As of 2008, more than 10 million young adults ages 19 to 26 were uninsured, according to a study conducted by the Urban Institute. On average, young adults who are employed earn significantly lower wages or salaries and are more likely to work for employers that don't offer coverage. For those included in this mammoth figure of 10 million, health insurance reform could provide individual policies at a relatively inexpensive cost. Then again, this generation of young people is often referred to by insurers as the "young invincibles." We choose to bank on the un-likeliness of becoming severely ill. We opt to remain uninsured at a time when student loans and post-grad unemployment force many to live on very strict budgets. If things continue to progress unchanged, we soon might not be able to make that choice.
This past Wednesday, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee will introduce a new health care bill. He is proposing an individual mandate for a basic catastrophic policy, meaning one that would only cover the most severe medical misfortunes, for the 19-26 age group. For those who don't purchase insurance, the Finance Committee bill would charge fines. In an early draft of the bill, the penalty ranged from $750 to $950 per year, depending on income. Even the least expensive plan under the bill could cost more than $100 per month, according to insurance experts (this is still the lowest rate out of any age group). Ergo, it would be cheaper for people to just pay the fine-but not by much.
At the root of the issue is the fact that young adults are a vital component in helping to finance health-care reform for all. Baucus as well as others have argued that we are necessary to subsidize the care of older age groups. While it is completely dependent on how Congress demands insurers to price their plans, the 19-26 age group could even end up paying premiums that are excessively and disproportionately large. Though we do make up a significant portion of the population, we should not be the ones subsidizing care for our parents' and grandparents' generations. Most of us will never have to take advantage of the catastrophic care we would be paying for and therefore would in essence only be paying to help water down the costs of coverage for older, sicker people. Adding preventative care and prescription benefits to the plan, would make it much more appealing, but also dramatically raise the price.
Perhaps a better model would be based on a person's occupational status and income. Say you're one of the lucky few who land a job straight out of college. Depending on your income, you might decide that yes, health insurance might be a good idea, and now that you can actually afford it, you want to purchase a health care plan. But, if I had all the answers to the insurance coverage problem, I'd be in Washington. There is not one perfect solution. But, setting mandates for, collecting fines from, and financially imposing on young adults-many of whom don't want (or can't afford) insurance anyway-is certainly far from a resolution. Just because everyone would have health insurance does not mean that we would get the care we need. More important than insurance reform, is the reform of the health-care system itself. Re-allocation of resources and a better preventative care plan would make the population healthier and better off as a whole. MR
Be the first to comment on this article!