Obamacare Thrown Out by Judge (Unconstitutional), Raising Insurance Uncertainty

originally posted by: Realtruth
Let's see if this ends up in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

More than likely it will go to the SC.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Extorris

And what drugs you use, what food you eat, these impacts on health are not choices?

Absolutely.

But healthy children get cancer on a regular basis and runners get hit by cars etc. and we all grow old.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No one is forced to buy insurance against their will if they do not want to participate in driving.

Driving is a choice. Occupying a human body with it's associated maintenance is not.

You might say that living is a choice, but if the GOP is trying to sell that argument I don't think the voting public will receive it well.

Taking steps to live a healthy lifestyle and protect yourself is a right.

Forcing other people to care for you is not a right.

People living healthy lifestyles still have heart attacks and contract cancer and get hit by cars.

Our tax dollars pay (or as you put it "force") other people to care for us all the time, from military to police to firemen etc. etc.

a reply to: Extorris

Public health is, actually, everybody's business.

a reply to: Extorris

And last I checked everyone has the option to get insurance. Acting like people have no way to mitigate their health problems is disingenuous. You have a body, you can choose to get insurance or not, your choice. Even car insurance you don't need full coverage, the insurance is not about the owner but about ensuring other people are protected from their actions.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And last I checked everyone has the option to get insurance.

Under the ACA yes. Prior to it, not really.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And last I checked everyone has the option to get insurance.

Under the ACA yes. Prior to it, not really.

The ACA successfully identified/rejected all illegals I worked with this year. Some got through before.

a reply to: Phage

Funny thing about insurance and pre existing conditions. You may not have insurance but you never get denied health care. I have a friend with diabetes and kidney disease. He receives dialysis 3 times a week which I estimate at about 18 grand a week.

The government pays for all of it. He takes 3 different types of insulin daily which is also quite costly, and it's all paid. Often he will miss a day of dialysis and has to go to an emergency room, where he receives emergency dialysis treatment and a private room for 2 to 3 days, at the hospital of his choice.

When he owned his own business, he paid for insurance but lost the business ironically due to a lawsuit filed by a negligent employee. His health is so bad now he can't work even though he wants to, but he had no issue getting insurance before as long as he paid for it. Now that he doesn't have insurance he gets better care and it's all free.

So the liberal chant of pre existing conditions keeps people from getting insurance and the liberal chant that people can't get health care is plain and simple a made up boogie man because anybody and everybody gets FREE treatment in any hospital since its required by law. Insurance is what makes health care so expensive to begin with and to mandate that people buy it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL so stop with the made up boogie man.

a reply to: Extorris

The consumer of healthcare has no ability to control price through consumer choice because they can not choose their diseases nor refuse treatment without threat of suffering or death.

If that is the case, and I agree that your point makes sense in certain perspectives, then it would be the duty of the government to regulate any private companies that provide health care and to actually provide the care if there are no private companies to do so. We do that with utility companies all the time, because utilities are deemed necessary to living in modern society.

TheRedneck

a reply to: DJMSN

The government pays for all of it.

So, disability medicare or just the regular sort? Sounds good.

When he owned his own business, he paid for insurance but lost the business ironically due to a lawsuit filed by a negligent employee.

What sort of lawsuit? Did he not carry workers' comp insurance? Isn't that required?

a reply to: Phage

Under the ACA yes. Prior to it, not really.

The ACA removed the option by making it mandatory. Prior to the ACA, people had a choice.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The ACA removed the option by making it mandatory. Prior to the ACA, people had a choice.

And insurers could say, "You had cancer once, sorry."

a reply to: Phage

After the ACA, they could say "we want more money than you have, sorry."

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

I have said all along we need reform, and that is part of it. Do you think we should treat someone who smoked and got lung cancer the same as someone who simply got unlucky with a genetic predisposition?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Do you think we should treat someone who smoked and got lung cancer the same as someone who simply got unlucky with a genetic predisposition?

No. Do you think they should be denied medical coverage completely?

The ACA requires individuals to have health insurance starting January 1, 2014 and prohibits insurers from denying coverage based on factors such as health status. However, tobacco users can be charged up to 50% more for health insurance premiums than non-tobacco users in the individual or small group market

www.integration.samhsa.gov...

a reply to: Phage

I do not have a problem with tobacco related cancer/issues to be excluded from coverage, or simply increased costs. I definitely do not think the rest of society should pay for their behavior though.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I do not have a problem with tobacco related cancer/issues to be excluded from coverage, or simply increased costs.

Increase premiums, as demonstrated, indeed.
Denial of coverage? "You had cancer once, sorry."

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I have a problem with that. Either everyone gets treatment, or no one does.

TheRedneck

a reply to: DJMSN

The Federal Government (Health and Human Services) has extreme compassion for people with Kidney Disease. I don't know how or when that originated though.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

Under the ACA yes. Prior to it, not really.

The ACA removed the option by making it mandatory. Prior to the ACA, people had a choice.

TheRedneck

I had a sister that was denied Healthcare Coverage for 5 years. Her husband was self employed but made a moderate income.
She was denied for repeated urinary track infections which insurance companies said could be a precursor to cancer.
He offered to pay virtually any price, he asked about bare bones policies, simply no insurance company wanted his business regardless. She had an appendix explode on her. She didn't go to the doctor during the initial pain because she worried about payment. She barely survived because she had waited so long. The extended hospital stay plus surgery amounted to 85K in hospital bills out of pocket. She got insured for the first time in years when "Obamacare" came online.

Yes, it was normal for insurers to deny coverage to people before ACA/Obamacare.
Yes, they will happily do it again if allowed. Their aim is corporate profit not the people's welfare or health.
That would be an acceptable free market if people were able to choose if, when and how they needed healthcare (like other products).

Those interested in examining the intersection of capitalism and a false market like Healthcare should look up Mylan and epipens. A smart capitalist figured out parents would pay any price to prevent thier kids from dying from anaphylactic shock (allergy attacks) and bought the epipen manufacturer along with patents and increased prices from $100 to $600.
A pay or die profit scheme.