this depends on your state. you see, there are states that have a more progressive economic bent, where the medical costs of children and the disabled are paid for (Washington, I think, Vermont, California, maybe, and a handful of liberal ish Yankee/northern states). these states usually have a decent enough economy to support people in need, they usually have complied with the ACA and expanded medical coverage and lowered insurance rates across the board for all the middle and lower classes. you can get an abortion paid for by state medical coverage in a few of these states, even.
they tend to have tech corporate culture in at least one major city, usually they've got big chunks of state taxes or sales tax though.
then, you've got the south/southwest. since the south lost its economic center when it lost the civil war (slave-produced textiles are lucrative) it's been struggling. (the prison economy is a backbone for some of these states-Missouri, New Mexico, etc)
a lot of those states are red/right wing/religious all the way through, except for black neighborhoods. they're also the areas most reliant on federal funding, ironically- the white areas, that is. they use the most food stamps, welfare, and disability on federal funding. these states also have rich, old family inhabitants, of course, as well as a shitload of unemployed but working class people.
these are the states where the legislatures did not comply with the ACA, rendering those funds unavailable to the people there that need it. the ACA is unpopular in a lot of states where it wasn't even really implemented.
the ACA isn't a great end-all solution to anything, but in places where they followed through with it, it's popular.
as for kids, the ACA is meant to cover everyone up to the age of twenty-something.
in states without full ACA coverage, local programs SOMETIMES fill the gap. I lived in a region for a while, where mining was the biggest employer- no ACA for folks there. the state is red and hadn't complied. there is no local program for children that's standard. WIC will step in and assist to some extent, churches might, or cps will seize kids and put them in foster care... making them wards of the state, the state then pays for their medical. cps will step in up to 16, after that, fuck you. they street the kids at 18, too. like that birthday is gtfo day.
it's a really hard thing to understand unless you've seen most of the US. this place is massive and every region is distinct. some care about the chilllllluns and some just... don't. some send kids to space camp and others send them to that Bible theme park.
it's fucking weird.
was trying to reply to this. shit. I had to edit this sperg like ten times.
You sweet American folks, explain to me why American kids don't get their healthcare paid for by the government. They don't make 'lifestyle choices' that the moralisers can blame their healthcare problems on, and they're too young to work and therefore pay for insurance of their own.
I don't get it. The arguments in favour of 'don't pay for healthcare for the scroungers RRREEEEE muh taxes' don't apply to kids. Why don't kids get paid for?
Is it not a social good and an investment in the future of the US as a nation to make sure kids are healthy, as well as educated (which the government already pays for)?
(I have asked this question elsewhere but the answer I always get is 'dunno'. You folks are more politically engaged.)
