Can ‘Texas v. United States’ Set Us Free From Obamacare?

[LauraTXNM]

Granted the cost of medical treatment is sky rocketing, but we need more organizations like we have around where I live. They serve the working uninsured and under insured. It is a Christian, strictly non-profit medical facility that gives basic medical needs, physicals, gynecological exams, acute illness care, addiction services, mental health counseling, minor procedures etc., for a very, very low cost.  It is staffed primarily with ARNP's, medical assistants. 

This sounds fantastic!  Are they affiliated with a particular church or organization?  Do they help with obtaining medical equipment like portable oxygen and diabetes testing supplies?  That is something I realized is a huge issue with people who are underinsured.

Secondly, we need to STOP treating and giving healthcare to illegals. IF one is NOT a citizen of the United States and has no way to pay for services then they should be turned away.  I know that sounds callus, but having worked in a hospital, I saw too many 'patients' with a Mexican matricula consular card receive FREE medical for minor cuts to broken limbs, medical tests such as colonoscopies, xrays, MRI's, and various different surgeries.  Not to mention free prenatal care and labor and delivery. Yes, these services were all provided by the hospital completely free of charge. Some would have the audacity to complain and for most we would have to call in a translator as they couldn't speak English! I would venture to say that the vast majority of them never contributed dime one to our healthcare system.

I get this, but do you think hospital medical personnel will ever really accept turning away seriously injured or sick people?

[LauraTXNM]

I have no idea of what you are talking about.

Are you attempting to say that insurance should cover pre-existing conditions?

If so, then you are totally blank on what insurance is.

@Suppressed's original comment was: "Even if it's struck down, the question remains, how do we address the problems that ObamaCare was meant to address?  E.g., emergency Rooms flooded with uninsured, causing mandated, uncompensated burdens on hospitals.".

I added to that, the additional issue of people who are hard to insure because they have pre-existing often chronic illnesses.  I don't think proving insurance was implicit in either of those categories.  But the problems of providing healthcare for these groups remains.  These issues aren't going away and are increasing daily, especially as the population ages.

[DB]

The cost of dealing with illegals that seek out healthcare here should be billed to the country they came from if they are not able to pay themselves. And if those countries refuse to pay, the entry of any of its citizens into this country should be refused until it is paid. In addition, any illegal seeking healthcare here after being stabilized should be promptly deported back to wherever they came from.

[DB]

@Suppressed's original comment was: "Even if it's struck down, the question remains, how do we address the problems that ObamaCare was meant to address?  E.g., emergency Rooms flooded with uninsured, causing mandated, uncompensated burdens on hospitals.".

I added to that, the additional issue of people who are hard to insure because they have pre-existing often chronic illnesses.  I don't think proving insurance was implicit in either of those categories.  But the problems of providing healthcare for these groups remains.  These issues aren't going away and are increasing daily, especially as the population ages.

Insurance is based on risk assessment. Covering preexisting conditions negates that and is no longer insurance.

[Stevensr123]

Insurance is based on risk assessment. Covering preexisting conditions negates that and is no longer insurance.

All well and good stating the definition of insurance, but doesn't really address what he said does it?

[Sanguine]

All well and good stating the definition of insurance, but doesn't really address what he said does it?

It really does.  If it covers preexisting conditions it isn't insurance and trying to force it into an insurance-like plan means the plan is going to fail.  As in 0bamacare.

[libertybele]

Insurance is based on risk assessment. Covering preexisting conditions negates that and is no longer insurance.

I disagree. The majority of the population has some sort of pre-existing condition; high blood pressure, high cholesterol, migraines, bladder infections, flu, colds, pneumonia, back pain, pregnancy, neck pain, etc.  So ... should we eliminate covering those ailments for tens of thousands of people?  Wrong.

Health insurance should cover medical conditions period.  That is what health insurance is for; covering health issues.

Insurance premiums maybe more costly for those who are considered higher risk, but to eliminate coverage is wrong; otherwise, perhaps we shouldn't pay our premiums unless we actually use the coverage.  IOW, if I haven't been to the doctor in a year, should I see a return of my premium or have it applied to the following year?  No different really than car insurance; you get in accidents, or get tickets your rates may go up.  If you have a heart attack or have high blood pressure; your rates may go up.  But to eliminate providing insurance because someones was/is ill, is ridiculous.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Health insurance should cover medical conditions period.  That is what health insurance is for; covering health issues.

Insurance premiums maybe more costly for those who are considered higher risk, but to eliminate coverage is wrong; otherwise, perhaps we shouldn't pay our premiums unless we actually use the coverage.  IOW, if I haven't been to the doctor in a year, should I see a return of my premium or have it applied to the following year?  No different really than car insurance; you get in accidents, or get tickets your rates may go up.  If you have a heart attack or have high blood pressure; your rates may go up.  But to eliminate providing insurance because someones was/is ill, is ridiculous.

What would you do about someone who doesn't have insurance, becomes seriously ill, and only then decides to sign up for insurance?  In such a case, unless you charged premiums equal to the cost of their care, they'd be a net drain on other policyholders, who would then have to pay more.  And then if more and more people decided to do that -- paying smaller bills out of their own pocket, and signing up for insurance only when they needed expensive care -- the insurance company would collapse, and everyone then loses.

[bilo]

Except, the SCOTUS ruling in the past is why we have Bammycare.  Chief Justice John Roberts, whom everyone though was conservative, ruled in favor.

You're right. These type of "imperial" decisions are why I don't buy into the scare tactic of "vote for the Pubs to save the SCOTUS". Usually, we can't count on conservative judges.

I know it doesn't get a lot of play in the media, but I'm sure I'm not alone in my indifference for the Pub party after hearing for 7 years "we will repeal obamacare" and when the time came they didn't. Even the current elimination of the mandate penalty is not permanent. I could reconcile this epic failure by the Pubs if there were at least penalties, such as lost chairmanships, for those that lied on the campaign trail but the Pubs didn't even do that.

[bilo]

@Suppressed's original comment was: "Even if it's struck down, the question remains, how do we address the problems that ObamaCare was meant to address?  E.g., emergency Rooms flooded with uninsured, causing mandated, uncompensated burdens on hospitals.".

I added to that, the additional issue of people who are hard to insure because they have pre-existing often chronic illnesses.  I don't think proving insurance was implicit in either of those categories.  But the problems of providing healthcare for these groups remains.  These issues aren't going away and are increasing daily, especially as the population ages.

States use to have high risk pools for these individuals. Also, Medicaid covers the poor and county hospitals provide care to the indigent.

Whats happened is people have bought into the idea that someone else should pay for services they want and that the govt has the right to insist someone provide a service without compensation. Private hospitals should not be required to treat people for free. The people working there have invested great sums of money and time to develop their skills and they should be able to charge what they want.

It is a myth that a large portion of the population was not getting health care. The Rats created an emotional strawman in order to give away "free" health care to their core constituencies. People thought "great, I'm going to get the same health care as the rich guy and not have to pay anything". It sure didn't work out that way.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Insurance is based on risk assessment. Covering preexisting conditions negates that and is no longer insurance.

Exactly.

Handling insurance and handling medical needs are two vastly different topics.