Key liberal congressman flips to 'yes' on health care vote

Status
Not open for further replies.
In fact, everybody at my office celebrate employees' birthdays with 29 candles on one cake for all one time each month. We have a fire code to adhere to.
 
Reba said:
Try this one:

State Legislation Opposing Certain Health Reforms, 2010
Click to expand...

It is very rich information so thank you for sharing.

I'm not surprised about mandatory insurance coverage may violate constitution and will going find out from supreme court.

Any workplaces don't offers private insurance if employees make high pay to be ineligible for Medicaid so no way to across to health care but emergency room.
 
kokonut said:
In fact, everybody at my office celebrate employees' birthdays with 29 candles on one cake for all one time each month. We have a fire code to adhere to.
Click to expand...

You seems 30's to 40's to me.
 
TXgolfer said:
But would be covered for someone with a medical trust. Hence,mandatory health insurance is not fair for all.

But again it will most likely not happen and if it does it will be many years from now. Heck the world is supposed to end 2 years before this plan is scheduled to take affect.

If the mandate ever became law and the SC upheld it, that may just start the next civil war. Too many states are dead set against it. It will be interesting for sure.
Click to expand...

So....you are saying that those that cannot afford health insurance coverage, or those that have been dropped after becoming ill, will be able to afford a trust and put away a million dollars prior to needing coverage?
 
Foxrac said:
$1 million cap won't enough for some patients that have many surgeries because some patients are unlucky due many health problem.
Click to expand...

That's true. And most will never meet that cap due to pre-existing condition clauses. The insurance company will either deny the claim, or drop them from the policy.
 
darkdog said:
I think we can look at the unconstitutionality of the health care mandate in two ways. One is the fact that it's not an enumerated power in the Constitution (and no, the "general welfare" clause doesn't count if you know your history). The second is from the due process angle- if I have to pay a fee for the crime of not having sufficient health insurance, according to the 5th amendment, I should get my day in court to defend myself against that charge. If I choose not to pay, I will still get my day in court, but it will be to defend myself not for not paying the fee for having insufficient insurance. If we're going to do that, we need to amend the Constitution.

By the way, everyone's talking about how this is going to lead to greater access. While we're creating a bunch of new demand, who's going to create the extra nurses and doctors to fill this new demand? Does this bill do anything to incentivize people to go into medicine as opposed to a more hassle-free field?
Click to expand...

Greater access in that the indigent patient will no longer be turned away from treatment.
 
jillio said:
So....you are saying that those that cannot afford health insurance coverage, or those that have been dropped after becoming ill, will be able to afford a trust and put away a million dollars prior to needing coverage?
Click to expand...

Of course not. What I am saying is a mandate is not fair to everyone. We wouldn't assume every person with depression was the same and could be treated with the same treatment. We shouldn't consider every person without health insurance to be the same either. There are other ways as I have mentioned in this thread and others, to bring down health care costs. Mandatory health insurance is not fair to everyone and it just may be unconstitutional.
 
TXgolfer said:
Of course not. What I am saying is a mandate is not fair to everyone. We wouldn't assume every person with depression was the same and could be treated with the same treatment. We shouldn't consider every person without health insurance to be the same either. There are other ways as I have mentioned in this thread and others, to bring down health care costs. Mandatory health insurance is not fair to everyone and it just may be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Inability to access health care services because one is not insured is not fair to everyone. Of the two, mandatory insurance is the most fair of those choices. It is not a matter of determining treatment, as with depression as you mentioned. It is a matter of having the insurance necessary to seek that treatment so that the treatment options can then be applied to individual circumstance.
 
TXgolfer said:
Of course not. What I am saying is a mandate is not fair to everyone. We wouldn't assume every person with depression was the same and could be treated with the same treatment. We shouldn't consider every person without health insurance to be the same either. There are other ways as I have mentioned in this thread and others, to bring down health care costs. Mandatory health insurance is not fair to everyone and it just may be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

What about exemption for anyone who have medical trust fund from mandatory insurance coverage and prove that they are enough responsible to pay medical bills.

I won't say that you are irresponsible about situation with medical care so some other people are, beside of anyone couldn't afford to purchase a insurance plan.

Currently health insurance in US has a lot of holes due pre-existing condition, denying you from coverage due too many health problem and not paying on some treatment that require operation aka non-elective so reform is needed.
 
We will have to wait and see what the SC says I guess.

There are ways to lessen the costs of health insurance and health care for those who need it without infringing upon the rights of those that choose other options.
 
jillio said:
Inability to access health care services because one is not insured is not fair to everyone. Of the two, mandatory insurance is the most fair of those choices. It is not a matter of determining treatment, as with depression as you mentioned. It is a matter of having the insurance necessary to seek that treatment so that the treatment options can then be applied to individual circumstance.
Click to expand...

I believe that mandatory insurance coverage is pointless without public options, that why I'm upset at senates, especially conservative democrat won't back it.
 
TXgolfer said:
We will have to wait and see what the SC says I guess.

There are ways to lessen the costs of health insurance and health care for those who need it without infringing upon the rights of those that choose other options.
Click to expand...

If supreme court see mandatory insurance coverage as unconstitional so I hopefully they will strike some section of health care bill as leave ban on pre-existing condition and denying from coverage for any reason, except for fraud as enforced.
 
Foxrac said:
What about exemption for anyone who have medical trust fund from mandatory insurance coverage and prove that they are enough responsible to pay medical bills.

I won't say that you are irresponsible about situation with medical care so some other people are, beside of anyone couldn't afford to purchase a insurance plan.

Currently health insurance in US has a lot of holes due pre-existing condition, denying you from coverage due too many health problem and not paying on some treatment that require operation aka non-elective so reform is needed.
Click to expand...

What about Religious people who choose not to go to Dr's?

I would prefer a plan that brings down costs for everyone to a plan that mandates for all and provides for a few.
 
TXgolfer said:
We will have to wait and see what the SC says I guess.

There are ways to lessen the costs of health insurance and health care for those who need it without infringing upon the rights of those that choose other options.
Click to expand...

Could you detail some of those ways, please? If you have posted them prior, I must have missed them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top