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


The justices ask questions during oral arguments. Those questions, and their answers, are not part of the opinion of the Court and are not binding on lower courts.


Your contention is “anything said in oral arguments…in no way reflects the opinion of the Court” which is false since frequently Judges alter their opinion based on Q&A, hence it does “in some way reflect” the opinion of the Court.


We could do this all night, but I don’t want to.

Look, my point is that the only thing that matters is the written opinion of the Court. Of course it’s true that the justices (well, most of them – Justice Thomas is famous for almost never asking questions) ask questions of counsel in order to form their opinion.

I disagree with you about what the Court confirmed, or didn’t confirm, or if utterances of counsel are indicative of anything besides advocacy of a certain position.

Let’s just leave it at that.


Even the written opinion confirmed Obama admin argued ACA wasn’t a tax (in discussing initial phase of the case) so even if we only look at written opinion, the poster above is still correct.


As I said above, I’m going to leave this where it is. I don’t think we’re going to come to a resolution that’s satisfactory to both of us.


Not necessarily. Her capitalism may work on Gilligan’s Island but we are not that ideal.


@DarkLight Yes, I know what you mean. I have a friend with diabetes. Even though she is employed and has insurance, she still can’t afford all the meds she needs. So she stretches out her supply by taking less than the prescribed dose. It’s tough for a lot of people.

@DENNYINMI Wow. You have quite a sense of humor! :wink:


@DarkLight fwiw some of the countries in Europe with universal healthcare don’t turn people away that are from outside the EU. It depends on the treatment/surgery the person is procuring, but I heard in the news about tons of cases where someone from outside the EU flies in and gets relatively complex surgery for less than 500€ - even 20€ if it’s an emergency.

How that works? I don’t know, it’s probably the 20%-25% we pay on our consumption (gas, alcohol and tobacco is over 50% VAT). Fact is, I never heard of cases being turned away. Since they have the infrastructure set up and the professionals get payed all the same it’s just another person getting treatment. Also, it helps salaries here are lower. It’s common for folks from Africa that can’t get treatment in their countries to get it in Europe, as long as they can afford the voyage treatment is free for humanitarian reason - and let me tell you lady, I never heard a single person here saying they are against it.


We TRIED for choice. But when Obama proposed a public option - option means choice, remember - conservatives and insurance corporations reached for their smelling salts . . . And then that choice got snatched away from Americans.


I wonder how many billions they poured into shaping public opinion and lobbies to influence that outcome.


The problem I have with government running things like that is their high incompetency. A strong military, yes only because there is no other option. A healthcare system, forget it. Leave it to the states.

If I thought for one minute that one dollar of my taxes would translate to even 80 cents worth of ACTUAL health care for an unfortunate person then perhaps someone could sell me on the deal. I know intimately how federal government programs work, and the overhead is unreal. Top that with the time it takes to make changes to inefficiency in the dinosaur system and it’s ridiculous. My two cents, God bless


That was completely uncalled for. And not in accordance with the rules of this forum.

The administration made a legal argument before the Supreme Court. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the ACA, on different grounds.

A legal argument that is not accepted by a court is not a lie.


You can’t limit their statements just to a court filing, so you can claim you are right.

The admin clearly and repeatedly said it wasn’t a tax


There are fat cats in the insurance and drug companies getting rich off of people’s pain and suffering. Not right. It’s a for profit system that encourages insurance companies to deny claims.


And the court differed, and that’s that. If this is included in your definition of “lie,” so be it. Of course, you’ll hold President Trump and his administration to the same standard.


God Bless you as well. The stalemate I have with persons that believe as you do is that I don’t see that much overhead reduction in privately sponsored insurance either. Actually, in most cases while taking a glance at the salaries of most health care corp. CEO’s , I’d say 10 million dollars annually with bonuses to boot from premiums is troublesome. Then the gall to actually deny persons with extensive medical conditions (i.e. people that need it most) is sinful.

I’d rather take my chances with the government. At least I know it’s a policy I can use if I’m sick.


I appreciate you sharing your opinion. You don’t have to answer this; but have you ever had government sponsored health insurance?

I have, thus my negative opinion. For the record, I’m not a huge fan of overpaid CEO’s either but that’s the way things roll in this country, so I take the good with the bad.


Right now because of the ACA (Obamacare) that expanded Medicaid millions of the poor do have healthcare, but some Republican states rejected it leaving many of the poor without nothing. Plus, Trump and most in the Republican Congress want to do away with Obamacare and replace it with a lesser plan or nothing at all.


Talked with a 63 year old friend. They are waiting to retire so the gov can pay their healthcare.
Its too expensive to retirement with preexisting conditions


You are misrepresenting the facts. All the states have medicaid so the most vulnerable did have something.

Some states rejected expanding their medicaid coverage to cover more citizens that could be called ‘less vulnerable’. They are poor but above the prior cut off figures for income.

The states rejected this ACA ‘free money’ because it was temporary and the state would need to cover the costs in the future.

The Trump admin doesn’t want to do away with medicaid, don’t confait it with Obamacare.

What’s wrong with states choosing how they plan to spend their tax dollars? It’s mostly a state responsibility and the Feds can’t cover medicaid for all.

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