In the 2006 romantic comedy "Failure to Launch," Matthew McConaughey plays the role of Trip, a 35-year-old man still living with his parents in their suburban home. He sees no reason to leave since the rent is free, his mom makes him breakfast every morning, washes his clothes, and tidies up his room.
Eager to get him out of the nest, Trip's parents hire Paula, a "consultant" played by Sarah Jessica Parker, to give him a little push. As Paula explains, this phenomenon of boy-men still living at home is far too common - she calls it "failure to launch" - and her plan is to feign a relationship with Trip so he'll grow up and finally leave home.
Well, apparently the federal government has no problem with people like Trip, as there's a provision in the reconciliation bill that will allow dependent "children" to stay on their parents' health plan to age 26. This new rule, which goes into effect in September, even removes the requirement that dependents be unmarried - apparently Congress is trying to push those children who've actually found their wings back into the nest. For a lot of people, this one rule epitomizes what's wrong with the health reform package.
Now, I'm probably a little more liberal than the average Benefits Selling reader, and I actually see a lot of good in the new legislation. For instance, the expansion of community health centers, preventive care for at-risk populations and the new guaranteed-issue laws are, in my opinion, positive changes. There are a lot of people in this country who can't help themselves, and it's my personal belief we should help these folks out.
However, there's a big difference between can't and won't, and that's where I draw the line. That's why I believe the new "cover married children to age 26" rule goes a little too far. Sure, the young invincibles do make up the largest group of uninsured Americans, but that's certainly not because they can't afford health insurance - individual policies are relatively inexpensive for this age group. And for those who don't feel they'd be getting their money's worth because they wouldn't use the first-dollar benefits, the bill creates a new catastrophic-only plan for people under the age of 30. Finally, for those who have a pre-existing condition and don't qualify for an individual policy, they could get coverage through the new national risk pool beginning in September. And in 2014, all plans will be guaranteed-issue with no pre-ex.
Given that the government has removed all the barriers - including cost and accessibility - many people are scratching their heads wondering why in the world married 25-year-old children should be able to stay on their parents' health plan. The only reason I can think of is because the government knows that, even though everyone soon will be required to purchase coverage, not everyone will. And for the millions of young people who will still refuse to do what they're supposed to, the government wants their parents to be able to step in and do it for them.
I suppose that does get more people covered, but could we be hurting ourselves in the process? As we learned years ago from Whitney Houston, "the children are our future." So what type of future can we possibly expect if we continue to baby our kids? It's no secret that the United States is falling behind other countries, and too often our school system gets the blame. While education is critical, the truth is that the government is serving as an enabler for these kids who refuse to grow up. And as long as we continue to give them a free ride, we'll continue to fall further and further behind.
