With the signing of the Health Care Reform bill by President Obama on Tuesday, everyone is wondering what these changes will mean for America. I understand that the extremely political nature of this bill and the debate surrounding it has created two camps, those who supported the bill and those who hoped to block it. These divisions prevented a discussion of the specifics of the bill and led to a partisan clash of catchphrases. But now that the bill has passed, most people are digging deeper into the specifics trying to figure out how the legislation will affect them.
Many people are excited about the bill’s provisions that prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing condition; other portions of the bill prohibit lifetime dollar limits on coverage. The targeted goal of insuring over thirty million uninsured is also heartening to many people.
I also understand that there are many who are concerned about greater federal involvement in the healthcare system. One specific concern that I have heard frequently is the potential cost of this legislation to small businesses. The concern is that businesses with fifty or more employees will be negatively affected by the requirement that they provide health insurance for their employees or pay a fine for these employees.
When I started thinking about these concerns a few thoughts came to mind that I want to share. This semester at BYU Cardinal George, the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, came and spoke at BYU about preserving the freedom of religious expression. But one thing I remember from his address not related to religious freedom was his discussion about the family. He talked about the Catholic Church’s emphasis on preserving the family and the concept of the “family wage.” He addressed the growing need of both parents to work because the wage of one parent was not enough to meet the basic needs of the family. As I contemplated the new health care legislation, and in particular the portions that require small businesses to provide insurance to their employees, I was reminded of this concept of a family wage.
I did a little bit of research to find out what might be some of the reasons families choose to have both parents in the workforce. On the site of one of the top financial advisor’s in the nation it listed health insurance as the number two reason both parents should be in the workforce. He cited the example that one parent’s employment didn’t provide insurance but the spouses did and this alone was a reason to have both stay in the workforce. I also found the average family’s health insurance policy cost over $13,000 dollars a year. This amount exceeds an individual’s yearly income working twenty hours a week at ten dollars an hour. Doing a little more research I found another article that outline how a working parent could qualify to have their children enrolled in government funded daycare facilities while the parent is at work.
Many employers across the country are passing more and more of health insurance costs onto their employees because of skyrocketing premiums. I remember when my dad opened his own law office and became self-employed. One of the things I recall very poignantly is the great frustration of dealing with health insurance companies set on charging extraordinarily high rates to our family because of pre-existing hereditary health conditions. At one point we had to have two separate policies because keeping us all on the same policy meant premiums beyond our ability to pay in exchange for limited coverage with high deductibles and exorbitant co-pays. With my sisters older and in school, my mom now works at a school and our insurance comes from her employer. Even still, this insurance doesn’t meet the minimum standards required by BYU for students, and consequently I have to enroll in the University health insurance in addition to my parents to continue my studies.
While insurance isn’t the only reason both parents leave the home to work, I stop to wonder how many young mothers would love to be at home with their kids but are unable to because they need the money to pay their own health insurance or because only the second parent’s employer provides coverage. I wonder; wouldn’t it be better for a Mom to raise her toddler and receive help from the government for health insurance rather than have the government funded daycare take care of her child so she can pay for health insurance on her own.
Of course there will be costs associated with employers providing health insurance to employees. The Healthcare Reform Bill establishes mechanisms to decrease these costs, but even with the potential costs, shouldn’t health insurance be part of the family wage? Is there a possibility that a few more children will receive the tender care of their own mother? Only time will truly show what the outcome of this legislation will be, but I think perhaps there are a few reasons to be optimistic and make the best of an imperfect bill.
