Well, it happened. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is law. And look at that, we're still standing. Is this legislation bad? I don't need to ask any of you that. Could it have been worse? Actually, yeah, it could have been a lot worse. At the very least, we managed to dodge the public option (for now). But amid all the general disgruntled aftermath of the bill's passage, a couple of questions still nag at me in the quiet between Tea Party protests.
What no one really asks anymore is whether health care is a fundamental human right. Jefferson's decree only called for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," none of which necessarily calls for full medical. So I suppose, legally (or constitutionally), no, it's not a God-given right - at least in this country. I will however, add that I think, morally, it's incumbent on us as a society to care for the sick among us. Not only is it the "Christian" thing to do, it's simple common sense. Healthy workers make productive ones. Healthy consumers are active ones. Employers figured this out decades ago when they began offering medical coverage.
At the same time, though, those same workers and consumers share the responsibility for their own health. But too many, I suspect, want to be able to live (and eat) however they want (personal liberty!) and have Uncle Sam (or Papa Obama) take care of them when they get sick. And, second, what about those pesky mandates? In theory, these make sense, too. In fact, their origin can be traced back to Richard Nixon's own health care reform effort back in the 1970s. Republicans championed personal mandates to keep insurance in the private sector as a way of combating a single-payer system. Just ask Bob Dole or Bill Frist, for example. Or even Mitt Romney.
It makes sense economically, too. At least in theory. Expand the risk pool so the carriers aren't paying out more than they're taking in. But the way the mandate is structured in this particular piece of legislation leaves it mired in some pretty murky constitutional waters. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see these overturned by the courts in the next few years. What they should have done, instead, I think, is to strong-arm the states into taking this up at their level by tying mandates to federal funding, like they managed to do with seatbelt laws, DUI limits and similar "infringements on personal liberty."
But that's just me. This battle is far from over. For those of you unhappy with this historic legislation, be patient, I think changes are imminent. And for those of you thrilled with this turn of events, I wouldn't plan that parade just yet. But you'll notice I'm not the only one with an opinion. Far from it. Check out the ticker below and you'll find the latest reader reactions to this historic legislation running through the entire issue of this month's Benefits Selling. And don't forget you can always add your voice to the dialogue at www.benefitssellingmag.com.
