In my study of America’s system of higher education, I have never
seen it compared to health care. Thus, when reading President
Obama’s health care speech last night, I was surprised to find
him making reference to higher education to make an important
point. The problem is that if President Obama’s speechwriter knew
anything about the history of higher education, he or she would
realize that his example actually supports the fears of the
President’s opponents.
Obama’s reference occurred while making a point about his
non-profit public health insurance option. He claimed, the option
“would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their
policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same
way public colleges and universities provide additional choice
and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a
vibrant system of private colleges and universities.”
Historically speaking, the last portion of Obama’s closing
statement is misleading. Undoubtedly, America enjoys a vibrant
system of private colleges and universities. The public system
also clearly serves to provide choice and competition.
Nonetheless, to claim that the federal government’s support of
the public option did not “in any way” inhibit the development of
private education is both disingenuous and contrary to the facts.
Federal funding of the public education option radically altered
America’s higher education landscape.
In the early 1800s before the federal 1862 Morrill Act, private
universities enrolled over 90 percent of the students in
education. The federal government’s support of public education
that the Morrill Act initiated changed that dominance. The
change, however, did not occur quickly. Even in the 1940s, there
were still more students in private higher education than in
public, but by 1952 public university enrollments would overtake
private enrollments. Today, public universities enroll
seventy-four percent of the student population. Public
universities, which once were a minority educational option, now
control three-fourths of higher education.
This change clearly had benefits. The expanded public options
subsidized by tax dollars made higher education more affordable
to a wider range of students. It also, however, reduced private
higher education to a minority player in the market. Over the
years private higher education has been forced to change
significantly in light of this new reality.
President Obama claims that the impact of his legislation
“shouldn’t be exaggerated.” Yet, if one makes long-term
predictions based on the example he provided, it is no
exaggeration to say that this legislation could prove a historic
turning point in the same manner as the Morrill Acts.
Furthermore, if the public health care option follows the example
of higher education, one could expect that it will blossom into
the primary and dominant option. In addition, while there may be
a vibrant private option, if higher education serves as any
guide, it will only be for those wealthy enough to afford it or
those with particular sorts or intellectual, moral or religious
convictions about health care. What will be a major difference is
that it is doubtful scholarships and financial aid for the
private option will be available. Perhaps, certain businesses
will offer elite private plans to attract job applicants.
Thus, if President Obama is going to use public higher education
as an example, he should be honest about this long-term
possibility. He should also rethink his complaints about
Republicans, “making wild claims about a government takeover of
health care.” While the government may not literally take over
health care, claims that the government will eventually become
the dominant health insurance provider are certainly
understandable if the history of higher education serves as a
comparison.
