A recent NBC/WSJ poll showed that 59 percent of Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track. Only a third of Americans expect the economy to improve in the next year, and only a fifth of the country approves of the job of Congress. The national debt is over $13 trillion, unemployment is conservatively estimated at more than 9 percent and taxes are scheduled to rise at every income level after the new year. The only thing constant among Americans is uncertainty.

Uncertainty exists because Americans don’t know how their taxes will change year to year, or even month to month.

Uncertainty exists because Congress passes legislation that contains thousands of pages, with legislators failing to read and comprehend every line until after passage. The Financial Reform Bill exempted the SEC from the Freedom of Information Act, a fact not realized until after its passage.

Uncertainty exists in our foreign policy. Americans don’t know when our troops will come home or what country we will invade next. Troops remain in Afghanistan and Iraq, non-military contractors have increased their presence in the region and the CIA has escalated drone attacks in Pakistan.

Americans don’t know when jobs will come back, when government will get off their backs or if the future will be brighter for their children.

Change is still needed in our country and desired by a strong majority of Americans. Change is more than just a campaign slogan, more than just a new face and more than fresh rhetoric. The anti-incumbent wave sweeping across the land, aimed at both Democrats and Republicans, is an attempt to change the political landscape.

The change we want will come when politicians understand the pessimism and uncertainty running rampant around this nation. They can end the pessimism by putting America on a track to future success, by reducing the debt, by reducing spending and by reducing the size and scope of government. They can fix uncertainty by being open and transparent with all of their constituents.

Actions speak louder than words, and Americans see through the propaganda. They want politicians to say what we all believe to be true. That only the market can create jobs, not the government. That the American empire is unsustainable; that troops and money spreading around the globe should be brought home immediately. That more regulations and more laws only hamper economic growth and do not facilitate it.

What Americans seek is not a one-party strategy but something that both parties can act upon to bring about successful change in the 112th Congress. Democrats and Republicans will both swear to uphold the Constitution, now they just need to meet those words with their actions.

In passing the bill, the Democrats’ rationale was that evil, greedy bankers were making a profit off student lending, adding to unnecessary costs. This theory is indicative of leftists’ broader worldview which fails to recognize the free market as the most efficient system for providing the best product at the lowest price. The profit motive is a major incentive for containing costs and lowering prices. When programs are taken from the private sector and placed in the epic sink-hole that is the federal government, all cost containment efforts disappear.

This education overhaul is a classic example of the government rising up to “correct” the problems which it caused in the first place. Tuition for higher education is not too high because of profit seeking bankers. Tuition is too high because massive subsidies by state and federal governments encourage it to be. When the government floods students with extra funds to pay tuition, universities have a direct incentive to raise their rates. If the government got out of the student loan business all together, university tuition would fall out of necessity.

The bill also lowers the amount which students have to pay out of pocket for their tuition, both at the time of their education and during the subsequent repayment period. Such efforts only lower the cost of taking out more loans. When the cost is lowered, many students will be encouraged to use more credit. As mentioned before, when loans increase across the board, tuition will increase as well, creating a self-defeating cycle that only benefits universities and not students.

Furthermore, the subsidization of higher education encourages students who would be better off learning a trade to go to a university. Students can see that subsidized higher education would be a much more enjoyable experience after high school than entering the job market. Or, as Milton Friedman put it, “Attending classes, taking examinations, getting passing grades—these are the price they pay for the other advantages [of being in college], not the primary reason they are there.” The end result is that many students go off to college, put themselves in debt, and leave with degrees which are of use to no one, or worse yet, no degree at all.

The bill also claims to help the less affluent attend universities, but you can bet your buttons that it won’t do that either. As described by Director’s Law, government programs which claim to help the poor are almost always designed to help the middle class at the expense of the wealthiest and poorest individuals. Wealthy individuals will not apply for the new federal grants. The poor will remain largely unaware of the program. Those who do apply will find college tuition still too expensive despite the grants. The middle class will be the only real benefactor.

In the end, students, the poor and everyone else would be much better off if the government just got out of the way. Prices would fall, and those for whom higher education makes economic sense would go to college; others may find that trade schools, sales, or entrepreneurship are more sensible opportunities and thereby save themselves from lifelong indebtedness. It is unfortunate that such an important issue was able to slip through the Congress without any real public debate. As a result, rising tuition will be the norm for years to come.

On November 8, in a special weekend session of Congress, the House of Representatives approved a sweeping health care reform bill, which if passed by both houses, would create the most dramatic health care policy changes in four decades.

While many college and health policy experts contend that the bill would extend coverage to recently graduated students, the legislation seems unlikely to have an instantaneous impact on undergraduate students.

The American College Health Association (ACHA) has hired a lobbying group to help monitor developments pertaining to the health care reform legislation and forward their goals. Among other things, the ACHA is looking to include college health in “school based” and “community based” policy initiatives or programs.

Under the bill approved by the House, students can remain listed as dependents on their parents’ insurance plan until age 26. Under current law, coverage under one’s parents’ plan is kept until graduation from an undergraduate institution. For many insurance providers, dependency ends at age 23.

Bradley Stoner, a medical anthropologist and professor of anthropology at the University, praised this dependency extension.

“I think it would be good for a lot of students because then they would not have to worry about their health insurance once they graduate from college,” Stoner said. “A lot of adults are found in a circumstance where they had insurance as undergraduates. When they take entry-level jobs, many times they find themselves without health benefits. I’m hoping this plan will close the gap and provide health insurance for those undergoing the transition from college to the workforce.”

The bill’s non-discrimination provision, which bars insurance companies from denying patients insurance if they have a predisposition to illness, will have profound effects on students who graduate without individual plans and get sick.

“If the law passes, if you get sick, the insurance company has to provide insurance,” William Peck, a professor in the University’s medical school, said. “They can’t deny you for illness. The question is what are the rates that they will charge you for that insurance. That is indeterminate.”

Healthcare coverage for Washington University students, which is required by the University, is unlikely to change if the bill passes Congress. The only changes that undergraduates might experience are a slight adjustment in the insurance premium, the cost that insurance policy holders have to pay for their coverage.

“What may happen is that if all of these laws pass, the insurance sector may decide to raise premiums for the young healthy people,” Peck said.

The original drafts of the bill were aimed at setting up standards that would get rid of poor college health plans. Approximately 60 to 80 percent of colleges nationwide do not offer health plans that meet American standards.

The University’s plan already surpasses the criteria outlined in the healthcare bill. Therefore, if the bill is passed, students at the University in their coverage will see very few changes.

As there is a national primary care physician shortage, the bill will also benefit the University’s medical students. The final bill is expected to include funding for increased primary care training programs and potentially medical school loan alleviations, since many in the field worry that high rates of debt deter those interested in primary care from becoming involved in the field.

Many experts argue that the healthcare bill in itself will increase the demand for medical services and as a result, increase the supply of people wishing to be primary care physicians.

“[The bill] surely will increase the demand overall for medical services and hence [medical students] will not have to worry about finding a job,” economics professor Lee Benham said.

Overall, there are high hopes in the University community for the bill’s ability to affect the lives of students.

“I hope is enhances coverage, particularly for graduate students,” Stoner said. “Some students are covered by their parents’ health insurance and some by the University. With any luck, this change will facilitate all students getting health coverage. From what I’ve heard, if the bill passes, it will cover 94 percent of the population.”

The Senate version of the bill was released this week and is undergoing further analysis for differences from the House version.

Prior to the release of the Senate bill, the ACHA was concerned that the bill would preclude college student health centers from providing health insurance. According to Mary Hobin, Director of the ACHA, the Senate bill does not prohibit these health centers from providing health insurance.

“We were concerned in the past that the legislation may prevent student health centers from offering student health insurance, but [the Senators] did put in a statement that makes explicit that the bill wasn’t intended to affect [student health centers ability to provide insurance],” Hobin said.

(Brittany Meyer | Student Life)

With national health care reform on the horizon, health insurance is a hot topic among Washington University students. Some say they are unhappy with the school’s Aetna student health insurance plan, which is mandated for all University undergraduate and graduate students.

“I already have my family insurance at home,” freshman Elizabeth Mitnick said. “So my parents aren’t happy about having to pay extra because we’re already covered.”

Freshman Micajah Dudley said he dislikes the University’s requirement that students obtain referrals from on-campus medical professionals before seeking Aetna-covered treatment from doctors outside Student Health Services. Dudley, who recently suffered a sports injury, said he found the process tedious.

“You have to go in to schedule an appointment for a referral for an appointment,” Dudley said.

Freshman Christine Diepenbrock said she is unhappy with Aetna’s prescription drug coverage, which is not included in the basic plan.

Aetna provides students with the option of purchasing a prescription drug plan for an additional $78. Students can also obtain more coverage through the Optional Alternate Medical Plan, which costs $22 more than the basic plan.

The University’s previous student health care plan, which was provided through Great-West Healthcare, also included prescription drug coverage as an additional option.

Graduate student Mark Smith said he feels the student health insurance plan does not work well for graduate students.

“We have different needs than the undergraduates,” he said.

Outgoing students wary of possibility of losing health insurance

One health care provision currently being debated in Congress would allow parents to extend their health benefits to children until the age of 27. Still, students are preparing for the risk of losing health insurance in the outside world.

Senior Jake Laperruque hopes his future graduate school will provide a health insurance option. But like many graduate students, Laperruque must face paying off his large student debt and said he is not sure whether he will be able to pay for insurance in the future.

Associate Dean for Public Health Timothy McBride recommends that graduates find a plan that covers preventative care visits.

“Students may be best off buying a plan that has some relatively high deductibles because then the premiums will be much lower,” McBride wrote in an e-mail to Student Life. “Also look out for pre-existing condition exclusions.”

McBride noted that students should keep in mind that in a medical emergency, they could face large deductibles.

One other available option for University students is to continue their coverage with Aetna by enrolling in the 2009-10 WUSTL Continuation Plan.

The future of health care in America

McBride wrote that he is optimistic about government health care reform in America and the effect it will have on college graduates.

“The future actually looks pretty bright,” McBride wrote. “I believe we will pass comprehensive health reform this year.”

Laperruque also said he would like to see health care reform.

“There needs to be comprehensive health care reform where all Americans can get access [to medical aid],” Laperruque said.