This post is not intended to make a case for or against the Affordable Care Act. Previous posts have focused on that topic. This listing of a few citations, however, represents some of the source material I use in the formation of my opinions. In college and university classrooms, I, many former graduate school classmates, and colleagues experience a disinterest or a contention of lack of relevancy from students and others about the study of history. Sadly many find history unimportant and even some who proclaim a love of history, especially the Constitution, base their understanding solely on partisan pop history writing which indoctrinates versus educates.
My opinions are just that, my opinions which are no better or worse than other individuals. I do attempt, however, to cite the sources for others to consult and perhaps alter or maybe have no influence upon their position. Emotional rants, what ifs, and rumors have little influence on me. Primary sources are almost always better than secondary sources, and I make it a habit of not just reading footnotes but tracing those footnotes back as far as I can. In areas within my primary fields, those extra steps often allow me the opportunity to examine materials via another perspective in how the source is cited and applied within another’s scholarship.
Technical issues aside, many of complaints I hear about Obamacare list the individual mandate, employer mandate, and the cancellations of some existing plans as the reasons for opposition. Those complaints are legitimate, but what bothers me is the fact that many of those complaining only oppose such regulations with Obamacare. When those same concepts were included in healthcare reforms proposed by Republicans and those who refer to themselves as conservative, many of these same people supported those ideas. Why? Is it the messenger?
The photo at the top is a chart compiled by Dylan Matthews of The Washington Post which he included in this 25 July 2013 piece.
Below are links to these previous proposals and bills for your own reading.
Three (3) were Republican sponsored:
- Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan (CHIP) during Nixon
- Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 (HEART)
- The Patients Choice Act of 2009
Two (2) were sponsored by individuals from the Democratic Party:
- Health Security Act of 1993 (HilliaryCare)
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Obamacare).
I’m not suggesting the plans are identical. I’m only suggesting that many of the concepts opposed today are not new. Many that originated with the Republican Party or “conservative” movement were only opposed when added into Obamacare. Democrats or “liberal” groups often opposed concepts in today’s law when they were part of Republican proposals. Times do change, but in many cases the message in each has not. A significant difference appears to be that the messenger changes, and as demonstrated by history, societies where messengers become more important than the message crumble.