View Full Version : Worried about Supreme Court vs Affordable Care Act (Health Insurance)


Twiggy
03-30-12, 05:58 PM
I don't want the Supreme Court to repeal that health care bill, but if they do that would mean I wouldn't have any health insurance from my parents which means no treatment for ADHD.

With the Affordable Care Act, I will be covered by my parents until I'm 26 years old.

If the bill gets axed by the Supreme Court I won't be able to get any treatment for my ADHD, since it would cost me hundreds of dollars just to go to ONE appointment plus the cost of medication.
I don't have that kind of money. I don't even have a job.

I don't understand why the government wants to kill the bill that helps so many in the US.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this issue?

Twiggy
03-30-12, 10:19 PM
Nobody cares about this issue?
A lot of college aged people won't have the possibility of getting Adhd treatment.

spunkysmum
03-30-12, 10:42 PM
Twiggy, I do care and I'm sure there are others who do as well but discussing it would quickly catapult us into a political discussion, which is frowned on in these forums because of how divisive it can be. If it were not against the rules I would explain to you in further detail why this bill isn't a good thing for anybody and why I hope the Supreme Court rules rightly against it, since it is unconstitutional. I will leave it there though.

I have not had health insurance for three years and yet I have been able to get treatment for most of that time, even when I was unemployed. It wasn't easy but it is possible. I understand that you are worried about the future but you never know what's going to open up in terms of options and solutions.

trishcan
03-30-12, 10:55 PM
I can't imagine there are many people here opposed to the ACA.

salleh
03-30-12, 11:00 PM
I am ashamed to be American sometimes ....and the fact that we, as a wealthy nation do not have health care for all our citizens is to our great shame .....


Have you heard what some people ....( hint: they, as a group are going more and more crazy with every passing day) ..think that we should do here >


if you haven't had insurance, and you acquire a, say heart condition, and you don['t have the money to pay the huge costs of treating it,....


"Let them die" ......


that's what those people say ......


your problem with being on your parents health insurance is just one of many many situations that those people want to take away ....


what do I think ???? I think it suc** big time ......


this country is turning into nothing but selfish people who only think of themselves. and to h*** with everyone else....."We got ours, and too bad for you" .....


in my eyes, greed is the deadlyest sin of all...and is the underlying reason for most all of the troubles in the world ....personal greed, a countries greed ...."ooooh that country next to us has musch better >>>fill in the blank<<< than we do ....it should be ours .....we need it .....outcome ? war .....

broken marriages? ....greed .....I want this or that and my mate won't give it to me ? ...I'm outta here .....greed ...


selfish spoiled children ..,....and if I hear one more commercial saying "You deserve this or that ,....I may punch the TV ,....." nooo.....


entitlement of the rich,the rich, and by the rich is resulting is a wholesale looting of this country that makes the robber barons of the 19th century look like the amusing children .....aren;t they cute? they eat at the table riding horses? ....

those guys were mere babes compared to the wall street crowd, the insurance companies,. the drug companies and of course our honorble *choke* bankers....


a couple of years ago the well street idiots were saying they were afraid to be in their homes.....good, let them all be afraid .......let them be very afraid ......


well at least the union busting antics of certain people in wiconson who had their shiny new laws ramrodded down the throats of the people of that state, got their comuppance today ...the Supreme Court nixed them ...ha ! declared that those laws were unconstitutional .....


I don't mean to make your problem sound insignificant ....it is your life that is getting messed with ....and that suc** .....and when you look around, you will find that most of us are in a similar boat .,....in one way or another .....

Lillianmay
03-31-12, 01:51 AM
If it is found unconstitutional then it is up to Congress to put together a bill that is constitutional. We elect Congress, so it is up to us. I think we can do something about health care and work within the Constitution too.

trishcan
03-31-12, 02:37 AM
If it is found unconstitutional then it is up to Congress to put together a bill that is constitutional. We elect Congress, so it is up to us. I think we can do something about health care and work within the Constitution too.
Uhm, but the argument being made toward the ACA's alleged unconstitutionality is that congress doesn't get to make these decisions. That states should. So a decision against the ACA pretty much precludes the scenario you describe here.

TheChemicals
03-31-12, 08:28 AM
I don't want the Supreme Court to repeal that health care bill, but if they do that would mean I wouldn't have any health insurance from my parents which means no treatment for ADHD.

With the Affordable Care Act, I will be covered by my parents until I'm 26 years old.

If the bill gets axed by the Supreme Court I won't be able to get any treatment for my ADHD, since it would cost me hundreds of dollars just to go to ONE appointment plus the cost of medication.
I don't have that kind of money. I don't even have a job.

I don't understand why the government wants to kill the bill that helps so many in the US.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this issue?

Why would anyone need coverage from parents up until 26? You should be working by 18 anyway. I would like to see the act get axed if this is true. I dont like laws that give a nipple for people to suck on. We arent babies and we arent useless. Get a job and work. Disabled? Go on government disability.

purpleToes
03-31-12, 11:13 AM
Why would anyone need coverage from parents up until 26? You should be working by 18 anyway. I would like to see the act get axed if this is true. I dont like laws that give a nipple for people to suck on. We arent babies and we arent useless. Get a job and work. Disabled? Go on government disability.

Because having a job doesn't necessarily equal having health insurance. Hardly any entry-level jobs offer health insurance, nor most low wage jobs. Going to college improves your chances of getting a job with health insurance, but that easily brings a young adult to the age of 24 after 4 years of college and a couple of years of unpaid internships and entry-level jobs.

The "nipple" this law is trying to get rid of is people ending up in the hospital with no way to pay for it. The ACA wants everyone to demonstrate their ability to pay for emergency health care that hospitals are currently required to give to everyone regardless of ability to pay.

purpleToes
03-31-12, 11:18 AM
Why would anyone need coverage from parents up until 26? You should be working by 18 anyway. I would like to see the act get axed if this is true. I dont like laws that give a nipple for people to suck on. We arent babies and we arent useless. Get a job and work. Disabled? Go on government disability.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that ACA is giving out free anything. It requires people to *buy* health insurance if they don't have it through their job.

purpleToes
03-31-12, 11:33 AM
Twiggy, I do care and I'm sure there are others who do as well but discussing it would quickly catapult us into a political discussion, which is frowned on in these forums because of how divisive it can be. If it were not against the rules I would explain to you in further detail why this bill isn't a good thing for anybody and why I hope the Supreme Court rules rightly against it, since it is unconstitutional. I will leave it there though.

I have not had health insurance for three years and yet I have been able to get treatment for most of that time, even when I was unemployed. It wasn't easy but it is possible. I understand that you are worried about the future but you never know what's going to open up in terms of options and solutions.

Nice drive-by. Ya can't really drop a heavy political opinion like that and then pretend you're not engaging in politial discussion. I expect this entire thread to be deleted pretty soon. Meanwhile, I'll have my say...you started it! (I won't let this come between us on ADDF though, spunkysmum, I love your posts :) )

purpleToes
03-31-12, 11:35 AM
Twiggy, I do care and I'm sure there are others who do as well but discussing it would quickly catapult us into a political discussion, which is frowned on in these forums because of how divisive it can be. If it were not against the rules I would explain to you in further detail why this bill isn't a good thing for anybody and why I hope the Supreme Court rules rightly against it, since it is unconstitutional. I will leave it there though.

I have not had health insurance for three years and yet I have been able to get treatment for most of that time, even when I was unemployed. It wasn't easy but it is possible. I understand that you are worried about the future but you never know what's going to open up in terms of options and solutions.

I love your independent spirit, but whatever your resources were, do you feel everyone has access to the same resources?

purpleToes
03-31-12, 11:42 AM
Uhm, but the argument being made toward the ACA's alleged unconstitutionality is that congress doesn't get to make these decisions. That states should. So a decision against the ACA pretty much precludes the scenario you describe here.

That's not really correct. Part of the argument against the ACA is asserting that the federal government doesn't have the powers to make people buy insurance. (it is accepted that states have this power). But there are several other possible approaches by which the federal government could universal coverage using different powers that the federal government has. So yes indeed there are federal-level alternatives that could be found constitutional if the ACA is found not to be.

silivrentoliel
03-31-12, 11:46 AM
Just to toss it out there... there are way to at least get the meds we need if you can't afford them- most of the companies have programs where you can get the meds free if you have no insurance- I had to do that a lot the past couple years as I kept getting laid off and had no insurance... now that DH has insurance through his company, I don't have to worry as much... he's more stable than I am. ;)

TheChemicals
03-31-12, 11:49 AM
I believe you are incorrect about the requirements on health insurance. I am starting to recall this act now- its a greed act. The act will require you to have group health insurance through your employer without the possibility of getting you own private insurance. This is what health insurance lobbyist have been pushing becuase it will monopolize the biggest health insurance companies and ruin the smaller ones.

Lillianmay
03-31-12, 01:41 PM
Uhm, but the argument being made toward the ACA's alleged unconstitutionality is that congress doesn't get to make these decisions. That states should. So a decision against the ACA pretty much precludes the scenario you describe here.

No. The biggest constitutional question is can the government force a private citizen to make a purchase from a private company. Can the government tell a citizen that they must buy health insurance, or pay a fine. If this part of the bill is found unconstitutional, then the way the bill is funded collapses. This part of the bill is to make sure insurance companies have enough money coming in form healthy young people to pay for the people with pre-existing conditions that they are not allowed to drop because of the law.

The closest thing to this is the requirement to buy car insurance. But, this only applies if you have a car. Heath insurance would be required just because you are a citizen.

Congress can make laws about health care. Medicaid and Medicare are about health care. Congress can take part of the health care law and pass them as smaller bills, or look at other options which are within the constitution.

The concern of many is that this present law could set a precedent where Congress could force a citizen to buy a product from a private company if it is deemed for the good of the country whether the citizen wants to or not.

Another concern is that what the law means is not clear in some areas. The recent mandate for insurance companies to provide birth control for free is an example. It was decided by HHS (a non-elected group) that this was part of what the bill meant. This will give working women a break on their birth control, but these are not needy women as they are women who do have health insurance.(Needy women already have free bc.) All though it will be helpful for some, many women in this group can pay without real hardship for their bc. The price of insurance will go up slightly for all to pay for this special group.

Why this group of people rather than asthmatics who could die without their inhalers? Or ADHDers who need their meds to have a productive day? This is the sort of confusion and politics that is happening. Groups that comprise voting blocks are given a break that others are not.

I do like the coverage up to 26 and this part might be able to stand. People with ADHD take longer to get through school and can take longer to find a job (executive function delays) so this is very helpful. I don't think this part is being challenged - but I'm not sure.

I do not know anyone who is happy with the way things have been, but I also donít know too many people happy with this law. Starting over seems a hassle, but Iíd rather we get it right.

salleh
03-31-12, 02:28 PM
we are the ONLY first world country that doesn't have some sort of basic health care for it's citizens ......as part of just being a citizen here .....


.....We are a wealthy country, and there's no reason that basic health care should not be taken care of by the government .....this is the 21st century .....



the health of it's citizens is of primary importance to the government ...and it's people ....a healthy country is a strong and vigorous country .....we all gain by keeping everyone healthy .....and in the long run costs are a lot less when we are sensible about it .....a simple problem can become massive and life threathening if left alone...whereas taking care of it at the beginning can save lives and a pile of money ....

it's just simple common sense .....

trishcan
03-31-12, 02:41 PM
I believe you are incorrect about the requirements on health insurance. I am starting to recall this act now- its a greed act. The act will require you to have group health insurance through your employer without the possibility of getting you own private insurance. This is what health insurance lobbyist have been pushing becuase it will monopolize the biggest health insurance companies and ruin the smaller ones.
Can you show me something that outlines that provision? I believe no one will be required to have health insurance, but they will face monetary penalties for not having it (yeah, I don't agree with that, either, except that the act should provide affordable health insurance options so people aren't fined for being poor...assuming that's how it would play out, I wouldn't be opposed).

But as far as not being able to purchase private insurance, I've not heard that to be the case at all.

Why would anyone need coverage from parents up until 26? You should be working by 18 anyway. I would like to see the act get axed if this is true. I dont like laws that give a nipple for people to suck on. We arent babies and we arent useless. Get a job and work. Disabled? Go on government disabilityWhat about people who are going to school? They're not working full-time at some job with amazing benefits. Does that mean they shouldn't be able to access medical services without incurring medical debt they'll never be able to pay off?

And you obviously don't understand how disability benefits work, so... I'll leave that alone for now.

trishcan
03-31-12, 02:47 PM
No. The biggest constitutional question is can the government force a private citizen to make a purchase from a private company. Can the government tell a citizen that they must buy health insurance, or pay a fine. If this part of the bill is found unconstitutional, then the way the bill is funded collapses. This part of the bill is to make sure insurance companies have enough money coming in form healthy young people to pay for the people with pre-existing conditions that they are not allowed to drop because of the law.

I do not know anyone who is happy with the way things have been, but I also donít know too many people happy with this law. Starting over seems a hassle, but Iíd rather we get it right.
I see the distinction you're making... But like you said, I don't see a way around it. If you want people to have access to health care, you have to include both healthy/unhealthy, impoverished/financially well off. But I don't know anyone who's not in favor of the ACA (except apparently a few people on these forums) so it's hard for me to understand the opposition.

Another aspect of the ACA is ensuring that women aren't charged astronomically higher rates than men. I don't know if/how birth control factors into that, but I can't find a reason to oppose that, either...

spunkysmum
03-31-12, 10:32 PM
I'm not sure where you get the idea that ACA is giving out free anything. It requires people to *buy* health insurance if they don't have it through their job.

Which is grossly unconstitutional....the government has NO right to force citizens to purchase product or service from private companies.

Lillianmay
03-31-12, 10:57 PM
I see the distinction you're making... But like you said, I don't see a way around it. If you want people to have access to health care, you have to include both healthy/unhealthy, impoverished/financially well off. But I don't know anyone who's not in favor of the ACA (except apparently a few people on these forums) so it's hard for me to understand the opposition.


That is the problem. Why did Congress pass a bill that depended on a provision which they knew would be challenged constitutionally? They had many other options.

It can be tempting to say lets just bend the Constitution this one time because it is so important, but the precedent set might be used down the road by an administration you do not agree with to force you to buy something you do not agree with.

Lillianmay
03-31-12, 11:01 PM
we are the ONLY first world country that doesn't have some sort of basic health care for it's citizens ......as part of just being a citizen here .....


.....We are a wealthy country, and there's no reason that basic health care should not be taken care of by the government .....this is the 21st century .....





I understand what you are saying and it is a real concern. But, that is not what the Supreme Court is deciding. It is deciding if the present law is within the Constitution. If not, then Congress will have to work on it some more. The justices do not sound like they are opposed to the idea of health care for all. They are questioning how this law works.

We are not a wealthy country. We have people in this country who are wealthy, but most are not, and the national debt is at least 14 trillion. Health care for all is a very hard question right now because our country is in such debt. Our first concern should be health care for the poor, which is done through Medicaid. The well off and middle class are covered through their insurance. The next group to worry about is the working poor or those who cannot get insurance because of preexisting conditions. I think that should be our focus right now. I think this can be figured out without bending the Constitution.

If we spend without thinking about our debt, then there will be no money for healthcare or other government programs for our children and grandchildren. I understand the need to be compassionate to the poor and sick. I have a good chance of ending up on Medicaid myself. But, it is not compassionate to leave unimaginable debt to the next generations. Thinking long term is hard for politicians looking to be elected in the short term.

That is why health care needs to be done right.

Marla911
03-31-12, 11:24 PM
We are not a wealthy country.

Compared to ...where? A countries wealth is generally determined on a GDP per capita basis, the distribution of wealth within that country is not considered.

Income inequality is a problem throughout the world, in wealthy and poor counties. I totally see your sentiment but I think your motivations are misplaced. Universal healthcare is NOT FRIVOLOUS spending. The poorest of the poor may very well get medicaid however there is large populations throughout the developed world who are the ''working poor'' and as such do not qualify for such concessions. These people are the foundation of the affluent societies in which we live and yet are receiving little or no benefit due to the uneven distribution of the wealth.

Rather than thinking that your Government is spending carelessly without consideration of the debt with this health-care bill, perhaps you should start to question why your Government is giving tax breaks to your countries richest people and corporations. These practices are allowing individual wealth to grow in exponentially, in very concentrated areas, while the majority labor away daily for little or no pay-off.

Lillianmay
04-01-12, 12:14 AM
Compared to ...where? A countries wealth is generally determined on a GDP per capita basis, the distribution of wealth within that country is not considered.

Income inequality is a problem throughout the world, in wealthy and poor counties. I totally see your sentiment but I think your motivations are misplaced. Universal healthcare is NOT FRIVOLOUS spending. The poorest of the poor may very well get medicaid however there is large populations throughout the developed world who are the ''working poor'' and as such do not qualify for such concessions. These people are the foundation of the affluent societies in which we live and yet are receiving little or no benefit due to the uneven distribution of the wealth.

Rather than thinking that your Government is spending carelessly without consideration of the debt with this health-care bill, perhaps you should start to question why your Government is giving tax breaks to your countries richest people and corporations. These practices are allowing individual wealth to grow in exponentially, in very concentrated areas, while the majority labor away daily for little or no pay-off.

I did not say spending on universal health care was frivolous. If you read my post you will see that I said the working poor and those who cannot get healthcare because of pre-existing conditions should be our focus.

I did not say my government was spending carelessly. I said it needs to be done right and it needs to be done within the Constitution. It does need to be done with a thought to the debt because you can tax the wealthy till they are broke and tax the corporations as much as you want (and they will pass it down to the consumer) but it will hardly make a dent in the debt.

trishcan
04-01-12, 12:19 AM
That is the problem. Why did Congress pass a bill that depended on a provision which they knew would be challenged constitutionally? They had many other options.

It can be tempting to say lets just bend the Constitution this one time because it is so important, but the precedent set might be used down the road by an administration you do not agree with to force you to buy something you do not agree with.
No one is demanding that we "bend the Constitution" here. If you think it's unconstitutional, that's your opinion. Personally, I don't.

And you don't agree with health insurance?

Marla911
04-01-12, 12:27 AM
We are not a wealthy country. We have people in this country who are wealthy, but most are not, and the national debt is at least 14 trillion. Health care for all is a very hard question right now because our country is in such debt. .
I guess I misinterpreted your statements when I said that it was frivolous and careless in light of the national debt. Sorry about that.

So that I can better understand where you're coming from can you please clarify what you meant when you said that you're not a wealthy country and that health care is a very hard question right now because the country is in such debt?

Retromancer
04-01-12, 01:19 AM
Before the moderators snatch this and put it in the private forum ghetto I will get my 2 cents in: The irony is that because we are a rich country we can afford the jerry rigged private system we have. We pay for so much and get so little in return. Medicare for all would be the least costly option. It would also put much of the insurance industry out of business. Britain instituted the National Health System back in '46. It was far from a rich country then.

Saying that we can't afford to do things because of our accumulated debt is just parroting the talking points of right wing think tanks -- funded by wealthy reactionaries like the Koch brothers. National debt is not like house hold debt. The bulk of that debt we owe to ourselves, in our own currency. There is no good reason to attempt to wipe it out. Take a look at the cost of Treasuries right now. We will not end up like Greece any time in the near future -- despite what the gold shills like Glen Beck may say

Fortune
04-01-12, 01:40 AM
The ACA is not unconstitutional - that's just a talking point intended to wipe it out. In fact, if the SCOTUS decides it is unconstitutional (which it may, because the current SCOTUS makeup is extremely partisan and biased, and at least two members have conflicts of interest relevant to this issue), this could have a very negative impact on a variety of services legally provided by the US government.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/27/1077881/-Supreme-Court-Affordable-Care-Act-Is-the-mandate-constitutional-

Lots of articles discussing this here as well:

http://www.salon.com/topic/healthcare_reform/

Lillianmay
04-01-12, 01:40 AM
I guess I misinterpreted your statements when I said that it was frivolous and careless in light of the national debt. Sorry about that.

So that I can better understand where you're coming from can you please clarify what you meant when you said that you're not a wealthy country and that health care is a very hard question right now because the country is in such debt?

My statement was made regarding how much wealth the US government has Ė its income vs. its debts. You cannot be wealthy if you are in debt.

There are many wealthy people in the US and compared to poor countries, we have a lot of stuff.

But:
If you divide the national debt of the US by the population, you get roughly $50,000 owed per person. Most could not pay it.

47% of the people in the US pay no income tax. (They do pay other taxes) They do not pay income taxes because they do not make enough money.

The US pays China approximately $70million a day to China in interest. That money alone could probably finance universal health care.

Many people in the US do live in nice homes with a lot of stuff. They are mostly two income families. It is their stuff though, not the governmentís.

Before the 1970ís, most families could on one working class income manage a reasonably nice house and extras like a family vacation. That is not usually the case now.

We have a large underclass of very poor people living in very poor conditions in most large cities. We do not have a handful of large cities like European countries, we have almost one per state and some like California have several in a state.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. That is what a free country is about.

But to get back to the post, the question before the supreme court is not about debt or universal health care. It is about whether the government has the right to force private citizens to buy health insurance. I never said I was opposed to a good health insurance plan, even a universal one.

Fortune
04-01-12, 01:57 AM
But to get back to the post, the question before the supreme court is not about debt or universal health care. It is about whether the government has the right to force private citizens to buy health insurance. I never said I was opposed to a good health insurance plan, even a universal one.

Yes, it does have the right (http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/constitutional-law/bad-news-for-mail-robbers:-the-obvious-constitutionality-of-health-care-reform/).

Lillianmay
04-01-12, 02:27 AM
Yes, it does have the right (http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/constitutional-law/bad-news-for-mail-robbers:-the-obvious-constitutionality-of-health-care-reform/).

That is what the supreme court will decide.

Great discussion, but I'm going to bed:)

trishcan
04-01-12, 02:31 AM
Yes, it does have the right (http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/constitutional-law/bad-news-for-mail-robbers:-the-obvious-constitutionality-of-health-care-reform/).
From the article:
Judges Hudson and Vinson declared that the mandate is not a tax because some of the lawís sponsors sometimes claimed that it was not and because the statute declared that it was based on the commerce power. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9574670633400594889) This reasoning would create two remarkable new doctrines: federal courts have authority to police the public statements of politicians, and Congress must expressly invoke all possible constitutional bases for legislation. (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/10/health-care-reform-tax-power-and.html)
Nicely put.

Retromancer
04-01-12, 02:33 AM
The irony is that "Obamacare" originated in the right wing American Enterprise in the early 90s. It's a way to keep the present health insurance set-up in place. An expensive and jerry-rigged sytem as noted. I assume it was chosen over single-payer was because Obama and company thought they could get the reactionaries in Congress on board. They were sadly mistaken.

To repeat again the national debt is not like household debt. The Chinese do own a block of it -- denominated in our own currency, not yuan or euros. For a country debt is not a bad thing. It is not a sign of virtue paying it off. Many of our recessions, depressions were preceded by a balanced federal budgets. If we were in trouble we would be paying for much more interest on our treasuries.(Oh and interestingly a group was missing from the discussion -- a group that spends over 50K a year on just their household servants.)

I would encourage reading the mainstream business press such as the Wall Street Journal (skipping the editorial section) and the Financial Times (my preference). Please join the reality based community and turn off Fox News.

Fortune
04-01-12, 02:56 AM
That is what the supreme court will decide.

On the contrary, the supreme court may decide it is not constitutional, but that does not mean it was not constitutional. It does not mean that the court cannot be swayed by outside (partisan) interests. Reading the articles I linked will shed more light on what I am saying.

Lillianmay
04-01-12, 04:38 PM
The irony is that "Obamacare" originated in the right wing American Enterprise in the early 90s. It's a way to keep the present health insurance set-up in place. An expensive and jerry-rigged sytem as noted.


If I am reading you right then we are in agreement about insurance companies. I hate mine. My uncle, a physician, hates them all because he waste so much time trying to explain to them why his patients need the more expensive inhaler that the insurance company doesn’t want to pay for. If a one-payer system replaces insurance companies it will be their own fault for the way they treat their customers and providers. They are at the least borderline corrupt. This law keeps them in control and does little to provide over site.

So, I am going to be told by the government that I need to buy insurance from these borderline corrupt private profit-making companies?

We can agree to disagree about the debt. I don’t watch much TV – I don’t hear that well. Info was from Internet sources and my sister’s Macro Economics business class at university.

trishcan
04-01-12, 04:42 PM
So, I am going to be told by the government that I need to buy insurance from these borderline corrupt private profit-making companies?
The ACA is intended to diminish corruption and profit motive. So no.

Retromancer
04-01-12, 05:22 PM
In a word, yes. With the stipulation that they provide coverage to those who have "pre- existing" conditions etc.

So, I am going to be told by the government that I need to buy insurance from these borderline corrupt private profit-making companies?

(Oh and I am not Pollyannish about debt. At some point a tipping point is reached. But we are far from that point, as the Treasury yields show).

addtention
04-02-12, 07:26 AM
(Oh and interestingly a group was missing from the discussion -- a group that spends over 50K a year on just their household servants.)


I assume for the wealthy that is only 1 or 2 "servants"? If you've made it that well I don't see what is the problem with spending that much on servants thats around the salary for a public school teacher for one year.

meadd823
04-02-12, 08:25 AM
Sigh, If you want to know what this "Health care reform" / "Obama care" is actually about here is a link (http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/full.html) that provides detailed explanations.

Yes there are mandates within the law that require American's to purchase health care coverage or face a "penalty / tax" - by 2013 I think is the dead line. To the best of my understanding that is the portion that is being decided by the supreme court. If they vote that part unconstitutional it effectively defunds the other provisions like the insurance agency pool for those who have pre-exiting conditions and such. Feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding.

The other portions of the reform are regarding the minimum that insurance companies are required to provide. It eliminates life time caps, dropping of people who do get sick, and provisions for preventive health care.

The part that may effect many of us already diagnosed is the portion regarding pre-existing conditions, I am with the OP in that I am worried they will repeal it and we are back to less than diddly squat.

If you are denied coverage due to a complex pre-existing condition there is a sort of like a pool of insurance agencies - I didn't get all into it because part of qualifying for this pool of agencies is having been denied coverage by a private health insurance company first - and I haven't done that yet soooo I did not go any further. Last time I had health insurance I was pretty healthy Some thing about that becoming not so healthy makes keeping that job that connects you to the coverage impossible. . . they planned it that way and cobra is a freaking joke. If I could afford that crap unemployed I wouldn't need the damn job in the first place

Any way this page I gave the link to explains the health care reform and frankly I don't see it as a bad thing. It would have been better if Obama didn't have to compromise on the public option butttt he was forced to due to overt and carefully crafted scare mongering

I must admit I am and always have been in favor of dare I type it out loud , full scale socialized medicine so all Americans can have access to health care. I was in health care for two decades and when it decided it was a business things got really ugly . . .. that is why I left and I keep leaving!



I know the European, Australian and Canadian systems are not perfect - Yeah there are waiting list and all but I would rather be on a six month waiting list than have no access at all - The latter is my typical option. Every thing related to my ADHD I pay for out of pocket right now any way. I qualified for a discount card though the county because I am uninsured but my ADHD medicine has gone up in price so much sense these "shortages" I can't tell if I am still getting the discount or not.

Any way the health care reform does not stop any one from seeking private health care if you so choose - They have private pay docs in countries with socialized medicine. I know they do in the UK any way. . ..


While socialized systems force every one to pay into the public health system if most Americans look carefully at their pay stubs or at that schedule C you will find most of us already pay into a national health care system any way - soo why should I have to pay again for my own health care - Talk about double dipping crapola!

The crap about how our privatized system inspires innovation really does not inspire me to buy into the BS but a lot of folks did

I see no reason for innovative technological advances in medicine that only the wealthiest 1% can afford - Those are basically useless to the 99% I would rather have less technological innovative advances in medicine and more access to the medical advances we already have.

My point is, for those living in the US especially, read the health care reforms themselves before passing judgement. I think many who are uninformed may be pleasantly surprised.

Ecnep11
04-09-12, 03:03 AM
Yes, it does have the right (http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/constitutional-law/bad-news-for-mail-robbers:-the-obvious-constitutionality-of-health-care-reform/).

I stopped reading after the first paragraph...

Sourcing this guys opinion would be like sourcing Rachel Maddow's or Sean Hannity's opinion on a political subject.

Fortune
04-09-12, 05:01 AM
I stopped reading after the first paragraph...

Sourcing this guys opinion would be like sourcing Rachel Maddow's or Sean Hannity's opinion on a political subject.

On the contrary, the writer is a professor of law and political science (http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/profiles/andrewkoppelman/) at Northwestern. One of his specialties just happens to be "constitutional law."

He's not just a random media commentator and your analogy is nonsense.

Devonhill
05-25-13, 02:11 AM
The Affordable Care Act provides Americans with better health security by putting in place comprehensive health insurance reforms that will expand coverage, hold insurance companies accountable, lower health care cost and enhance the quality of care for all. As part of this, starting in 2014, every person with insurance coverage through an employer will have to give $63 each year to cover the price of getting insurance for people with preexisting problems.