Worried about Supreme Court vs Affordable Care Act (Health Insurance)

[Twiggy]

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]

Nobody cares about this issue?
A lot of college aged people won't have the possibility of getting Adhd treatment.

[spunkysmum]

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]

I can't imagine there are many people here opposed to the ACA.

[salleh]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Lillianmay

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]

Originally Posted by Twiggy

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]

Originally Posted by TheChemicals

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]

Originally Posted by TheChemicals

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]

Originally Posted by spunkysmum

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]

Originally Posted by spunkysmum

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]

Originally Posted by trishcan

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]

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]

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.