What happens if the Supreme Court strikes down 'Obamacare'? - Page 11

**Foxrac** · 06-03-2012, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Did the article say his job was minimum wage? One full time job should more than pay for his premium.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockin'robin

Pretty much agree with Tex....even my son works for minimum wage and has health insurance. Many companies that pay minimum wage give free health coverage after working there 6 months or more....

Not all minimum wage jobs have health insurances. Some of my friends work at minimum wage and they don't offers health insurance.

In bold, I smell bullshit and there are not many companies that give free health insurance for minimum wage jobs. I worked at minimum wage job - Walmart and I have to pay biweekly for health insurance.

The full health insurance that offer OUTSIDE OF WORK, cost around $1,000 or more for single person, the price varies, depending on health condition.

**Foxrac** · 06-03-2012, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Meh, well it was disrespectful of this man to not take care of his affairs and burden us with them.

As for the second part you are really crossing a line there and getting personal. Not to mention the fact that you are completely off base.

And finally no I don't think life is easy.... That's why I have a problem with people who try to take the easy road on my dime. I worked my ass off for what I have. Others should do the same.

You mentioned that you don't know about him and he said that his full time job don't offer health insurance. You are just assuming about his life.

Well, I don't like selfish people who don't care about others, especially health. I'm glad that our government isn't selfish.

There are stupid people over the world and get deal with it.

**TXgolfer** · 06-03-2012, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

You mentioned that you don't know about him and he said that his full time job don't offer health insurance. You are just assuming about his life.

Well, I don't like selfish people who don't care about others, especially health. I'm glad that our government isn't selfish.

There are stupid people over the world and get deal with it.

Again A) you are crossing the line.

B) way off base....Not wanting the government to take your money to care for others does not make one selfish.

As for our government they have no money so they cannot be selfish or unselfish.

**Foxrac** · 06-03-2012, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Again A) you are crossing the line.

B) way off base....Not wanting the government to take your money to care for others does not make one selfish.

As for our government they have no money so they cannot be selfish or unselfish.

Good grief...

I disagree with your view on healthcare so let agree to disagree.

**TXgolfer** · 06-03-2012, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Good grief...

I disagree with your view on healthcare so let agree to disagree.

Of course you do.... There was never a doubt.

**Foxrac** · 06-03-2012, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Of course you do.... There was never a doubt.

Want make me to agree with you?

I'm glad that quibbling is over.

**TXgolfer** · 06-03-2012, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Want make me to agree with you?

I'm glad that quibbling is over.

No way....believe what you want. Im sure it's hard for people who have been part of the system and haven't paid a lot of taxes, worked 100 hour weeks or worked for a lot of charities to understand my view. So I never expected you to agree with me on this. So no problem.

**Foxrac** · 06-14-2012, 12:32 AM

Mitt Romney's Health Care Plan Would Not Prohibit Discrimination Based On Pre-Existing Conditions

Oh wow, that why I refused to vote Romney.

rolling7 · 06-14-2012, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Mitt Romney's Health Care Plan Would Not Prohibit Discrimination Based On Pre-Existing Conditions

Oh wow, that why I refused to vote Romney.

This shows you do not think clearly. Suppose you drank most of your life and your liver is just about gone. This is your fault. Suppose you smoked for many years and this has ruin your health. That is your fault. Should the insurance company be forced to cover you? That is what Obama wants.

**Foxrac** · 06-14-2012, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

This shows you do not think clearly. Suppose you drank most of your life and your liver is just about gone. This is your fault. Suppose you smoked for many years and this has ruin your health. That is your fault. Should the insurance company be forced to cover you? That is what Obama wants.

No, many diseases and disorders cause naturally.

FYI, I don't drink or smoking.

It doesn't matters - the insurance have to cover everything.

I have seen a lot of people with cancer got denied for treatment, especially leukemia.

rolling7 · 06-14-2012, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

No, many diseases and disorders cause naturally.

FYI, I don't drink or smoking.

It doesn't matters - the insurance have to cover everything.

I have seen a lot of people with cancer got denied for treatment, especially leukemia.

Foxrac, I totally agree with you that some folks get a disease and/or disorder that is totally not their fault. However, I'm asking you to play fair and to look at those folks who are totally responsible for their situation but want others to pay the consequences.

I was not making the point that you, Foxrac, smoke nor drink but I was asking all to consider these situations where folks destroy their body due to their own behavior.
You are correct that there have been cases of a person being denied insurance coverage because that person has leukemia. However to be fair, the person who is ALREADY COVERED by insurance and then develops leukemia is ALREADY COVERED and can't be denied treatment by the insurance. This is why it is so important for a person to be covered from cradle to grave. Those that are not should be allow to force others to pay the consequences. This is what Obama wants, for the innocent to pay for the guilty.

**Foxrac** · 06-14-2012, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

Foxrac, I totally agree with you that some folks get a disease and/or disorder that is totally not their fault. However, I'm asking you to play fair and to look at those folks who are totally responsible for their situation but want others to pay the consequences.

I was not making the point that you, Foxrac, smoke nor drink but I was asking all to consider these situations where folks destroy their body due to their own behavior.
You are correct that there have been cases of a person being denied insurance coverage because that person has leukemia. However to be fair, the person who is ALREADY COVERED by insurance and then develops leukemia is ALREADY COVERED and can't be denied treatment by the insurance. This is why it is so important for a person to be covered from cradle to grave. Those that are not should be allow to force others to pay the consequences. This is what Obama wants, for the innocent to pay for the guilty.

I think you are playing foul.

I'm NOT talking about substance abuses and the insurance have to pay for medical treatment, regardless on fault or no fault, it is existing for insurance to cover liver treatment after abused with alcohol for many years.

BUT...

My point is about pre-existing condition because some people have to change the job or insurances for some reason so the new insurance should cover on pre-existing condition.

It is very obviously that you don't get it since pre-existing condition is very serious.

Do not mix with pre-existing condition and substance abuse. Leave substance abuse out.

rolling7 · 06-14-2012, 01:43 PM

Now you are really not thinking clear Foxrac. More harm has come to folks because of substance abuse than any other reason.

I do know about those who change jobs and I do agree 100% that since they were covered at the first job they should have coverage at the second job. That is fair.

Nevertheless, you have to admit there are many, many folks walking around uninsured. And these are the ones Obama wants us whom are managing our life correctly to pay the consequences for those not doing their part by carrying insurance for themself.

**Foxrac** · 06-14-2012, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

Now you are really not thinking clear Foxrac. More harm has come to folks because of substance abuse than any other reason.

I do know about those who change jobs and I do agree 100% that since they were covered at the first job they should have coverage at the second job. That is fair.

Nevertheless, you have to admit there are many, many folks walking around uninsured. And these are the ones Obama wants us whom are managing our life correctly to pay the consequences for those not doing their part by carrying insurance for themself.

The substance abuses have been big issue for many years, especially in 1980's and 1990's so don't mix them with pre-existing condition. It make your argument looks totally apple to orange.

Have too many uninsured patients are severely liable to our system so we want patients to get their own insurance or don't access to medical care without insurance or money to pay. It is very irresponsible for our government to let patients without any insurance because they can't afford to buy or their job don't offers so need to be regulated, just long way before Obama came in.

When uninsured patients have no money so we are responsible to pay their treatment that drove cost of medical care up, that's very bad.

rolling7 · 06-14-2012, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

The substance abuses have been big issue for many years, especially in 1980's and 1990's so don't mix them with pre-existing condition. It make your argument looks totally apple to orange.

Have too many uninsured patients are severely liable to our system so we want patients to get their own insurance or don't access to medical care without insurance or money to pay. It is very irresponsible for our government to let patients without any insurance because they can't afford to buy or their job don't offers so need to be regulated, just long way before Obama came in.

When uninsured patients have no money so we are responsible to pay their treatment that drove cost of medical care up, that's very bad.

NO, we are NOT responsible to pay for their treatment but we ARE being FORCE to pay for the treatment.

Where you get lost is that substance abuse leads to a pre-existing condition. An example would be a person whom as a teenager got a first job but did not wish to pay for insurance at the job. This teen also started smoking and continue for many years. Many people think they are invincible. Then when he does decide to get himself covered by insurance, it is discovered that he has lung disease. When he is applying for insurance, the company knows about this and does not have to accept him. This is legal and not the responsibility of the company.

I'm not saying that the Insurance Industry does not need regulations, it does. However, it is totally wrong for the government to control the Insurance Industry in a way of making us responsible for the irresponsible.

I'm on your side, Foxrac, where it come to the responsible innocence person. I just ask that you too put the blame and cost of irresponsible living on those people and not us.

**Foxrac** · 06-14-2012, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

NO, we are NOT responsible to pay for their treatment but we ARE being FORCE to pay for the treatment.

Where you get lost is that substance abuse leads to a pre-existing condition. An example would be a person whom as a teenager got a first job but did not wish to pay for insurance at the job. This teen also started smoking and continue for many years. Many people think they are invincible. Then when he does decide to get himself covered by insurance, it is discovered that he has lung disease. When he is applying for insurance, the company knows about this and does not have to accept him. This is legal and not the responsibility of the company.

I'm not saying that the Insurance Industry does not need regulations, it does. However, it is totally wrong for the government to control the Insurance Industry in a way of making us responsible for the irresponsible.

I'm on your side, Foxrac, where it come to the responsible innocence person. I just ask that you too put the blame and cost of irresponsible living on those people and not us.

We are all FORCED to pay treatment for uninsured patients FOR MANY YEARS, that how insurance works so it has nothing with Obamacare.

For second paragraph, I got your word but... if insurance doesn't cover so we still to pay treatment for drugger - that how drove medical cost up.

Do you want complete ban on ALL recreational drugs? I don't think ban will works.

Without any regulation, insurance companies are free to abuse on patients whatever they want.

Please don't complain at me if insurance deny to cover treatment for your diabetes due to pre-existing condition because you don't want regulation.

**TXgolfer** · 06-14-2012, 02:54 PM

Hello, AllState? Yes I just got into an accident and would like to buy a policy and file a claim please....

**Foxrac** · 06-14-2012, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Hello, AllState? Yes I just got into an accident and would like to buy a policy and file a claim please....

Wow, that's great sense of humor.

**Foxrac** · 06-19-2012, 01:15 AM

Alec MacGillis: 'What New Law?' | The New Republic

**Jiro** · 06-25-2012, 10:23 AM

Why Republicans Oppose the Individual Health-Care Mandate : The New Yorker

Quote:

On March 23, 2010, the day that President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, fourteen state attorneys general filed suit against the law’s requirement that most Americans purchase health insurance, on the ground that it was unconstitutional. It was hard to find a law professor in the country who took them seriously. “The argument about constitutionality is, if not frivolous, close to it,” Sanford Levinson, a University of Texas law-school professor, told the McClatchy newspapers. Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California at Irvine, told the Times, “There is no case law, post 1937, that would support an individual’s right not to buy health care if the government wants to mandate it.” Orin Kerr, a George Washington University professor who had clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy, said, “There is a less than one-per-cent chance that the courts will invalidate the individual mandate.” Today, as the Supreme Court prepares to hand down its decision on the law, Kerr puts the chance that it will overturn the mandate—almost certainly on a party-line vote—at closer to “fifty-fifty.” The Republicans have made the individual mandate the element most likely to undo the President’s health-care law. The irony is that the Democrats adopted it in the first place because they thought that it would help them secure conservative support. It had, after all, been at the heart of Republican health-care reforms for two decades.

The mandate made its political début in a 1989 Heritage Foundation brief titled “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,” as a counterpoint to the single-payer system and the employer mandate, which were favored in Democratic circles. In the brief, Stuart Butler, the foundation’s health-care expert, argued, “Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat-belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement.” The mandate made its first legislative appearance in 1993, in the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act—the Republicans’ alternative to President Clinton’s health-reform bill—which was sponsored by John Chafee, of Rhode Island, and co-sponsored by eighteen Republicans, including Bob Dole, who was then the Senate Minority Leader.

After the Clinton bill, which called for an employer mandate, failed, Democrats came to recognize the opportunity that the Chafee bill had presented. In “The System,” David Broder and Haynes Johnson’s history of the health-care wars of the nineties, Bill Clinton concedes that it was the best chance he had of reaching a bipartisan compromise. “It should have been right then, or the day after they presented their bill, where I should have tried to have a direct understanding with Dole,” he said.

Ten years later, Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, began picking his way back through the history—he read “The System” four times—and he, too, came to focus on the Chafee bill. He began building a proposal around the individual mandate, and tested it out on both Democrats and Republicans. “Between 2004 and 2008, I saw over eighty members of the Senate, and there were very few who objected,” Wyden says. In December, 2006, he unveiled the Healthy Americans Act. In May, 2007, Bob Bennett, a Utah Republican, who had been a sponsor of the Chafee bill, joined him. Wyden-Bennett was eventually co-sponsored by eleven Republicans and nine Democrats, receiving more bipartisan support than any universal health-care proposal in the history of the Senate. It even caught the eye of the Republican Presidential aspirants. In a June, 2009, interview on “Meet the Press,” Mitt Romney, who, as governor of Massachusetts, had signed a universal health-care bill with an individual mandate, said that Wyden-Bennett was a plan “that a number of Republicans think is a very good health-care plan—one that we support.”

Wyden’s bill was part of a broader trend of Democrats endorsing the individual mandate in their own proposals. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton both built a mandate into their campaign health-care proposals. In 2008, Senator Ted Kennedy brought John McDonough, a liberal advocate of the Massachusetts plan, to Washington to help with health-care reform. That same year, Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, included an individual mandate in the first draft of his health-care bill. The main Democratic holdout was Senator Barack Obama. But by July, 2009, President Obama had changed his mind. “I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was the reason people don’t have health insurance is not because they don’t want it. It’s because they can’t afford it,” he told CBS News. “I am now in favor of some sort of individual mandate.”

This process led, eventually, to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—better known as Obamacare—which also included an individual mandate. But, as that bill came closer to passing, Republicans began coalescing around the mandate, which polling showed to be one of the legislation’s least popular elements. In December, 2009, in a vote on the bill, every Senate Republican voted to call the individual mandate “unconstitutional.”

This shift—Democrats lining up behind the Republican-crafted mandate, and Republicans declaring it not just inappropriate policy but contrary to the wishes of the Founders—shocked Wyden. “I would characterize the Washington, D.C., relationship with the individual mandate as truly schizophrenic,” he said.

**Jiro** · 06-25-2012, 10:26 AM

**TXgolfer** · 06-25-2012, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Why Republicans Oppose the Individual Health-Care Mandate : The New Yorker

After further review..... *shrug*

06-14-2012, 12:32 AM	#308 (permalink)
Foxrac Need Stormtroopers? Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Zaphias Posts: 32,472	Mitt Romney's Health Care Plan Would Not Prohibit Discrimination Based On Pre-Existing Conditions Oh wow, that why I refused to vote Romney. __________________ In Moto We Trust

06-14-2012, 02:54 PM	#317 (permalink)
TXgolfer Dream Weaver Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Everywhere Posts: 17,605	Hello, AllState? Yes I just got into an accident and would like to buy a policy and file a claim please.... rockin'robin likes this. __________________ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. - Romans 12:21 Sometimes at night, I see their faces. I feel the traces they've left on my soul

06-19-2012, 01:15 AM	#319 (permalink)
Foxrac Need Stormtroopers? Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Zaphias Posts: 32,472	Alec MacGillis: 'What New Law?' \| The New Republic __________________ In Moto We Trust

06-25-2012, 10:26 AM	#321 (permalink)
Jiro Aparecium Deletrius Legil Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Soprano State Posts: 60,502	__________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

06-14-2012, 01:43 PM	#313 (permalink)
rolling7 Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,340	Now you are really not thinking clear Foxrac. More harm has come to folks because of substance abuse than any other reason. I do know about those who change jobs and I do agree 100% that since they were covered at the first job they should have coverage at the second job. That is fair. Nevertheless, you have to admit there are many, many folks walking around uninsured. And these are the ones Obama wants us whom are managing our life correctly to pay the consequences for those not doing their part by carrying insurance for themself.