But I’d rather focus on a different point, one lost in this debate. Universal health care isn’t simply about saving lives. It’s also about alleviating misery. When you don’t have health insurance, you start economizing in all the wrong ways. You don’t go the doctor for that nagging pain. You don’t take the medication prescribed for your chronic condition. You don’t get treatment for an injury. Or maybe you just don't get your regular tests and screenings. Best case, if you really do have a problem? You suffer through the pain and, who knows, maybe even get better on your own. Worst case? You end up like one of those people who misses a treatable cancer until it’s too late.

And the misery doesn't have to be physical. Universal health care is, first and foremost, a program to guarantee economic security. It exists to make sure that a chronic condition or a full-blown crisis doesn’t cripple you financially—which is what happens all the time right now, and not just to low-income Americans. Treatment for serious disease can cost tens, even hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, enough to deplete the savings even of middle class families.

In American politics, we’ve come to equate the “safety net” with programs for the poor. But, as the name suggests, it also exists to prevent people from becoming poor in the first place. Maybe that's something Romney never had to contemplate. If so, it's part of the problem.

follow me on twitter @CitizenCohn