It’s pretty simple, really.
Once people gain actual real-life experience with a government program, they abandon their fear of the unknown, see its benefits more clearly, and become invested in its future.
We’ve seen that with Medicare, which consistently pleases its beneficiaries. Part D has similar traction, and now we’ve learned that the citizens of Massachusetts are increasingly happy with that state’s health reform.
I’m not arguing that Mass – or Part D or even Medicare itself are perfect, or anywhere close to that goal. That’s not the point of this post. The point is, the GOP’s continued abuse of anyone and anything remotely supportive of the ACA ignores history; once people experience a program, they like it – and more to the point, do NOT like politicians who threaten its existence.
A poll released by the Harvard’s School of Public Health and the Boston Globe indicates strong support for the state’s reform – 63% of residents polled supported the program, a jump of ten points from 2009; 21% – about one in five – oppose Mass’ reform.
The key here is the ten point increase in two years.
While major provisions of ACA will not be implemented for another two-and-a-half years, many have already seen a direct and personal impact. Dependents are covered till age 26. Lifetime maximum limits were eliminated. Kids with pre-existing conditions can now get coverage. Benefits for preventive care and screening have been greatly improved. Part D beneficiaries’ costs have been lowered and benefits improved. Some people previously uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions have obtained coverage.
When reform becomes broadly implemented – in thirty months – the premium subsidies for small employers kick in. Same for lower-income individuals and families. And the list goes on.
This is both a blessing and a curse. The more people know about a program, the better equipped they are to understand it and discuss it – and consider it when voting.
But, the more benefits they see, the harder it is for policy makers to convince voters the program needs to change. That’s where we are with Medicare, with Part D, with every entitlement program.
What does this mean for you?
Reform is here to stay.
Jun
10
Your right on Joe…once an entitlement program is put in place it’s politically very difficult to scale it back. No one wants to give something back.
Unfortunately, the big issue is paying for the entitlement programs. Everyone wants them once they get a taste, but no one wants to pay the large bills that come with them.
The healthcare reform bill, like Medicare Part D before it, is not properly funded. Sooner or later, someone has to pay for this stuff. That’s the tricky part.
Here are two things to remember.
First, there is no case law supporting the position that an individual must buy a product from the private sector. If a state requires a person to buy auto insurnace, he can simply choose not to own a car. If a building code requires owners to undertake certain improvements, a person can simply rent.
The health care bill requires anyone who isn’t covered by a plan through an employer or parent to buy health insurance.
That’s a major problem. Especially with the makeup of the Supreme Court, where challenges will eventually wind up.
Second, unlike many bills, the final version of the health care bill didn’t include language saying that a court challenge should only throw out the portions that are unconstitutional. That language wasn’t included in the final bill. Obviously, a court could chose to only throw out the unconstitutional portions, but it could also declare the entire program unconstitutional.
Even if the Supreme Court only throws out the requirement to buy health insurance, then the program becomes problematic. The elimination of lifetime caps and non-coverage for pre-existing conditions only work, if every American has to obtain coverage.
Besides, is extending dependent coverae to age 26 really a good thing. If coverage ends upon graduation of college, it’s just one more way of getting the kids out of the house and into the job market, instead of living in the basement and playing video games 20 hours a day.
One impact that my firm will be interested in assessing will be the way which a reformed healthcare system will impact Social Security Disability. If exclusions on pre-existing conditions are eliminated and universally all citizens receive health benefits, I wonder if people realize the financial redistribution which will be natural from Disability funds to general healthcare.