Finding unity on a new health-care law

Obamacare set down access to health care as a universal good, a point that Trump and much of the GOP now concedes. A new law would help fix flaws in the Affordable Care Act.

AP Photo
People rally against the dismantling of the Affordable Care Act during a gathering in San Francisco, Sunday, Jan. 15. It was one of dozens of rallies Democrats staged across the country to denounce Republican efforts to repeal President Barack Obama's health care law.

When he first ran for president, Barack Obama promised universal access to health care insurance – without forcing people to buy it. His campaign position sought to balance personal choice in health with a guarantee of care. Now the next president, Donald Trump, promises a similar path. “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,’’ Mr. Trump said last week, while praising popular aspects of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).

His statement is a signal that perhaps Congress might yet find a bipartisan way to fix a law that both Democrats and Republicans agree needs some degree of change.

The GOP hopes to pass a health-care bill by spring – although it will need Democratic votes in the Senate to do so. The two parties still differ on many details about a fix, such as whether states should be allowed to customize health care to local needs. But the political momentum exists to offer more freedom in health care and to offer more affordability in how people find healing.

For millions of Americans without employer-based care or for those not eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, the various GOP ideas rely on the use of tax credits and special savings accounts to purchase insurance. This market-based approach is similar to the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. Congress passed that law with bipartisan approval – and it has indeed expanded access to care while helping to restrain rising costs.

The proposed reforms in the new Congress would end one of Obamacare’s most controversial aspects: the onerous mandate for individuals to buy a private insurance policy or face a stiff penalty. Millions of Americans have tried to avoid that rule, sending a strong signal for choice in health care. One alternative to the mandate is to offer positive incentives for people to maintain insurance coverage, even during periods when they are healthy.

Whatever Congress does in fixing the current law, it must keep an eye on how the Supreme Court might rule on any new law. In two key decisions that upheld aspects of Obamacare, Chief Justice John Roberts made a point of bowing to the intent of the legislative branch while also upholding basic liberties. The Constitution’s liberty provisions only allow government to “encourage” individuals to buy a private product, such as health insurance, not coerce them into doing so. And both states and the insurance markets deserve certain freedoms in providing care.

 “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” the chief justice wrote. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

Republicans and Democrats agree on the principle of access to affordable care for all. They also agree that health is a basic and natural good for each individual. If both parties can stop seeking partisan advantage for the next election, they can make sure that good is more available as well as more affordable.

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

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.