I’m sure we’d like to think the Affordable Care Act is able to change everybody’s story. It’d be great if the lady in the “Sick in America” could stay in the “Land Of The Free” because her medical expenses were taken care of, and the man who lost his management position wouldn’t have to live in a bubble waiting to turn 65 in order to get any healthcare, and the Baltimore man wasn’t digging himself more and more into debt to remain alive.  But, I think there is a shallowness to our definition of change.

While the ACA will allow for everyone to be able to acquire healthcare, it doesn’t necessarily mean everyone will be able to afford healthcare, especially those with current health concerns. See, the issue is those crazy, outlandish deductibles. I went onto the ACA website and took the opportunity to indulge my current baby fever (don’t judge me). For a family of 3: 24 y.o. male, 23 y.o. female, and 1 y.o. child residing in Fulton County, making about $40,000 a year, the estimated monthly premium started at about $141 for our entire family, which is pretty good. We qualified for the CHIP, Children’s Health Insurance Program for our one child, which provides free or low-cost health coverage and had completely open enrollment. We, also, qualified for a solid tax credit, which brought our monthly premium from $317 to $141, which after more carousing of the ACA website, I found was nearly $60 more than what an identical family in Douglas County would pay. But the ultimate blow that breaks the bank came with a glance at the deductible cost. The lowest deductible is $12,600, which is ridiculous for a family making this amount. So, while the premiums are appealing, families with this plan better pray they never have to look a doctor in the face. All this said, it seems that the goals of the ACA are extremely superficial. It seems to be all about being able to SAY “all Americans have healthcare”, despite the fact that none of them can keep their heads above water.

The government doesn’t care about those in poverty. Dependence on government assistance, ultimately the government itself, places the poverty-stricken under government control. The government completely controls what happens to them and that’s exactly how they want it if they are going to be dishing out money and social policy can’t do much about that. As cynical as this statement is, overflowing with indignation and ignorance, it has summed up my unspoken thoughts on poverty and what the government is doing about it. Reading Deparle sent this notion into two opposing streams of thought. On one side, the government does care about poverty, but for reasons linked more closely to elections, budgets and public image rather than genuine concern for people’s lives. Therefore, the government will turn an ear to social policy when there is something at stake. For example, in American Dream, Clinton’s plight to end welfare as we know it, was heavily influenced by his presidential campaign and that “half this election is about winning the southern black vote”(Deparle, p.8). With such a huge issue driving his campaign, upon becoming President he had no choice but to do something about welfare, it was the platform on which his entire campaign stood. His comment, “We should insist that people move off the welfare rolls and onto the work rolls” (Deparle, p.1) clearly shows how limited his understanding of poverty was. And on the other side, the government does not necessarily “care”, depending upon how care is defined. Instead of caring, the government is simply burdened by poverty, it’s like that little brother who is always in the way. They wouldn’t do anything about it, if poverty weren’t always tugging at its shirt. In writing this, I see how similar these streams of thought actually are…ok they are the exact same. After reading Deparle, I came to the conclusion that social policy has the ability to combat poverty if the government has specific need for it. Sadly, social policy makers have to be privy to this and surge in when those opportunities arise.

Angie’s having to hide her fast-food job clearly highlights the liberty-welfare tradeoff. She knew if it was found that she was working, her welfare would be cut off and she’d no longer be able to support her children. She had to sacrifice her liberty to work in order to maintain a welfare check (which is given to families struggling to find work, how backwards is that?), neither of which would support her family on it’s own. The system is not designed for participants to leave, their only options are either to barely make it on welfare or barely make it on a minimum wage job. This leaves little to no room for re-attaining freedom, especially with no educational advancement opportunities. “Without the security of having one’s basic needs met, a person can’t make free choices” (Stone, p.126). Jewell, Opal and Angie all had little education or specialized training, so jobs were extremely limited. They were in permanent survival mode and, of course, they weren’t carrying dreams of being doctors or lawyers, because that was unlike anything they’d seen around them. For these reasons, I do think Deparle believes there is a liberty-welfare tradeoff, because he records this tradeoff in each of these women’s story. Stone (2012) states “Government can provide rights to protect dependent people from domination “(p.127), but who is protecting them from the government?