delivery and determine the most efficient way to deliver the service. The true dogma lies within the discussion of the $5 dollars as the source of the issue.

Fraud and other slippage within a system is always present, its interesting that you only highlight this fact within the private sector. The government is defrauded every day in large sums. This is yet again a straw man argument that is cancelled out when we accept the fact that fraud is part of the system and requires management.

Apparently you are missing the larger point, the insured is who i refer to. What does John and Jane Smith pay out of pocket and educating them from facts of true cost. Either through taxes or premiums.

Your ideal of negotiating flies in the face of a living wage for those who provide healthcare. It also is already happening. Actuarial tables are already reducing payments to service providers and has given rise to PA's replacing doctors and techs replacing nurses and growing at an alarming rate with the healthcare industry.

You can narrow the focus of the debate to infinity. In the end we will have to deal with the whole of the issues and not just the limbic system responses that produce power for those who wield it. John and Jane need healthcare.

+1 +1
Phil Friedman May 5, 2017 · #66

#65 Harvey, nothing you've said supports your claim that it would cost government more to administer a single payer program of universal health care than it would cost private insurance. Simply repeating the claim does not make it so -- except perhaps in the Land of Trump. All other factors held constant, the government WOULD indeed pay out more for the Nation's health care, but that would be the result of ceasing to cherry pick the market as do private insurers, who unregulated until recently left large numbers of higher risk individuals without affordable care.

Moreover, the additional payouts would be more than offset by the savings attained by a single payer system which had the ability to negotiate doctor, hospital, and supportive services rates. Not to mention the recapture of profits generated in the private sector situation. And not to mention the savings that could be attained via elimination of overbilling and fraud, which the las time I looked was not being curtailed in the least by the private insurance industry -- which cares not a whit, as long as it is generating profit.

That government management is always more costly is a dogma propagated by those who seek to benefit from the exclusion of others from receiving benefits. If it were otherwise, private for- profit companies would not spend so much energy and money to keep government competition out of business sectors that, at the same time, they claim are not profitable. They would simply walk away. And Aetna, for example, would not be seeking to acquire Humana.

+1 +1