Should We Care about Affordable Care Act Subsidies? YES

ACAThe U.S. Supreme Court could release its decision in the King v. Burwell case any day, deciding whether some 412,000 Georgians will lose tax credits that go toward their health insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). What is to be decided is whether the government can provide subsidies in the 34 states that opted out of offering their own insurance exchanges, which includes Georgia.

It is a fact that over 400,000 Georgians, many hardworking, honest people who contribute to the economy of the state but whose employment or income limit their health insurance options could face serious consequences.

Somehow the political debate minimizes their individual stories and ignores their wellbeing. The political discourse seems to be the familiar wrong headed, selfish partisanship. This situation raises questions. Who votes for these politicians? Why do people who have benefits not care about those who don’t? Why don’t those who need the benefits vote their interests or in record numbers? Access to affordable healthcare isn’t about race, ethnicity or gender. It shouldn’t be a politically volatile issue. It should be a unifying issue. Everyone needs access. Too few Georgians vote and too few vote for candidates that share their interests.

This issue requires voters to elect candidates who can see beyond partisanship and who understand that the “pursuit of happiness” must include accessible, affordable, cutting edge healthcare- prevention, research and treatment for everyone.

President Lyndon B. Johnson and the Congress understood the necessity to support the medical needs of the elderly when in 1965 he signed the Medicare bill into law. Many between the elderly and the young and those we count on to work to support themselves and their families are caught in the middle of this senseless debate. They and adults with special medical and mental health needs will suffer serious harm if the Court rules against the ACA.

Culturally we expect Americans to work, to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, to make it on their own and to carry their own weight. It takes a village to support a child and the health, education and wellness of the adults who care for them makes all the difference in their success. It would be a waste if America forgets the basic needs of every man, woman and child.

 

 

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/06/16/two-gop-congressional-districts-among-the-top-five-that-would-be-impacted-by-an-adverse-obamacare-ruling/

Comments

  1. Burroughston Broch says:

    “It takes a village to support a child and the health, education and wellness of the adults who care for them makes all the difference in their success.”
    So you’re still pushing that vintage-1996 Hillary Clinton canard? It was laughable 19 years ago and it’s laughable today.
    In my family’s experience since the 1860s, it doesn’t take a village – it takes two committed parents and perhaps some grandparents. We wouldn’t dream of letting a village support our children or us.

  2. My heritage and experience is different from yours. A village has made a BIG difference in my life and I am glad for it. As for those who have a different but successful experience, I am fine with that too. Glad you got the nurturing and care you needed to mature successfully. Apparently one size doesn’t fit all.

  3. Burroughston Broch says:

    The village concept should be used only when it is the only alternative left.
    Hillary Clinton’s village canard presents the village concept as the normal and preferred method, which it is not.