Right-Wingers Challenge The Affordable Care Act Again.

On several occasions, I have blogged about the ACA and the determination of Congressional Republicans and right-wing groups to damage and defeat the new healthcare legislation. Let me remind you that, prior to ACA, Americans might qualify for Medicare or Medicaid but the millions who could not avail themselves of this help had either to insure themselves or pay for medical care from their own resources. The major principle of the ACA was that all Americans should have health insurance and the federal government would offer affordable health insurance. Citizens had no obligation to take up the offer. They were fully entitled to keep their own healthcare cover. However, if a citizen did neither, he or she would be fined.

I do not pretend the legislation was simple and straightforward. It was not. Nor did the processes work well to begin with. There were massive computer glitches and failures. Secretary of Health Kathleen Sebelius took a huge amount of flak for her boss, President Obama. However, according to NBC, since the ACA became law, almost seventeen million Americans now have healthcare insurance, provided courtesy of the federal government. This is a significant number.

The Supreme Court has considered ACA on three occasions.  On the last day of the 2011-2012 Term, the Court ruled 5-4 in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that the individual mandate under the Act was upheld and the Medicaid expansion was kept intact. As a result of the Court’s decision, the implementation of health reform was protected.

In 2014 the Court held in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that some closely held corporations are protected from having to provide contraceptive coverage that offends the owners’ religious beliefs. Quite how deep religious beliefs are relevant in for-profit corporations is debatable. Again, this year, the Act returned to the Court for further consideration. In a 6-3 decision in King v. Burwell, the Supremes ruled that tax subsidies, that make health insurance affordable for low-income individuals, can continue.

The challenges continue. Last week, the Court agreed to hear another case, this time to decide whether religiously affiliated organizations such as universities, hospitals and charities can be free from playing any role in providing their employees with contraceptive coverage. I would have thought the Hobby Lobby decision was sufficient to establish the legal principle but, evidently, it is not. The new challenge pits questions of religious liberty – some might say dogma and special pleading - against a woman’s right to equal health-care access. The Obama administration says it has provided the organizations with an easy way to opt out of the legal requirement that employers include contraceptives as part of health insurance coverage; employers who object to the cover must make clear their religious objections and let insurance companies and the government provide it separately.

The issue for the Court is whether the religious-freedom law entitles petitioners not only to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage themselves but also to prevent the government from arranging for third parties to provide separate coverage to the affected women. Is this not a ploy by the bible-bashers to prevent contraceptive coverage for all women, regardless of their religious affiliation? If so, where exactly is the discrimination?

I suspect the latest challenge is inspired by those on the right who hate President Obama and all he stands for. However, they may shoot themselves in the foot at the polls. According to the UK Economist, “in a recent poll 62% of Republican supporters feel betrayed by their party. Hardliners itch to use blunt instruments including blocking rises in federal debt and shutting down the government rather than allow public money to be spent on programmes that displease them.” Add religious bigotry and you have a poison that may well kill Republican hopes in next year’s elections.

I feel certain that those who continually seek to challenge ACA in Congress have the best health insurance policies available on the market, paid for by their employers. These same people seek to deny health cover for the poor in American society, based on narrowly held religious or social views. It is a credit to freedom of speech that these people should have their day in court but it does far greater discredit to a society and legal system that would permit continual challenges to a law that seeks to benefit so many. Health insurance may not be a birth-right but in America’s unequal healthcare system, surely a law that seeks to level the playing field should remain untouched by its dissenters.