College students today should be wary of Washington D.C.’s attempt to overhaul health care, according to some Biola professors, who said the current plan’s risks far outweigh its rewards.

Health care’s expense, quality and access are among the plan’s most ominous risks, they said, combined with economic uncertainties and questions about federal responsibilities.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill in early November that includes government-provided health insurance called a public option. Now, the Senate is discussing its own version of the bill in a debate expected to last weeks. Pending the Senate’s approval, President Obama said he’d like the bill to become law by year’s end.

Susan Elliott, director of the nursing department, criticized politicians’ haste in passing such a groundbreaking law, and said today’s college-aged Americans will shoulder the burden.

“Is health care reform needed?” she said. “Absolutely. Is this the way to do it, to try to hurry up and push something through? No. Your generation is going to have [to deal with] negative consequences.”

Elliot said a great concern with the overhaul is a “lack of choice” in health care provision.

“Will you be told that because you live in a certain zip code, you can only go to ‘Doctor A,’ even though ‘Doctor A’ is not a good doctor?” she said.

Another risk is being denied access to a specialist because a patient doesn’t qualify under federal regulations, she said.

“There are so many different variables that are just left up in the air,” she said.
Philip Woodward, associate professor of accounting, expressed unease about financial factors of the bill, which should cost about $850 billion over 10 years, according to some figures — an “artificially low” estimate, he said.

“The national debt is staggering, and this will only add to that,” he said. “We’re mortgaging our future, and you guys [current college students] are going to be the ones paying for it — big time.”

Support from moderate and independent lawmakers is key to the Senate’s approval. Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-Independent from Connecticut, said he opposes the public option because it would cause coverage costs to rise, the Los Angeles Times reported.

“I don’t want to fix the health care system in a way that creates more of an economic crisis,” the senator said in November on NBC’s “Meet The Press.”

One way to pay for federal health insurance would be to raise taxes on wealthy Americans, who are often business owners, Woodward said. In theory, enforcing higher taxes on business owners allows fewer opportunities for company expansion, thus decreasing their probability of hiring new workers. Fewer jobs translate to higher unemployment, a telltale sign of a weakened economy.

NPR reported that the Senate bill, unlike the House measure, which relies in part on taxing millionaires, relies on taxing the most expensive insurance place. The Senate proposal also charges health insurers, drug makers and medical device manufacturers.
Kevin Lewis, assistant professor of theology and law, said people are disregarding “fundamental” questions surrounding the character of federally controlled health insurance.

“What part of the federal constitution gives the federal government the right to do this?” he said.

“Rights are that which you are authorized to do without interference or negative consequence,” Lewis said. “A positive right gives one the authority to make a demand on someone to do something for you.”

In the Bible, positive rights are established in covenants, he said, and God instituted civil government to protect one’s rights.

“One may have a right to health care — or food, shelter, clothing — if they are dependents,” Lewis said. “But the demand is not made to the enforcer of the right. The provision comes from the covenant relationship of family.”

Democratic Rep. Linda Sánchez, who represents La Mirada and the rest of California’s 39th District, voted to approve the House’s version of the bill.

Elliot said college students are beginning getting to an age where they’re old enough to begin preventative screenings, another concern in the debate the topic of preventative screening was tossed into the ring of health care debate in mid-November after a federal task force loosened its recommendations on mammography, followed days later by another medical group revising its recommendations for Pap tests.

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists now recommends women put off their first Pap test for cervical cancer until age 21 and be tested less frequently. Formerly, suggestions included annual tests beginning by age 21 at the latest.

Elliott cited a statistic from the secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, at a recent meeting for the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, saying that 75 cents of every dollar goes toward chronic disease, whereas just 8 cents of every dollar goes toward preventative care.

“This has a direct impact on students,” Elliot said. “What will they do as individuals to take care of themselves?”