Blog Viewer

Independence, Thanks to Obamacare

By Joel Miller posted 07-06-2016 16:41

  
I believe very fundamental ideas are embodied in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that continue to get lost in the shuffle due to the angst surrounding the law since it passed six years ago. Our values as a nation must count for something. I believe it is all about values and the character of a nation that matter when talking about health insurance and health care. The ACA is here and it is likely too late to have a national conversation as a starting point to discuss values surrounding health insurance.

Let’s talk about this. Among the human rights we should hold dear is health care, without which human potential is seriously impeded, if not denied. Shouldn’t there be an obligation to contribute to the health of the individual, which by its very nature helps society?

Of course I recognize the American passion for independence is both political and personal. But in this day and age let’s get real. We as individuals are dependent on health insurance to help us thrive – and survive – in today’s environment (maybe just sleeping better at night as a starting point).

How many people can really say that they do not care about having health insurance coverage for themselves or for their families? You would be deemed irresponsible by your friends, peers, colleagues at work, and by your family if you did not have health insurance (affordable, of course, and that is where ACA subsidies and Medicaid expansion come into play).

We Americans, I thought, support the “underdog” and more important, commitment to providing to all the opportunity to succeed. If we deny subsidies and coverage due to pre-existing condition limits, to people who really need those things to thrive, then we have fallen way too short of that standard. Health insurance is all about fairness and equality of opportunity reflecting a common good.

Health insurance is an essential building block in today’s society like universal education whose purpose is to preserve fairness and equality by breaking down of barriers. Prior to the ACA, even those with health insurance knew that an individual was at risk not only for the possibility of ill health that can threaten independence, but the loss of coverage which is the principal protection against the worse effects of sickness.

So instead of double indemnity, they faced double uncertainty. Under those circumstances, it seems that our commitment to the notions of independence, fairness and equality were compromised. The ACA has addressed those issues. Do we want to go back to those days and place a key building block in grave jeopardy? Health insurance and health care are important at every stage of one’s life. Lack of access at any stage, is a potential threat to personal independence and the pursuit of opportunity. It is a building block like universal education, police and fire protection, roads and running water.

Recognizing health insurance and care as an essential building block offers a framework rooted in the American opportunity ethic. It provides individuals with a critical tool for taking advantage of their opportunities, and it provides individuals and families greater opportunities to participate in and contribute to the fabric of their communities through religious, social, and voluntary institutions. This is not all a one-way street. There is a reciprocal obligation on the part of citizens to respect and care for their own health. By making health insurance an essential building block, it serves society’s legitimate self-interest in promoting a healthy, productive citizenry.

To put it another way: The provision of health insurance and health care through consistent coverage should be essential to an authentic realization of the American values of independence, fairness and opportunity.
1 comment
486 views

Permalink

Comments

07-26-2016 16:10

Thank you, Joel, for your thoughtful post.  I'm glad you are generating dialogue about such an important issue as access to healthcare insurance.  I doubt many, if any, counselors would disagree with you about how vital healthcare insurance is in this country.  However, it appears that many counselors disagree with the assertion that healthcare is a right instead of a service.  The problem with calling healthcare a "right" is that doing so enables the federal government to forcibly deprive some Americans of their income to provide that "right" to other Americans.  When I surveyed 483 Licensed Mental Health Counselors in Florida earlier this year as part of a study I conducted through the University of South Florida on the relationship between counseling theory and political ideology, 25% of counselors agreed with the statement "Healthcare is a service that can be bought, traded, sold, or donated by consenting citizens rather than a right guaranteed by the government," and an additional 12% of counselors were uncertain or neutral on the issue, leaving a slim but significant majority (63%) to at least partially disagree with the statement (http://aaronlmhc.blogspot.com/2016/05/political-beliefs-of-mental-health-counselors.html).

When I teach on the impact of the Affordable Care Act on the field of mental health counseling, I require my students to read three articles that outline the benefits of the act (e.g., insurance companies can't deny coverage based on "pre-existing conditions," the number of uninsured Americans will decrease, etc.) and three articles that outline some of the drawbacks of the legislation (e.g., many Americans are actually paying higher premiums due to changes in coverage standards and to offset extra expenses created by the act, public monies are used to prop up large healthcare conglomerates, which is projected to result in a decrease in private practice opportunities for counselors, etc.).  It's fine for my students to choose whatever position they want to take; All that is important to me is that they were exposed to quality sources of data or information on both sides of any argument, and they were able to apply critical thinking skills to inform their positions.  

I wish our counseling associations did the same.  For example, the American Counseling Association released a document entitled "The Affordable Care Act: What Counselors Should Know," which covered the possible benefits of the act without informing counselors of possible drawbacks.  Such one-sided coverage on "hot button" political issues can backfire on our associations in at least two ways: (1) We can disenfranchise counselors with a dissenting viewpoint, destabilizing our base; and (2) We can lose credibility with legislators who our lobbyists strive to dialogue with and gain influence.  If, for example, AMHCA's one-sided reviews of the act begin to make our association look like a biased mouthpiece for the Democractic Party, will moderate Republican legislators be as open to what we have to say?

I propose that AMHCA adopt the following strategies to prevent these unintended consequences:

(1) Cover the full range of research/data on controversial topics, perhaps including an outline of possible benefits and drawbacks from the professional literature, just like a counselor educator would (or perhaps should) do, so that our members are well-informed, and so that we can ensure fair coverage;

(2) Avoid taking a position on controversial political topics unless it is necessary in order for AMHCA to fulfill its mission.  Counselors are likely to all agree on such issues as Medicare parity, or defending the rights of counselors to diagnose or administer and interpret psychological tests, or being able to serve as medical officers in the armed forces just as social workers and psychologists can, but taking stances on gun rights or the Affordable Care Act may be more polarizing and less integral to AMHCA's core mission;

(3) Poll members prior to taking a position on a controversial political topic to see if the perspectives of our members are being adequately represented.

I respect that many counselors will disagree with what I am asserting, and that's fine, but I think I think it's important for dissenting viewpoints to be a part of the dialogue in our profession.