While tension simmers in Washington and around the country over the merit – and viability – of “repealing and replacing” the Affordable Care Act (colloquially known as “Obamacare”), the residents of the commonwealth sit secure in the knowledge that no matter what DC does, our access to health care will remain assured.
What that health care will look like and how we’ll access it remains to be seen, but in some form or another, it will be there; this is after all the state that launched “Romneycare,” and most Massachusetts employers offer health insurance in some form to their employees. (Most are required to do so.)
It’s been said that in the case of a major medical expense, the difference between having insurance and not having it is the difference between being destitute and being bankrupt. Destitution isn’t great, but it’s better than bankruptcy. And that’s progress, after all; two steps forward and one step back.
To complicate the matter, there’s no denying that our workforce is rapidly graying. Though Boomers are retiring by the thousands every day, one of the outcomes of the recession was the utter decimation of retirement savings; Boomers by choice or by necessity are working longer – and their health care costs are rising, for themselves and for their employers.
In this issue of Banker & Tradesman, reporter Laura Alix looks into what it means to employ an aging workforce. As she is the banking reporter, the article focuses on the financial industry, but the lessons are relevant for companies across all spectrums of business. In short: it’s a big problem, and so far all we’ve got is mitigation measures.
What’s the solution? No one has found it yet. Apparently it’s not Obamacare or Romneycare, both of which failed to contain rising insurance costs. No argument, the ACA made some strong gains on humanitarian grounds, particularly the abolishment of the preexisting condition clause (something elderly politicians should wholeheartedly support, given their own health histories). But the rollout, opt-out and marketplace consolidation hobbled what could have been an outstanding piece of legislation.
Whatever Washington decides, access to health insurance will remain a right in Massachusetts – but access is not enough. “Access” is the difference between destitute and bankrupt. The whole system needs a hard look at the business practices of all the players – but to begin with, the major ones, particularly the insurance and drug companies.
Pardon our skepticism, but “repeal and replace” doesn’t appear poised to take a hard look at much of anything before it is rushed to a vote – nor does it appear to be on track to effect much lasting change to the industries. (Republicans curbing the free market?! It’s just as unlikely as you think.)
And without a major overhaul of the way health care is provided – from access to coverage to care – mitigation measures may just be the best we can do.
