3 views on whether the next Congress should repeal Obamacare

Repealing Obamacare is bound to come up as voters in a town-hall forum question President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the second presidential debate. Concerns about healthcare, from Medicare to the Affordable Care Act, play a key role in this election. Three writers give their brief take on whether the next Congress should repeal the Affordable Care Act.

3. A middle way: Don't re-argue Obamacare; adjust it

The real question is not whether to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Political rhetoric aside, leaders on both sides realize the importance of some of its benefits (covering preexisting conditions, for instance), and its initial steps to curb costs in Medicare. These provisions are here to stay.

The real question is how to further curb costs and ensure coverage is within reach for all. It is possible to do both. Republicans and Democrats may seem miles apart today, but they have an example in Medicare, which was passed with bipartisan support and adjusted over time by leaders in both parties.

Similarly, in the coming fiscal debate over deficits and debt, we can’t afford to rehash the same all-or-nothing argument between the new law and Republican proposals to give states block grants for Medicaid and to implement a premium-support model for Medicare.

The National Coalition on Health Care has worked with the consumer, provider, health plan, and business communities to chart a new course that controls costs and provides affordable care to all. Here’s what we learned:

Medicare reimbursement and coverage policies have to change. Provider payment must transition from a fee-for-service model that rewards tests and procedures, to one that supports coordinated patient care. Benefits must show good value by lowering enrollees’ co-pays and deductibles when they choose high-quality providers and more effective treatment.

Reform, however, cannot stop with Medicare or other public insurance plans. We must bolster cost-saving competition in private hospital and pharmaceutical markets. To combat chronic disease, we must strengthen public investment in prevention programs and the primary-care workforce.

After the election, Congress will stand face to face with the “fiscal cliff” and the need to cut growth in costs. Our coalition will make specific recommendations then. For the sake of affordability and better care, let’s readjust, not re-argue, health care in America.

John Rother is the president and chief executive officer of the National Coalition on Health Care.

3 of 3

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.