Health care at stake for many in Washington

The U.S. Supreme Court could be on the verge of a ruling on the Affordable Care Act. A look at one couple's situation.

President Obama at a 2009 forum on health care. The reform law he eventually signed is up for Supreme Court review.

Center for American Progress Action Fund/Flickr

President Obama at a 2009 forum on health care. The reform law he eventually signed is up for Supreme Court review.

Amy Moreno-Sills loves sustainable farming. It's a passion. A core of her beliefs. The life work of her and her husband, Augustin.

And she faces possibly giving it up to get health insurance.

Augustin 29, and Amy, 37, are both managers for  produce farms in Pierce County — earning about $60,000 annually as a couple, an income that just dropped significantly with the recent brth of their second child, Hector. With a 4-year-old daughter Gabriela, Amy  had to switch to a part-time administrative job at Terry's Berry Farm — cutting more than $15,000 from the couple's annual income..

So far, the family has lived on the edge of having adequate health insurance. In fact, maybe beyond the edge.

Neither parent has health insurance. Particularly with day-care costs taking up a lot of their income, they can't afford it. "It's super-pricey. What are we gonna have to give up to have health insurance?" Amy said recently. 

The Washington Community Action Network and Northwest Health Law Advocates, both based in Seattle, point to a recent Urban Institute study (the institute is a Washington D.C.-based think tank tackling social research work) that concluded that the federal Affordable Care Act — also know as "Obamacare" — would provide health insurance for an extra 75,000 to 110,000 people in Washington, allowing people like the Moreno-Sillses to stay in farming. 

"It reaffirms what we've beeen saying all along," said Rachael DeCruz, communication coordinator for Washington CAN.

A key factor will be how the U.S. Supreme Court rules court on a legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act — a challenge in which  Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna has joined some 20 other states' attorneys general in pursuing. 

Amy Moreno-Sills got through pregnancy on Medicaid, which covers a pregnancy in her income bracket from beginning through two months after birth. Gabriela is on, with Hector to follow along, the state's Apple Program for Kids, which is a group of state health insurance programs for children only for families beneath certain income levels. The Moreno-Sills famliy's income is slightly below that  cut-off level.

The couple themselves applied to the state's Basic Health insurance program, but never got beyond the waiting list. It will likely be a long wait. The program serves about 34,000 people with a waiting list of roughly 150,000. 

Their employers, tiny farm operators, can't afford to provide health insurance. "Sustainable farming — it's not a lucrative business," Amy said. 

Bottom line is that Amy and Augustin have gambled that they would be healthy without picking up significant medical care costs beyond their children. So far, they've lucked out.

But the couple has decided they can't gamble any more, and, when interviewed recently, Amy was already thinking about getting out of farming to get a job that provides health insurance.

"At my age and having kids, it'd be irresponsible not to have health insurance. I'll be one of the people getting kicked out of farming because of a health care kind of thing. I don't want to be a burden on welfare while being a farmer," she said. "To me, it would be heartbreaking to have to leave farming." 

Meanwhile, with the U.S. Supreme Court set to rule as early as Monday (June 25), many involved with health issues are looking toward the nation's capital. "We're anxiously awaiting their decision," said Washington CAN's DeCruz.

The law is supposed to go into general effect in 2014. It could add another potential 500,000 Medicaid patients to the roughly 1.2  million Washingtonians currently on Medicaid, according to the state Health Care Authority. 


About the Author

John Stang is a longtime Inland Northwest newspaper reporter who recently earned a Masters of Communications in Digital Media degree at the University of Washington. He can be reached by writing editor@crosscut.com.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Sun, Jun 24, 6:20 p.m. Inappropriate

One way or another, we are approaching the cliff. This link from nearly three years ago explains why. Isn't it interesting that hardly anyone talks about it?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/an_insurance_industry_ceo_expl.html

NotFan

Posted Mon, Jun 25, 8:42 a.m. Inappropriate

Unfortunately a job with health insurance won't solve all their problems. She'll be lucky to find something with insurance at all, she'll likely have to pay some of her income for the coverage, yet the extra income might be enough to kick the kids off government coverage, and it is very likely to be a high-deductible plan. That means most minor medical care beyond a yearly checkup won't be covered, and with the deductible plus stop-loss the family will be on the hook for $6-8000 per person, per year if anything major goes wrong.

The way this story is framed it sounds like she faces a wrenching choice, but the reality is for many people no good choices exist however wrenching.

lisa

Posted Mon, Jun 25, 9:22 a.m. Inappropriate

Life is full of choices, and many of them are among least-worst alternatives, and people suffer many heartbreaks. The fact remains, however, that if Obamacare exceeds the federal government's powers as outlined in the Constitution, it is a bad law, no matter how good its intentions. The real scandal is that the authors of this law, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, rushed it through Congress without even caring to understand the health care system or the ramifications of their actions. We all know that it was Pelosi who infamously said "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it", and who when asked if she had concerns as to it's constitutionality asked, "Are you kidding me?!" This is not the attitude of a sincere legislator trying to solve problems within the law. Why have she and the president taken the American people on this train-wreck excursion when over the past few years a genuinely useful slate of health care reforms could have been passed with at least some Republican support, and maybe some of our other problems could have been solved as well?

It was Obama functionary Rahm Emanuel who said "Never let a good crisis go to waste" but the Obama administration has given this country three and one half years of missed opportunities and unaddressed crises, and if the Supreme Court overturns this incredibly flawed law, it will just be the icing on a fallen cake.

dbreneman

Posted Mon, Jun 25, 11:45 a.m. Inappropriate

"The fact remains, however, that if Obamacare exceeds the federal government's powers as outlined in the Constitution, it is a bad law, no matter how good its intentions."

Two other interpretations are that the Supreme Court's ruling is bad or that the Constitution is bad, as in broken. As it obviously is with its recent amendment by the Supreme Court holding corporations to be people and simultaneously allowing unlimited anonymous buying of elections.

The idea that the Constitution is some sort of divinely inspired and written document that can never be changed is simply a tool used by those who currently benefit from its flaws.

Steve E.

Posted Mon, Jun 25, 12:34 p.m. Inappropriate

The Constitution is neither divinely inspired nor unchangeable. But it is the law that created the federal government, and the federal government can't simply ignore the Constitution for the sake of convenience. If it needs to be changed, there is a mechanism for doing that. But you brush it aside at your peril.

dbreneman

Posted Mon, Jun 25, 9:46 p.m. Inappropriate

Try Group Health for an individual policy for a 61 year old male/female with a $500 annual deductible and a whopping $808 per month dues premium....not a 'level playing field' and more than a 'fair share' and 'skin in the game' cost and not really competitive to the hugely subsidized health insurance given to and not earned by millions of government and high end corporate employees and even some small businesses that pay health insurance for employees and max out the Schedule C deductions. No one should get free and/or subsidized health insurance.

animalal

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »