Do you think the government should take care of people with "pre-existing medical conditions?


Who would want to pay more in taxes? The government already takes almost half of my income. Isn’t that enough? Anyone who thinks government is so great can give them money like they give to any other institution. Funny though most people never voluntarily contribute to the government.

I know I don’t have the healthcare I need. I mean I have to pay for insurance and even with insurance will have to pay money if I use a doctor. I can probably afford to pay for what healthcare I’ll need. But I also save my money and don’t spend it on a big house, a fancy car, clothes, jewelry or expensive vacations.


Given the seemingly rapid developments in medical diagnostics and treatment, I don’t know how one could keep up with it very well. Not long ago I talked to a lady who has non-small-cell lung cancer. She was doing well, she said, taking a new medication one sometimes sees advertised on TV. The cost of it and another medication she was taking with it was about $40,000 per month. Someday it won’t cost that, but it does now. It’s a new form of treatment.

Do things like that get included?


This and Ridgerunner’s comments are valid points. Obviously cost-effectiveness must be taken into account. If it takes a billion dollars a day to keep one person alive, no one today would think that was an appropriate level of care. So let’s get down to some cases. I think, for example, that dialysis ought to be covered. I think that current-technology radiation and chemotherapy for cancer ought to be covered. I think that emergency services for stroke and heart attack ought to be covered. I think asthma medication ought to be covered. This is just a start. The full debate would be far beyond the scope of this forum.


Yup, SCOTUS confirmed that the Obama admin lied to the US Public,
that ACA was in fact another whopper of a tax.

The law could both be legal and against the will of the people. It’s why so many Dems lost their seats in the next election.


Can you elaborate on how you think people would be able to make a profit without being “informed”?


Oligopoly beats Monopoly


It’s not the role of government to take care of this. Pre-existing or otherwise. Get government out of health care. It’s the road to bankruptcy.


Was that in the opinion?


I agree. But where’s the monopoly in single-payer health care? Hospitals, doctors, supply companies, drug companies, etc. are almost all private and able to negotiate with the government. If you say it’s not a level playing field, I would refer you to the present situation where it’s you, John Doe, vs. United Health Care. Hardly a fair fight.


I believe this was the position of Ayn Rand, before she decided that Medicare pay for her surgeries.


Are you suggesting that it’s hypocritical to partake from a program that you’re forced to pay into?


(Post withdrawn)


Correct, in opening Oral Arguments, Obama Admin attorney argued to Supreme Court that the ACA mandate was not a tax. The reason they argued this was the “Anti-injunction act” , which prevents the Supreme Court from hearing a case involving a tax until someone actually pays the tax. Nobody had paid the ACA mandate penalty at the time Supreme Court heard the case, so if it was a “tax”, the court couldn’t hear the case.
Hence Obama attorney said in Oral argument that ACA penalty is not a tax (he had to, in order for the case to even be decided). Anyone can youtube search the oral arguments and listen to it.


(a) Oral arguments aren’t the opinion of the Supreme Court. They’re legal arguments made before the Supreme Court, in hopes of swaying the Court. But they’re not particularly relevant to anything – only the opinion issue by the Court matters.

(b) That doesn’t add up to the Supreme Court confirming that the Obama administration lied.


The costs can often extend beyond any one person’s ability to pay. Additionally, if the child had a congenital condition, he or she may never qualify for health insurance because a preexisting condition was created at birth.


I’ve never said we lived in a perfect world.


Don’t think anyone is claiming we do. But we have an obligation to take care of the poor and sick.


You’ve misread the post above. He never said SC issued an opinion saying “Obama admin lied.” He said SC confirmed that Obama admin lied. There is a huge difference.


That’s true.

And, of course, there’s a huge difference between saying that “the Supreme Court confirmed that Obama lied,” and “in my opinion, something said in the oral arguments before the Supreme Court confirmed my belief that Obama lied” (notwithstanding that anything said in oral argument is not said by the Supreme Court, but by lawyers appearing before that Court, and in no way reflects the opinion of the Court).


Not an opinion. Its not either
(A) they issued official opinion “Obama admin lied”, or
(B) its an opinion that they lied

They said it was not a tax during argument. They said it was a tax after argument. That’s a lie. If it’s not, then nothing is. You don’t need a Governmental Body to tell you when someone has lied.

False, the Judges speak during Oral arguments and they constitute the Court.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit