Health
Coverage Worries Persist Amid Relief Over Health Care Ruling

Affordable Care Act participant Kim Jones poses for a photo in her home in Wake Forest, N.C., Thursday, June 25, 2015. Jones said the Affordable Care Act has been a blessing to her who could not have otherwise afforded the medical care she has received during treatment for a tumor on her brain. The Supreme Court decided Thursday to uphold the Affordable Care Act subsidies. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome)
CARLA K. JOHNSON, Associated Press
CHICAGO (AP) — Throughout the country, relief was the dominant emotion among consumers who get help from the government to lower their health insurance costs following Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the subsidies underpinning President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
Many consumers expressed somewhat conflicting views: They were happy their monthly premiums would continue to be affordable but exasperated by the coverage the policies purchased on the new health care exchanges provide.
“I don’t particularly care for Obama. I didn’t vote for him,” said Salt Lake City resident Paige Preece, whose subsidy allows her to buy insurance for $137 a month. “But, honestly, if it weren’t for this, I would be absolutely lost.”
The court’s 6-3 ruling upheld the federal financial assistance to millions of low- and middle-income Americans to help pay for insurance premiums regardless of where they live. An estimated 6.4 million people in the 34 states that used the federal health care exchange were at risk of losing the subsidies because their home states did not set up their own insurance exchanges.
The case turned on just a few words in the mammoth Affordable Care Act that suggested the federal subsidies could go only to consumers in states that operated their own health insurance marketplaces. Consumers in those states or in ones that fell back on the federal exchange when their own exchanges faltered were not affected by the case.
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Chief Justice John Roberts declared in the majority opinion.
Polls taken before Thursday’s ruling suggested that most Americans wanted the court to uphold the subsidies. In an April Associated Press-GfK poll, 56 percent preferred that the court rule in favor of the Obama administration, while 39 percent wanted the court to rule for the other side.
Lydia DeJesus, who helps people sign up for coverage in Dickinson, North Dakota, said she has noted that division among consumers concerning the health care law, even among those receiving significant subsidies that make their policies more affordable.
“There are people who have services who never had services,” she said. “But there are people who were forced to have insurance and really don’t consider it affordable. Some people have told us they’d rather pay the fine as opposed to having health insurance.”
In Gresham, Oregon, Anna Mar, 28, said she is still no fan of what she calls “Obamacare.” She is a stay-at-home mom with two young boys. Her husband works in construction.
“The plan hardly covers anything, so I avoid going to the doctor,” Mar said. “I love the idea of everyone having health care, but it’s not affordable for us.”
For herself, Mar bought the cheapest plan on the exchange she could find: $134 a month, with a high deductible and high co-pays. Her government subsidy is $40. The couple’s children qualify for Medicaid, the state-federal health program for those with lower incomes.
Other consumers said they were grateful for the health care reforms and for Thursday’s ruling allowing the subsidies to continue.
Kim Jones, a substitute teacher in Wake Forest, North Carolina, said she once used the emergency room for her care. With the health insurance plan she purchased on the federal exchange, she now can afford follow-up treatment after surgery last summer to remove a brain tumor.
Jones, 60, said she was without health insurance for about a decade because of the part-time jobs she took to allow her to care for an elderly parent. Her current coverage costs her about $27 a month, after the government subsidy of more than $500. She continues to take medication and had worried about losing coverage.
“I know it helped so many people, and a lot of folks like myself who had fallen through the cracks were finally getting some kind of help with health issues,” Jones said after the ruling.
In Norman, Oklahoma, Kelli Nicole Smith, a 26-year-old baker who earns $11 an hour at a candy shop, said she was relieved to learn she would still receive the $99 monthly subsidy that she used to purchase a health plan. Without it, Smith said she probably would have considered buying less healthy food or downgrading her mobile phone plan.
“I would have choices, but they wouldn’t be comfortable,” said Smith, who ends up paying about $60 a month for a plan with relatively high co-pays, including $500 for an emergency room visit. “Or I would have to consider finding a job that maybe pays more that I don’t really want to do.”
Advocates such as Walter Davis of the Tennessee Health Care Campaign, used the Supreme Court decision to urge lawmakers in Tennessee to increase Medicaid access, an expansion that was made optional by an earlier Supreme Court ruling.
“Tennessee has failed to expand Medicaid and is falling further behind, leaving thousands of people unnecessarily uninsured and without access to affordable health coverage,” he said in a written statement. “Now Tennessee policymakers should recognize health reform is working, abandon efforts to undermine it, and instead take advantage of the opportunities that health reform offers to improve lives.”
Those with medical issues took the most comfort in the Supreme Court’s ruling and Obama’s assertion afterward that “the Affordable Care Act is here to stay.”
“I’m starting to cry just talking about it,” said Susan Halpern, a 55-year-old breast cancer survivor from Columbus, Ohio, who immediately posted the news to Facebook.
With an irregular income as a freelance contractor, she said the subsidy makes a huge difference. Without it, she said the only way she could continue to pay the premium would be to drain her retirement savings.
“This has saved my ability to retire someday,” Halpern said. “I know tens of thousands of Americans were looking at it the same way.”
___
Associated Press writers Emery P. Dalesio in Raleigh, North Carolina; Travis Loller in Nashville, Tennessee; James MacPherson in Bismarck, North Dakota; Sean Murphy in Oklahoma City; Michelle L. Price in Salt Lake City; and John Seewer in Toledo, Ohio, contributed to this report.
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Activism
OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners
Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”
That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.
That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.
Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.
The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.
These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.
I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.
About the Author
Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.
Activism
OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners
In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.
In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.
A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.
This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.
This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.
“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.
Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.
“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.
Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.
“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.
As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.
Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.
It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.
When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.
About the Author
Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.
Activism
California Observes Third Annual Black Health Advocacy Week
On May 4, 2023, the California Assembly unanimously passed ACR 53, enacting BHEAW every first week of May. “The life expectancy at birth for Black Californians is 76.2 years of age, which is five years shorter than the state average and the lowest life expectancy of all racial and ethnic groups in California,” said Weber in a statement.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media
California’s third annual Black Health Equity Advocacy Week (BHEAW), observed from May 5-9, reaffirmed the commitment of the state and advocates to address systemic health disparities affecting Black communities.
Assemblymember Akilah Weber (D-San Diego), who is a medical doctor and chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC), authored the resolution that created BHEAW — the first statewide initiative of its kind focused on advancing Black health equity.
On May 4, 2023, the California Assembly unanimously passed ACR 53, enacting BHEAW every first week of May.
“The life expectancy at birth for Black Californians is 76.2 years of age, which is five years shorter than the state average and the lowest life expectancy of all racial and ethnic groups in California,” said Weber in a statement.
“This disparity is a stark reminder of the systemic and institutional factors that contribute to health inequities in communities of color,” she added.
The California Black Health Network (CBHN) led this year’s events, combining advocacy, training, and public engagement to amplify the urgency of closing health gaps for Black Californians.
The theme of this year’s observance was “We’ve Got the Power.”
“CBHN is calling on our community to step up, speak out, and get involved. Increasing the participation of Black Californians in policymaking — across the health industry and public sector — is one of the most powerful ways we can drive change and save lives,” reads a message from the organization promoting this year’s BHEAW.
“Policy change is within your power and this week we’re in Sacramento with our Health Equity Advocacy Training (HEAT) Program Cohort 3 to uplift issues impacting our community and advocate to help shape the policies and programs that will improve the health of current and future generations of Black Californians,” the message continued.
Focused on public awareness and information, this year’s BHEAW included a social media campaign, a rally and training program with vital information on medical conditions that have a disproportionate impact on Black Californians, including maternal mortality, mental health, diabetes, cancer and more.
For more information on the resolution or to join the movement, visit CBHN’s official site, www.cablackhealthnetwork.org.
-
Activism4 weeks ago
AI Is Reshaping Black Healthcare: Promise, Peril, and the Push for Improved Results in California
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Barbara Lee Accepts Victory With “Responsibility, Humility and Love”
-
Activism4 weeks ago
ESSAY: Technology and Medicine, a Primary Care Point of View
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Faces Around the Bay: Author Karen Lewis Took the ‘Detour to Straight Street’
-
Arts and Culture4 weeks ago
BOOK REVIEW: Love, Rita: An American Story of Sisterhood, Joy, Loss, and Legacy
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Newsom Fights Back as AmeriCorps Shutdown Threatens Vital Services in Black Communities
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
The RESISTANCE – FREEDOM NOW
-
Alameda County4 weeks ago
OUSD Supt. Chief Kyla Johnson-Trammell to Step Down on July 1