This commentary is by Allen Gilbert, a former journalist, teacher, and ACLU-VT executive director. He lives in Worcester and is the author of “Equal Is Equal, Fair Is Fair,” a book on equity issues in Vermont. He is a board member of Vermont Health Care for All.
Legislators need to continue on a course of universal health care coverage for all Vermonters rather than limiting extension of benefits just to uninsured legislative members, as called for in S.39. I support expansion of benefits to legislators, but there are many other Vermonters who need, but can’t afford, coverage.
It’s important to consider what approval of the limited health care provisions in S.39 would mean.
The state’s common benefits clause requires that benefits provided by the state be available to all on an equal basis. If the state provides public education for children, it must make it available to all children. If it provides marriage benefits, it must provide them to all couples. The Brigham education equity legal case in 1997 and the Baker same-sex marriage equity case in 1999 were both based on the Vermont Constitution’s Article 7 common benefits clause.
A benefit provided by government to some must be provided to all in similar situations.
Here’s the exact wording of the common benefits clause in the “Declaration of Rights” section of the Vermont Constitution:
That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community….
Such reasoning regarding equity hasn’t been applied to equal access to health care because the state has never created a universal health care program. It has created special health care programs for children, and for the poor and disabled through the federal Medicaid program — as well as others. But it has never offered everyone coverage. Without the commitment to a statewide health care program, there is no legal claim to the sort of discrimination that the Vermont Supreme Court found in education and marriage.
The equity principle underlying the common benefits clause remains, though. For legislators to decide among themselves that they should have health care coverage, and that the state will pay for it, stings those who currently don’t have coverage. There have already been some letters to editors, and opinion pieces, that suggest legislators are tone-deaf to the challenges faced by those who can’t afford health insurance.
If legislators offer coverage to themselves, they should see the importance of offering coverage to those other Vermonters who currently don’t have it.
The state has discussed health care reform for, literally, nearly a century. Legislators backing S.39 say we’re 95% of the way toward coverage for all. Now is the time to cover all of the remaining 5%.
