What Health Care Reform Means for College Students
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Hopefully all of our hearts will keep beating for a long time... Photo by flickr user brykmantra, licensed by CC BY-SA 2.0.
I must admit I'm a bit of a political junkie. I was eagerly tuned in tonight to my Tweetie app while at LMU's senior banquet and ball. I had seen the #hcr hashtags percolating and I knew a decision was eminent. As soon as the story hit the LA Times Twitter stream, I told our table. Then we danced. (Note: While exciting, the dancing was exclusive of the health care decision.) In what seems like the longest political process in the history of the planet, the United States has passed health care reform. Readers from other countries who have had similar measures for nearly a century, bear with us while we make sense of this.
But here at HackCollege the question is: What does this mean for students?
Extended Insurance Coverage
If you didn't know, you will be dropped from you parents' insurance plan the day you turn 23 in Washington state. Or the day you graduate from college. For me, both of those dates are fast approaching. I have employment secured after graduation, but there will still be a gap in my health insurance between graduation and employment.
The bill passed tonight will give you a little bit more leeway. According to the bill,
Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.
It's too bad this won't be enacted by the time I graduate. You try shopping around for 3-weeks of health insurance and tell me what you find.
Systemic Changes by Graduation
While the previous point was explicit to younger folks, most of the changes will be felt down the road. Portions of the bill go into effect in 2012, 2014, 2015 and 2018. For example, insurance companies will have to stop denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions in 2014, but tax credits for small businesses providing health insurance will go into effect within the year.
Source: This amazing Reddit thread
Extended Reading:
Healthcare reform: Now serving Students [Feministing]
Well, what do you think about the health care reform? Are you adamantly for it? Or bitterly against it? Let's get a discussion going in the comments!
Reader Comments (21)
Also consider how this will effect student loans
Section 2205. Termination of FFEL PLUS Loans. This section makes a conforming change with regard to the termination of the FFEL program for federal PLUS loans by prohibiting further FFEL origination of loans after July 1, 2010.
It is so strange how the US healthcare was organized for a Dutch guy like me. We have health care ALWAYS, not for everything, but when you break your leg, you get treatment and you don't have to spend all your savings on it. I hope you guys will finally get the healthcare everyone deserves now!
So do you still lose your health insurance if you marry before 26 and are no longer a dependent? Anyone know? Also, do most graduate schools offer insurance plans?
While it is good coverage is extended to everybody, I think this is a terrible bill. Americans were asking Obama/congress to cut costs first, then move into extending coverage. This bill is going to be very expensive, in the trillions of dollars. The main costs will be passed on to taxpayers and employers, at the expense of free enterprise. What the left seems to forget (and judging by the economies of Europe, we clearly are not learning from their mistakes) is that when you tax business, you hurt everybody- especially the poor and middle class. People get laid off, wages get reduced, prices go up for goods, investors get a smaller return on investment (and then become less likely to invest in the future, which creates jobs, etc etc).
People our age will be feeling the prices of this bill for a long long time to come.
It has become clear that when Obama meant change, he meant big government liberalism. He didnt mean a more open system (he has been more secretive than Bush), he didnt mean a less corrupt system (look at the passage of this bill- enough said), and he didnt mean bipartisanship. He meant big government, redistribution of wealth, liberalism. If you are liberal and support him, I understand. But he has already, or will soon, lose all the moderates as he paints himself into a one term President.
A couple more points. (your post showed up on my twitter- Im RBateman11- in case you wondered who I am).
Regardless, another main problem with this bill, is that it creates a huge new bureaucracy that will come between you and your health care provider. It will set mandates for insurance companies to adhere to. This will be a waste of money. A lot of states, for example, now mandate that all insurance carriers test for certain rare diseases. Before getting into the obvious question- why on earth is it governments duty to tell insurance companies what to cover- it is a huge waste of money. Most of these tests are in place because some lobbiest donated to some state senator who plugged it in, and have very little actually productive effect. So many things government gets its hand on become inefficient.
The left always talks about corruption and shady corporate influence into the public sector. Well they are all about government expansion, which greatly increases the surface area for corporate influence and corruption. It just makes no sense.
There are a couple redeeming qualities to the bill. I am for tax credits for those who cannot afford insurance. I am also for increasing competition between states. A big reason health care costs are so high, is that we have 50 isolated markets for health care insurance, instead of one huge one. It does not touch many other ways to reduce costs. Tort reform comes to mind. But trial lawyers are a huge Democrat constituent, so what do we expect?
Anyways, just my two cents. It will be interesting to see how big the fallout is for the Democrats. They will lose seats, but will they lose a generation of Moderate voters? Its hard to say.
@Bobby
A few things. The news sources I read are saying that the bill will actually reduce the national deficit by $150 billion over the next 10 years, while costing just under $1 trillion. Considering that's about how much the war in Iraq has cost thus far, I would much rather re-appropriate the nation's money toward health care.
Tort reform is very unlikely to cut a significant amount out of health care.
Above all, I think this is the first step in a fundamental change of the way the States thinks about health care. Taking care of sick people should not be a money-making venture, but a collective civic duty. The fact that we haven't done this years earlier boggles my mind. Yes, it is socialized medicine. Having experience socialized medicine first hand on multiple occasions, I can tell you that it works a hell of a lot better than what we currently have in place. Now we will just have to get used to paying for it.
Thanks for the response. You make good points, but I have some disagreements. Sorry this is kind of long, but it’s an interesting topic.
First, the CBO's deficit estimate has been demonstrated to be false.
Representative Paul Ryan showed numerous ways in which they are double counting costs, and use accounting gimmicks to disguise the cost of this bill during Obama’s health care summit. I’m sure it’s on Youtube, but I’m at work right now so cant find it.
This article taken from the New York Times (and if the NYT is debunking a left wing myth, then you know it’s a big myth!) also does a good job explaining some of the accounting gimmicks described by Ryan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html
John Stossel sums it up pretty well here:
"Of course, every informed person understands why the CBO calculation is an honest measure of a dishonest bill. Republican Rep. Paul Ryan at the health care summit, former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, in last Sunday's New York Times, and hundreds of commentators have all laid out the lamentable, indisputable and undisputed fact that the CBO methodology has been gamed by the congressional Democrats to turn what will be more than a trillion dollars in further public deficit and debt into a fantasy savings of $140 billion."
And
"The most mendacious, cruel and destructive proposition put forth by the Democratic congressional leadership -- and soon by almost all its ranks and files -- is, of course, the outlandish claim that the bill will reduce the deficit."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/24/sundays_socialist_triumph_104895.html
To further look at how costly this will be, we don’t even need to look overseas. Just look at Massachusetts. "For the state’s policymakers, rapidly rising health-care costs are the central problem with the plan. Since 2006, the cost of the state’s insurance program has increased by 42 percent" We are kidding ourselves if we don’t think that this will happen on the federal level.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/10/massachusetts-health-program-a-model-for-obamas-national-reform-strains-state-budget/#ixzz0j4WpTVeR.
Proponents can argue that this is a good bill, humane bill, etc etc (arguments I would disagree with), but for the sake of honesty and clarity, lets get the cost correct. This bill will increase the deficits, and be hugely expensive.
.....
I tried to explain above that to cover everybody, you need to identify costs first, and then create/expand coverage in a manner that is efficient. It is my strong belief that government creates huge bureaucracies and inefficiencies, that the end result will be a reduction of coverage for the average American. I think (and most Americans think) that you cannot extend coverage until you first look and numerous ways to lower costs. This bill has a few cost saving provisions, but not enough. I think extending coverage before cutting costs will eventually lead to the system being bankrupt and then care being rationed off- which has happened in some other places this has been tried (look at Mass above- and that’s only after 4 years!).
.....
Lastly, this post was about the bills effect on college kids / young adults. While the section that allows kids to stay on their parents plan longer may save young people some money, the bill in general by design will hit our generation the hardest. When Obama talks about creating "bigger risk pools"- he means that young, health people should pay more, so we can cover older, sicker people. While there are some subsidies and tax breaks for those with a lower income, most college educated kids will break out of that range within a few years of graduation.
….....
It’s an interesting debate, its impossible to say what is going to happen. I hate the way this bill was passed. I don’t think the speaker should have to bribe congress people so that we can narrowly pass such a huge bill in a partisan manner. While I hope this bill may someday be a good thing, I fear that it will do much more harm to our economy and legislative process.
To the person who asked about coverage for those who are 26 and married: Yes, you can be covered as long as you can't get employer insurance through your work or your spouse.
I agree that this is going to be expensive, but I'm ok with that. Honestly, if we were really that worried about costs, then we would have a single-payer system as that has been proven to be the cheapest form of health care coverage time and again. We have the most expensive form of health care on earth because we basically picked the worst possible way to design our system. And I think you are confused about European economies. All of them are ranked as high income countries and some have higher per capita GDP than we do. Also, you said the worst effects would be on the middle class and poor. Hello? Look around. The income gap is as wide as it was during the guilded age when we had robber barons. The poor and middle class are a lot worse off comparatively in this country than they are in Europe.
If we want coverage for everyone, tax appropriately. Then dismantle the insurance industry which adds no value to health care. Don't force people to buy insurance, which is really a forced tax, to pay for paperwork and profit. Health care is broken and this just makes it "brokener".
We are all entitled to our opinions, and I respect yours. But also respectfully disagree with a few of your points.
We have existing entitlements in this country that are destined to put us in 38 trillion dollars in debt in the next 20 years. Now we added another one. Look at this link- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png ... and this is BEFORE Obamacare. The graph estimates that between 20 and 30 years our existing entitlements would be more than federal revenue... and now we are adding another huge entitlement on top of it? To me its insanity!
One of thee things will happen (most likely some sort of combination):
1) Entitlements will stopped being paid out. Once people have their entitlement- Social Security, Medicare, etc, its very difficult to take it from them.
2) The government will print money. This will weaken our dollar significantly, lower everybody's purchasing power significantly, and lead to a lot of inflation.
3) The government will raise money from the people via taxation.
I am not particularly familiar with Europe, but know some of the countries in the EU are imploding. Our unemployment has been a fair amount lower then theirs for most of the last decade- although I think we overtook them recently with this recession. There are also numerous instances/stories where care is rationed in Europe. The Prime Minister of Canada (I know, not Europe, but same model) comes to the USA for his health care!
As for the gap between the rich and the poor; while I agree there could be more parity (Im not anywhere close to rich btw), you do not help the poor by harming the rich. The rich create jobs, invest their money, purchase goods, etc etc. Restricting their ability to do so will only restrict the number of jobs in this country.
I have no problem extending coverage to more people, I just strongly oppose the way we did it. In the end this bill will not lead to better care, but will lead to a much worse economy. Its like purchasing a car when you know you will not be able to afford the payments in a few months.
A few things:
1. This is going to cost money. How much? That is anyone's guess. For example, how much are we going to save in preventative care? It is a lot cheaper to give someone a few statins over the years than have to fork over the money for an emergency valve replacement.
2. This does mean taxes will have to increase somewhere. The bill calls for an increase on families making more than a quarter million of dollars year, with most of the tax on money gained from investment. No, this will not stop people from investing. You are still going to gain more money investing than you would saving. My favorite tax is the tax on tanning salon. Taxing people who are eventually going to get melanoma and make use tax money to get treated is thoughtful.
3. Insurance prices shouldn't dramatically change. Yes, you will be 'forced' to get health insurance but there is also going to be a very large increase in competition between states with the exchanges. Hopefully this will balance everything out, if not it will just be another thing to fix. We at least have to see if it works.
4. Despite the rave about socialized medicine, it is not sustainable in the long run. Sure the European countries and Canada have a working system but there is one thing that allows them to do so. Ever wonder why our drug prices are so much higher? Drug companies get most of their funding for research and development from United States. No research means no new treatments or drugs. Not exactly something we should be giving up on. Europeans and Canadians have the privilege of being able to trade with us for these drugs, which allows them to keep their costs low and socialized medicine an option.
5. This bill did have somethings that were much needed. For example, the ability for an insurance company to deny a child for a preexisting condition is a little harsh. Just because a child might have a dead-beat father and leukemia doesn't mean he or she should suffer for it.
@Blake Sutton
Read this article about the myth of preventative care Preventative care by definitions increases health care costs in the long run.
On what grounds can we applaud a national extension of the 'until 26' clause? Are undergraduates really that greedy, really that reliant on privilege that, after 7 years of adulthood, you should not be expected to compete and work for insurance like the rest of us? Something to consider.
The reason I'm speaking in such strong terms is that graduate students have struggled nationwide to negotiate reasonable insurance benefits while enrolled full-time at universities. The reason many institutions, especially universities with predominantly undergraduate student bodies, can offer such abysmal plans is because of state (and now national) post-child entitlements like the 'until 26' clause.
I don't mean to suggest guilt or blame on college students who remain on their parents health care, but anyone in that boat has a responsibility to see health care reform through the lens of social justice and the special privileges that they personally enjoy, and consider the realities that nontraditional and graduate students face.
I am unsure of some of the implications of this plan.. primarily the extension of coverage for college students. I am currently enrolled in an undergraduate program and turned 25 years old this month. Under my current health plan, I am on a two day ticking time clock for my "month of birth" to end and leave me uncovered on my parent's plan. Since healthcare passed before the termination of my coverage is it going to delay this problem? The effective dates on the overall plan are varied, however, the extension of college coverage seemed to be immediate. Is this true? Am I safe until graduation? I can't seem to get strait answers from anyone!
While the idea of national healthcare seems like an idealistic track meet, jumping over hurdles and picking up extra problems along the way, I am generally in agreement with the underlying message.... American's need healthcare.
Really interesting post - thanks for breaking it down :)
Where were those fiscal conservatives when Bush cut taxes on the wealthy? When he spent hundreds of billions on a completely unnecessary war? Both Reagan and Bush cut taxes to the wealthy, then dramatically increased military spending, and left office with record deficits. That is not fiscal conservativism, it is blatant favoritism of the rich. Classic class war.
Regarding the rapidly escalating costs of health care - duh! - that is why we needed national health care reform. Not everyone works for a nice company with a nice health care package. Those are the folks who have bake sales to pay off the bills when their kids get sick. It is un-American, and very un-Christian, IMHO. I'm all for fixing the new law over time, but at least it is a beginning, a start on what has been a festering problem for way too long. To not address it is to say "Let them eat cake!"
It is a real shame the Republicans decided it was not in their political interest to cooperate on this legislation. I predict many will pay in the fall, on both sides of this issue.
I wanted to thank you for this great read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post. And..
http://www.hound.com/q-college+recruiter-category-Recruiting-jobs.html is a good source of College Recruiter Jobs because it only shows you jobs from employer websites and every other job board out there. Please insure that you link to http://www.hound.com/q-college+recruiter-category-Recruiting-jobs.html and that you refer to the fact that the site has more jobs than any other website.
These kind of post are always inspiring and I prefer to read quality content so I happy to find many good point here in the post, writing is simply great, thank you for the post.
the truth about six pack abs review
Excellent read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Thanks for lunch!
Cheap Dental Health Insurance
Full Coverage Dental Insurance
Benefits of Affordable Dental Insurance
Definitely a strange, exciting and frightening time for health care. But it's definitely going to take some time to see the far reaching effects the current system will have, not only in the country, but the rest of the world.
Darwin James
http://www.kanetix.ca/health-insurance
We definitely deserve better healthcare. The percentage of the population now insured is lower than it was in 1988.
John
Best Friends Quotes