Is Healthcare a "right" and should it have limits on how much is consumed and by whom?

[Shad]

Entire ACA is unconstitutional, Justice Department says, agreeing with Texas court ruling

Entire ACA is unconstitutional, Justice Department says, agreeing with Texas court ruling​

Published: Mar 25, 2019 10:25 p.m. ET

The U.S. Justice Department said in a legal filing Monday that it agrees with a Texas district court's ruling that the Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obamacare," is unconstitutional, throwing the future of the health-care law in doubt. "The Department of Justice has determined that the district court's judgment should be affirmed," the DOJ said in a filing to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The Texas ruling last December said the law's individual mandate was unconstitutional, invalidating the entire ACA. The Justice Department had previously argued to keep the law mostly intact, but that the law's protection of pre-existing conditions needed to be struck down. The filing means the government agrees the entire law should be struck and it will not challenge the ruling in its lengthy appeal process. Health-insurance stocks turned volatile immediately following the original Texas ruling, as it brought uncertainty over future health-insurance costs. Experts said in December that the case may reach the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020.


Ya better stay healthy!

Was this post a response to my post requesting your referenced legislation?

 

[ecco]

Was this post a response to my post requesting your referenced legislation?

No. It was something that came up on the news this morning that pertained to the subject matter of the OP.


If you posted requesting some referenced legislation, I must have missed it. Perhaps you could specify what you are referring to.

 

[Shad]

No. It was something that came up on the news this morning that pertained to the subject matter of the OP.

Okay. Thanks.

If you posted requesting some referenced legislation, I must have missed it. Perhaps you could specify what you are referring to.

The last point in post 155

 

[pearl]

No. It was something that came up on the news this morning that pertained to the subject matter of the OP.

What I heard on the morning news was the renewed attempt to completely erase the Affordable Care Act, including protection for previous conditions. Another win for the insurance companies and their shareholders.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Off topic, but...
Unless your Jewish scripture is completely different from the Christian version...
If God wanted humans to have shared traits like "sentience, intelligence, the knowledge of right and wrong, " why did He punish A&E for pursuing knowledge of good and evil?

They weren't punished for pursuing the knowledge, but for disobedience. IMHO, it was always the plan that they come to moral sentience, but it happened to soon, or in a way that it wasn't meant to happen. Imagine a world where we didn't know right from wrong. What I am describing is a world full of psychopaths. I don't think that is what God had in mind.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Where do poor get land? They don't

And that's another problem. But one thing at a time.

In the US, land is not necessary for a good life. But there are places where it is. In Mexico, owning land is important for farming, the mainstay for the subsistence living of the Indians down there. The Spanish confiscated the land of the Indians, concentrating the wealth in the hands of a few, and leaving the Indians in a state of poverty. During the Mexican war for Independence, the Zapatistas were promised land redistribution, but it never happened. In the late 20th century, the Zapatistas rebelled again for land redistribution under Subcomandante Marcos, but again it came to nothing. The problem of the poverty of the indigenous people of Mexico will never end until land redistribution occurs.

 

[ManSinha]

What I heard on the morning news was the renewed attempt to completely erase the Affordable Care Act, including protection for previous conditions. Another win for the insurance companies and their shareholders.

Attempt is not a win - not yet anyways

 

[Milton Platt]

The debate over the provision of healthcare in the US has raged for years and seems to be ramping up. I have had a very narrow view of those who consume it but I am reminded of an incident from my past:

Very unfortunate pregnant young lady with little pre natal care was brought to us in late stages of pregnancy with very very high blood pressures. They delivered the child (since that is the only thing that will allow the patient's pressure to be controlled effectively) but she had a major brain bleed and became a person who exists rather than lives.

No brain activity after several days and the family agonized about what to do. The father wanted the plug pulled and the husband did not. Finally he asked for their pastor. I requested to sit in the conversation as a mute observer. I shall take with me to my grave what the pastor kindly said to the husband: "If God wanted us to live on a breathing machine; He would have sent us all with one. The soul has left; the person you knew as your wife is no longer; it is time to let the body go"

On the flip side I see families of people who have very advanced diseases sometimes like dementia, demand that everything be done to keep them going. What are various religious view points if any?

For my own - if I am not mentating (meaning my brain is irreparably damaged), I am happy to be let go.

Healthcare is always "limited" in it's dispensation in one way or another, whether because of cost, or availability in a given area, etc. It is not a right. Rights are things granted by governments. In the U.S.A. at least, the government does not guarantee healthcare. People who believe that unlimited funds should be expended on a given person's healthcare only believe that if it is some body else's money being spent.

 

[pearl]

Attempt is not a win - not yet anyways

But the Republican strategy is different this time around, not voted out by Congress, but deemed illegal through the Federal Courts where Trump has quickly filled federal judgeships by a Congress that would not previously confirm any Obama appointee. So this time its not up for a vote in Congress but struck down by the courts.

 

[ManSinha]

But the Republican strategy is different this time around, not voted out by Congress, but deemed illegal through the Federal Courts where Trump has quickly filled federal judgeships by a Congress that would not previously confirm any Obama appointee. So this time its not up for a vote in Congress but struck down by the courts.

Your points are well taken and I have made reference in my other posts about the tactic of using the ballot box and court systems to enforce religious ideas - but in this case - so many people will be adversely affected that the hue and cry may make those in power pause

In my experience it is difficult to take away something as valuable as healthcare once someone has it

 

[pearl]

In my experience it is difficult to take away something as valuable as healthcare once someone has it

Hope your right. In this reversal the Justice Dept. is simply to decline defending it in court against the lawsuits I guess.

 

[ecco]

Was this post a response to my post requesting your referenced legislation?

This?...

We have people without insurance because our elected officials allow it. These same officials never tell their constituents the truth.

 

[ecco]

What I heard on the morning news was the renewed attempt to completely erase the Affordable Care Act, including protection for previous conditions. Another win for the insurance companies and their shareholders.

The insurance companies have done just fine with ACA.

The only ones benefiting from the repeal of ACA are the hardcore Obama haters.

ACA has not been in the news for years and many "haters" have benefitted from it.

In a way, I hope SCOTUS does strike down ACA. It'll cause (almost) as much havoc as Brexit. The ones most affected will be the "nobody pays attention to us" Trump supporters.

 

[ecco]

ecco:
If God wanted humans to have shared traits like "sentience, intelligence, the knowledge of right and wrong, " why did He punish A&E for pursuing knowledge of good and evil?​

They weren't punished for pursuing the knowledge, but for disobedience. IMHO, it was always the plan that they come to moral sentience, but it happened to soon, or in a way that it wasn't meant to happen. Imagine a world where we didn't know right from wrong. What I am describing is a world full of psychopaths. I don't think that is what God had in mind.

Apologetics at its finest.

Not what God had in mind? Omniscient God put the tree in the Garden knowing that A&E would disobey Him and partake of the knowledge. Somehow, you want to believe God was upset because the timing wasn't right.

Perhaps you think that God wanted to shield them from morals until after all the incest was done with.

 

[ecco]

pcarl said: ↑
What I heard on the morning news was the renewed attempt to completely erase the Affordable Care Act, including protection for previous conditions. Another win for the insurance companies and their shareholders.

Attempt is not a win - not yet anyways

It is now in the hands of a Republican packed SCOTUS.

 

[ecco]

Healthcare is always "limited" in it's dispensation in one way or another, whether because of cost, or availability in a given area, etc. It is not a right. Rights are things granted by governments. In the U.S.A. at least, the government does not guarantee healthcare. People who believe that unlimited funds should be expended on a given person's healthcare only believe that if it is some body else's money being spent.

It's sad that you do not understand the difference between providing good health services to all citizens and expending "unlimited funds ... on a given person's healthcare".

 

[ecco]

Your points are well taken and I have made reference in my other posts about the tactic of using the ballot box and court systems to enforce religious ideas - but in this case - so many people will be adversely affected that the hue and cry may make those in power pause

In my experience it is difficult to take away something as valuable as healthcare once someone has it

One reason the Republican Congress blocked an Obama Justice was the hope that a Republican president could make the appointments. Trump has now made two.

The Supreme Court could care less about hue and cry.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would think eating would be more of a "right" than health care. Maybe we should force the farmers to put food on our tables for free.

That is what food stamps and the like are for. it has never been a Farmers problem anywhere.
What ever society provides. Suppliers still get paid for what the do.

Most National health care systems are open ended as to individual cost limits.
and have standardised contribution systems. that are not linked to individual treatment costs.

In the USA it is the various insurance companies that set limits to their treatments.

 

[BSM1]

That is what food stamps and the like are for. it has never been a Farmers problem anywhere.
What ever society provides. Suppliers still get paid for what the do.

Most National health care systems are open ended as to individual cost limits.
and have standardised contribution systems. that are not linked to individual treatment costs.

In the USA it is the various insurance companies that set limits to their treatments.

Yeah, and those that work pay for the food stamps of those that don't, even when they can. Why isn't it my right to keep the money I earn?

 

[Shad]

This?...

Okay. Sorry I was expecting something about legislation