HOUSTON The heat of a Houston summer afternoon is nothing compared to the white-hot debate about health care, especially President Barack Obama s healthcare law.

It is polarizing for sure. Even the most stalwart individuals for and against it end up differing on individual parts of the law. For example, we asked Houstonians about the extension of health care benefits to children to age 25.

To still be under my mother s insurance would be better because I would be covered by more things, said college student Amanda Roper who supports the Obama health-care law.

It is a great idea, is what you hear when you ask John Horan about the extension, but when you ask him about the plan as a whole it s another story.

Oh I am against Obamacare. I think that the government has no purpose in providing health care or mandating health care, he said.

That s the difficulty for the Supreme Court.

It is potentially deciding the constitutionality of the whole and its parts.

Another controversial part of the plan is insuring coverage for pre-existing conditions.

It is a great idea in theory, but it is probably not possible, at least without the Obama plan said Roper.

Elliot Stern, another opponent of the Obama plan, agreed, but with a caveat.

It is a nice concept (but) insurance is all about managing risk and pre-existing conditions are a risk factor, Stern said.

It s hard to gauge what people really want, especially if you ask them if they should pay for somebody else s visit to the ER, which is exactly what happens if there is no mandate for people to buy their own insurance.

It depends on why they are going to the ER. If it is to fix a hangnail at 2 a.m. then no, but for a heart attack maybe, said Stern.

Roper said she supports the mandate.

In reality nobody wants to pay for somebody else s trip to the emergency room when they know it could be their own situation at any time, she said.

It s all ultimately to be decided only by the nine members of the Supreme Court.

Read or Share this story: