Every Tufts student has some form of health insurance. It's a requirement for enrollment in a Massachusetts university. Though there are plenty of exceptions, the typical Tufts student knows that her parents take care of her health care — and that when she is very ill she can go to the hospital, sign some papers, direct the bill to her "permanent address," receive treatment and hopefully go home happy. Beyond that, how health care works and even what it costs probably remains a mystery to her.
As some of the sources quoted in an article in today's Features section suggest, this isolation from the inner workings of the health care system could help explain why the health care debate raging on Capitol Hill and in media across the country has garnered such muted attention on Tufts' campus. But students ought to understand that this is an issue of grave importance, not only from a moral perspective but also for people who in the next few years will have to start fending for themselves in the health care market.
The health care debate is one of ethics and ideals, but it is also one that promises to have a practical impact on all Americans — from those who have too little money to buy any insurance at all to those who are shopping from insurer to insurer after elite educations have landed them prime jobs.
The average cost of health insurance in the United States has risen by six percent each year for the past three years. That is roughly twice the rate of inflation, and it's a pace that has little hope of abating without concerted action. In 2007, the United States was spending $2.2 trillion on health care — that is over three times the roughly $714 billion the nation paid in 1990.
The "Washington consensus" around health care reform seems to state that if the government becomes directly involved in health care, the values holding this nation together will come apart as easily as a spool of yarn. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that if a certain "centrist" contingent perceives that a certain plan would give the federal government a real stake in our health care system, that plan's political viability evaporates. A "public option," under which the government would provide a form of health insurance to compete with private companies, has thus been kicked under the rug; detractors have essentially silenced the left, at least for the moment, saying that a government option would drive private businesses into bankruptcy. Never mind the fact that Germany saves money by running a system in which a public option successfully competes with a private one, as the government's plan offers lower costs while private companies typically offer more services. Never mind the fact that the entire argument is founded on the defense of a nebulous ideal that seems to value private enterprise over human beings' well-being or even their lives.
The more politically palatable alternative to the public option, a collection of local health insurance cooperatives, would take a long time to get off the ground. It would involve penetrating localized markets in which particular insurance companies often possess near-strangleholds, not to mention setting up strong non-profit businesses in an extremely complex and opaque industry. Numerous attempts at establishing health insurance co-ops in areas around the country have failed, although the few exceptions that have survived until today now provide fodder for the Washington politicians who push co-ops as a tool of compromise.
With the Senate Finance Committee preparing to vote on a bill that relies on co-ops, there has never been a time when students' input on the issue was needed more. As last year's presidential election demonstrated, there is plenty to be said for the importance of youth activism and positive political messaging. With a clear articulation of what needs to accomplished and how it can be realized, students could provide a needed renewal of energy on the progressive side of the health care debate.
