As a public health professional for more than 30 years, I applaud Rep. Tom Periello and others who voted in favor of the recent healthcare legislation [“Perriello looks ahead to 2010,” December 1, 2009].
The reforms contained in this legislation help move us from a system designed to provide expensive care when people are sick to one that focuses more on keeping people healthy; a benefit to the system and to us as individuals and as a community.
The change most familiar to people is an expansion of health insurance coverage to millions of uninsured Americans, many of whom are now forced to use expensive hospital emergency rooms as primary care providers, usually when their illnesses are more advanced; and a prohibition against penalizing people for pre-existing medical conditions, which trap folks in employment positions, preventing them from maximizing their potential professional development. Many Americans think these changes are a good thing.
Since most insured Americans are satisfied with their current insurance, private insurers must be doing something right. This arrangement need not change. A public option would make it possible for those who are not satisfied, and those who see no viable alternative among the private plans, to obtain basic insurance coverage for their health expenses. Medicaid eligibility would be expanded to cover low-income individuals and families among us who currently cannot afford health insurance, including those who are working but without health care benefits. In cases where preventive health services have been scientifically proven to be effective, insurers would be required to pay first dollar coverage. If we can successfully prevent someone from getting ill, should we only prevent it among those who are most able to pay?
Can’t we agree that “justice for all” includes healthcare justice?
Elayne Kornblatt Phillips
Charlottesville