The following item originally aired as a local commentary on NPR-member station Tri States Public Radio, WIUM/WIUW.
–
Earlier this fall Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed a measure allowing parents to keep their children on their healthcare policies until their dependent’s 26th birthday. With the national spotlight focused on the presidential election and the bailout plan, Commentator Alison McGaughey says, it seems little has been said about this news item that emerged on the state level in Illinois.
If all goes according to plan, the governor’s new legislation—which will force companies to raise the cut-off age for their employees’ children—will become law in January.
According to the news release from the governor’s office, more than 300,000 people in the state between 19-25 are uninsured. With this new measure, (the news release promises), thousands of young adults will get to keep, or get access to, regular checkups and preventable care.
In other words, no more going to the doctor on what my friend Jane—who worked in a bookstore for several years after college—used to refer to as the Master Card Plan.
It’s easy to empathize with that classic post-graduation purgatory— the No Longer a Student, though Not-yet-Employed.
And, for the record, when it comes time for me to choose a candidate—it’s exactly this kind of stuff: expansion of health care coverage, concern for the underprivileged? This is how I roll.
(Me and several thousands of other young people who voted on November 4.)
But what seems like a wonderful change on the surface has started to make me raise some serious questions.
For one, how much will this measure truly protect the poor in the 19-25 age group—whose parents might not even have health insurance in the first place?
And is there a chance this could only perpetuate an already-prolonged state of privileged adolescence?
According to experts, we’re in an era of so-called “helicopter parents,” moms and dads who hover protectively over their kids more than ever before. Parents who not only pay for their kids’ educations but also might not hesitate to call their kids professors’ for a grade report.
If coverage would’ve been expanded for previous generations, where would today’s young entrepreneurs be today if they hadn’t ventured out into the world when they did?
Most importantly, would Mary and Rhoda ever even have met?
I realize that my qualms with this policy would not be popular with those in their late-late-teens and early-early twenties.
One young woman in particular, I know, would be disgusted with me if she could hear these comments.
That would be me—the me of 10 years ago—who, at age 21, came home from college hoping to spend the summer figuring my life out, figuring out how I was gonna live my dream.
All of which I planned to do from my old room in parents’ house.
My parents, however, had an actual plan—one that resulted in me getting a job within 10 days of graduation.
I was basically forced to go out and work. And the work I did made me miserable.
But it also, I can say now, taught me a lot. And gave me character. And forced me to grow up.
(Naturally, I have refused to thank my parents for this.)
If I’d have had a government-sanctioned reason to stay on my parents’ dime a day longer, believe me, baby, I’d have done it.
And put off becoming an independent, self-sufficient adult for at least another couple of years.
Waiting until age 26 or longer to leave the parental home might mean never knowing the spark of excitement of being out on one’s own in the world. Of throwing one’s hat into the Midwestern wind.
The answer to that quintessential question— “How will you make it own your own?”—is not supposed to be “I won’t have to—I’m covered!”
–
Alison McGaughey is a full-time employee and part-time graduate student at WIU.
Tags: local_news, national_news
