Originally published in the Valparaiso University student newspaper, The Torch, on March 26, 2010.
Apparently this Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a “big (expletive) deal,” or so my vice president tells me. However, the political repercussions have yet to manifest, and substantively, this act accomplishes very little reform. At its best, it is only a baby step to true health care reform and a homemade victory flag for Democrats.
This act has some good points to it, most of which were necessary reforms supported by both parties. PPACA virtually eliminates discriminatory practices that deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, gender, claims experience, genetic information and some other health-related issues. Insurance companies are now required to cover certain preventive health services; these procedures not only reduce the cost of treating a disease or condition, but also save lives by catching symptoms early.
Most importantly, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that together with the Senate’s pending reconciliation bill, this legislation will reduce the national deficit by $118 billion over the next decade.
Closer to Valparaiso University, though, PPACA will have a profound effect on students. Nursing students should be glad to hear that this act provides for massive investment in health work education. Part of this law modifies, expands and cheapens the loan and scholarship programs for nursing students.
But as passed, PPACA is far from true health care reform. The first drawback is the mandate. Though the CBO has determined that 94 percent of Americans will be covered, the government achieves this by requiring people by law to buy insurance. Such a statistic should not be paraded as an accomplishment. Essentially, students have to buy health care if they are not provided for under their parents’ plan; but now, fortunately, dependent coverage has been extended to age 26. A mandate would work if the structures to implement one were, at this time in history, feasible.
With the job market for college graduates looking grim, and without substantial evidence that health care premiums will lower, mandating the uninsured to buy health care places a huge segment of the population (we, the college students) in a fiscal predicament. Such a predicament, I might add, would be avoided if there were a bare-bones, inexpensive public option.
Oh, and there are taxes, too. But the taxes (a 0.9 percent increase) only apply to gargantuan, “Cadillac” health care plans belonging to individuals making over $200,000 a year and families making over $250,000 a year.
The other tax that will most definitely affect a large population on campus is a 10 percent tax levied against indoor tanning salons. Sorry, orange people: Effective July 1 this year, you may want to consider going outside to tan.
But PPACA ultimately fails at managing health costs; namely, it fails to address how and why Americans are so unhealthy. Trite health campaigns, like those proposed by First Lady Michelle Obama, achieve very little without actual legislation to provide the means and incentives to live healthier lives. One would think that health and longevity would be enough incentive for their own sakes, but maybe our culture needs more than that.
As a whole, PPACA must be evaluated by what it doesn’t do. Though the impact of malpractice and tort reform (a solution proposed by Republicans) has been deemed minimal in comparison to other proposed measures, no solution should be excluded. President Obama has expressed his support for tort reform, and yet Democrats shunned the idea.
Most significantly, the bill lacks a public option. The popular arguments against the public option are inherently and logically flawed. Opponents warn of a full government takeover of health care, but this is nothing more than the slippery slope fallacy. There are plenty of government programs that exist without a complete takeover of the industry. Education is an example; public schools exist and yet private schools, in many cases, out-perform their government run counterparts.
Aside from the slippery slope, challengers of the public option claim that it would run health insurance companies out of business. These are the same individuals who decry government’s inefficiency and incapability to run any sort of program.
Which is it? Is the government so inefficient and incapable that it would actually run insurance companies out of business? Such an argument seems contradictory.
Though PPACA is a step forward for the health care cause, it is a far cry from the historic victory that democrats claim it to be. Politically, this law brings Obama back to level ground. He stood more to lose from this legislation failing than he did to gain from it passing - he just needed some kind of health care bill to pass. That may be the biggest problem this bill poses: It has consumed so much political capital that the next steps in actual health care reform will have to go to the end of the line and wait its turn.
But maybe that’s not that bad. I could use some time and effort elsewhere, for a change.
