Are political beliefs equal: Can health care be mandated without imposing involuntary servitude?

[emilynghiem]

The Health Insurance Mandate Is It Involuntary Servitude Marque s Letters
Are insurance mandates a masked form of involuntary servitude?

Can Obama force you to buy health insurance - CSMonitor.com
Can the federal govt make it a crime not to buy insurance?

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1862&context=facpub
Turning Citizens into Subjects: Why the Health Insurance Mandate is Unconstitutional

With francoHFW I ran into this same "clash of beliefs" again:
A. Leftwing views pushing the BELIEF that "health care is a right" to the extreme of
automatically seeing it as an inherent right through govt, and overriding any choices or beliefs otherwise.
B. Rightwing views that medical equipment, resources, materials and services are NOT free but require SOMEONE'S labor (either directly, or paid for using money they earned by their own labor); so that this remains a free choice to voluntarily donate or serve others, but cannot be mandated. So if the left wants this to be free, they can volunteer their own labor and money, but have no right to impose this BELIEF through govt that mandates EVERYONE be forced under a public system when people naturally have free choice to provide health care in other ways as they VOLUNTEER to serve others.

Furthermore, the A group is pushing this belief without any Constitutional Amendment voted on by States or people, whereas the B group believes in Constitutional limits and checks on govt, where an Amendment is required before granting authority to federal govt to manage health care, much less mandate taxes that are going to semi-private insurance instead of paying for public services directly under govt.

So why are the BELIEFS of the A group allowed to dominate the narrative?

Why isn't there equal respect, inclusion, protection and representation of the BELIEFS of the B group?

Are beliefs really equal, or does the govt have the right to impose one belief over another
by vote of Congress or ruling by Courts?

Isn't this in violation of the First or Fourteenth Amendments, or the Civil Rights Act, to
make one creed favored and exempted by govt, while fining and penalizing members of other beliefs?

I am organizing Constitutional arguments about ACA on a forum, along with a petition that ACA is unconstitutional, and needs to be separated by Party, in order to allow equal exercise of beliefs without imposing one over the other through govt.

If you have good links that explain what is wrong with ACA or how to fix it, please post here. Thanks!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Health care isn't being "mandated."

 

[emilynghiem]

Health care isn't being "mandated."

C_Clayton_Jones
Right, it's even WORSE,

Taxpayers are mandated to PURCHASE INSURANCE
which isn't directly paying for health care, but is through PRIVATE profit making companies.

So it's even worse than that!

That's why the Health Care for All lobbies are AGAINST the Insurance mandates creating a middle man for profit.

NOBODY I know is for the ACA mandates unless it is a political move to try to push for something else.
In the meantime, this is unconstitutional by establishing beliefs and discriminating by creed -- exempting people who COMPLY with the belief in govt health care mandates while penalizing people who believe in free choice of paying for health care, but are being fined for their beliefs.

You remind me of when people can't understand how anyone could justify slavery.
Well, it built the economy, which relied on slave labor.

Sounds very much like your mentality here, where the ends justifies the means.
And you somehow override the fact people don't agree to forfeit their labor to pay for mandates they didn't vote on or consent to.

You have the same mindset of people who endorsed slavery as a necessary stage in national development.
To you it is justified to deprive people of liberty; to others it is not. There are better ways to provide
health care WITHOUT mandating insurance on the federal level. If people don't agree, then it's usurping their labor
to pay for services to others they didn't agree to voluntarily. So that's a form of involuntary servitude.

C_Clayton_Jones You have the right to volunteer your own labor, salary and services but not that of other people. This is the same mentality of the rich in power justifying usurping the labor of the poor.

Here it is the political dominant view (of beliefs in health care as a right through govt) usurping the will and labor of
the oppressed view (of free choice in how to provide health care to the masses, such as through FREE spiritual healing instead of FOR PROFIT insurance).

It's still the oppressive class and political belief DOMINATING and censoring the oppressed class with other beliefs.

And last I checked, neither Congress, Government, nor any public institution had the right to abridge or prohibit the free exercise of religion, deprive people of liberty without due process or impose servitude unless as restitution for a crime,
or discriminate on the basis of creed. And here you support federal mandates that fine people for believing in free choice of how to pay for health care other ways besides insurance, such as by reducing costs of crime and disease through Spiritual Healing that is FREE.

You are the reason the liberals comes across as pushing a slavemaster relationship on people who don't know their rights.
Shame on you.

All it would take to make the ACA mandates constitutional is to recognize them as VOLUNTARY to opt into. And then that would be lawful. But mandating them under penalty is not only unconstitutional, but goes against human nature and free will.

Slavery was considered part of property laws until it was established in writing as unconstitutional.
So it was still wrong and caused damage, even when it was endorsed by govt.

Sorry you can't see that same paradigm applies here.
Which explains how perfectly good people like Jefferson could have justified
slavery as a necessary institution at the time. You remind me of that kind of thinking!

 

[francoHFW]

It's not slavery, it's responsibility and an affordable, intelligent health system with transparent competition and preventive medicine to cut costs.

 

[Manonthestreet]

They still can't be honest.

 

[rightwinger]

A national healthcare system is responsible citizenship

 

[Manonthestreet]

Criminal liability is mandate. Try some honesty.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Well, as a guy who is as greedy as anyone else, seems to me that...

... a healthier populace is good economics
... universal preventive & diagnostic services to prevent and/or mitigate long term health issues is good economics
... taking the preposterous health care cost monkey off the backs of American corporations is good economics
... relieving insurers of the massive administration of the more basic forms of care is good economics
... maintaining a competitive and innovative market environment (as we have now with Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage) is good economics

Is anyone going to disagree with the above?

The Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage chassis is already in place and it works.

We currently have six (6) different health care payment systems:

1. Medicare
2. Medicaid
3. VA
   
4. Group Health Insurance
5. Individual Health Insurance
6. Indigent Coverage

Is this not absurd? Really?

A very good system is in place. The ACA was a terribly wasted opportunity by the Democrats, and the GOP refuses to look at what already WORKS.

.

 

[Greenbeard]

With francoHFW I ran into this same "clash of beliefs" again:
A. Leftwing views pushing the BELIEF that "health care is a right" to the extreme of
automatically seeing it as an inherent right through govt, and overriding any choices or beliefs otherwise.
B. Rightwing views that medical equipment, resources, materials and services are NOT free but require SOMEONE'S labor (either directly, or paid for using money they earned by their own labor); so that this remains a free choice to voluntarily donate or serve others, but cannot be mandated. So if the left wants this to be free, they can volunteer their own labor and money, but have no right to impose this BELIEF through govt that mandates EVERYONE be forced under a public system when people naturally have free choice to provide health care in other ways as they VOLUNTEER to serve others.

I've never in my life heard of a health care proposal, no matter how far left, in which providers are not compensated for medical equipment, resources, materials, and services.

The quintessential leftwing health care idea is single payer, in which there's only one insurer. But that entity is still a payer--its purpose and function is to reimburse/pay health care providers for services rendered.

The "health care is a right!" argument is that people are entitled to having some payer (whether it be a single payer or one of many) paying health care providers for the services those people utilize. It's not an argument that we should stop paying doctors and enslave them.

This is such a bizarre and absurd characterization, I'm wondering if perhaps you're joking.

So why are the BELIEFS of the A group allowed to dominate the narrative?

Why isn't there equal respect, inclusion, protection and representation of the BELIEFS of the B group?

Literally trillions of dollars flow to the nation's health care providers each year. How exactly is the argument (which no one is making) that those folks shouldn't be paid "dominating the narrative"?

 

[dblack]

Health care isn't being "mandated."

Indeed it isn't. Payments to health insurance companies are being mandated.

 

[dblack]

.

Well, as a guy who is as greedy as anyone else, seems to me that...

... a healthier populace is good economics
... universal preventive & diagnostic services to prevent and/or mitigate long term health issues is good economics
... taking the preposterous health care cost monkey off the backs of American corporations is good economics
... relieving insurers of the massive administration of the more basic forms of care is good economics
... maintaining a competitive and innovative market environment (as we have now with Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage) is good economics

Is anyone going to disagree with the above?

Not necessarily, but I disagree, vehemently, that good economics should be a primary concern of government. By some accounting, slavery was "good economics". But it was evil and we, eventually, rejected it as such. Good economics should never trump individual freedom.

 

[dblack]

The "health care is a right!" argument is that people are entitled to having some payer (whether it be a single payer or one of many) paying health care providers for the services those people utilize. It's not an argument that we should stop paying doctors and enslave them.

Nope. It's an argument that we should enslave everyone for the privilege of being taken care of.

This is such a bizarre and absurd characterization, I'm wondering if perhaps you're joking.

It's a mis-characterization, on your part. But I don't think you're joking. I think you're lying.

 

[emilynghiem]

With francoHFW I ran into this same "clash of beliefs" again:
A. Leftwing views pushing the BELIEF that "health care is a right" to the extreme of
automatically seeing it as an inherent right through govt, and overriding any choices or beliefs otherwise.
B. Rightwing views that medical equipment, resources, materials and services are NOT free but require SOMEONE'S labor (either directly, or paid for using money they earned by their own labor); so that this remains a free choice to voluntarily donate or serve others, but cannot be mandated. So if the left wants this to be free, they can volunteer their own labor and money, but have no right to impose this BELIEF through govt that mandates EVERYONE be forced under a public system when people naturally have free choice to provide health care in other ways as they VOLUNTEER to serve others.

I've never in my life heard of a health care proposal, no matter how far left, in which providers are not compensated for medical equipment, resources, materials, and services.

The quintessential leftwing health care idea is single payer, in which there's only one insurer. But that entity is still a payer--its purpose and function is to reimburse/pay health care providers for services rendered.

The "health care is a right!" argument is that people are entitled to having some payer (whether it be a single payer or one of many) paying health care providers for the services those people utilize. It's not an argument that we should stop paying doctors and enslave them.

This is such a bizarre and absurd characterization, I'm wondering if perhaps you're joking.

So why are the BELIEFS of the A group allowed to dominate the narrative?

Why isn't there equal respect, inclusion, protection and representation of the BELIEFS of the B group?

Literally trillions of dollars flow to the nation's health care providers each year. How exactly is the argument (which no one is making) that those folks shouldn't be paid "dominating the narrative"?

Hi Greenbeard
1. But the mandates are not requiring that ppl pay their health care costs.
It requires ppl to pay for insurance which is paying private insurance companies.

So this is mandating that ppl deduct 1, 2, 3 % of the income from their labor unless they buy insurance which is not the same as paying for health care. Even the singlepayer advocates I have asked about ACA are against the mandates that are about third party insurance companies getting paid.

Note: if anyone else is as frustrated as I am, I think this is political backlash from the rightwing being in denial about punishing Iraqi citizens when the real culprits were Al Qaeda led, and these are not the same either. Most conservatives I talk with will justify the actions against Iraq as following UN process; but the US is under the Constitution first not the UN, and when I looked up the UN resolution, another step was needed to clarify if war was the agreed response, instead of assuming this was authorized and approved. Leaps were made there, too, but skirted over because enough ppl believed it was called for despite objections that were equally justified. So I think this mess over ACA is going through the same motions but with the left running over the right, claiming it was legitimately voted on by Congress, while the opposition has valid arguments it isnt fully Constitutional -- it follows some parts of the law but violates others, but enough ppl are pushing it just like the Iraq War that was contested even though it passed thru Congress.

B. Also isnt it still taking ppl labor to penalize them a percent off their taxes to pay for the medical services for others.

So even if those medical service providers arent the ones being enslaved, arent the ppl whose income from labor is seized by govt being forced to forfeit that labor.

Its one thing if you agree to pay.
But if you are forced to pay part of your income into a system against your beliefs,
That is taxation without representation or tyranny.

Again this reminds me of ppl who didnt consent to US going to war over a UN resolution yet were burdened with an added 30 trillion in war spending.

C. Also what about doctors who cant afford to operate under the given mandates. Many doctors have closed their offices. So their choices are to quit their business, or to allocate more of their labor or monetary resources due to added administrative or other regulations. so to prevent from being enslaved by more than they can afford to operate, they are forced to quit. Does that count?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Well, as a guy who is as greedy as anyone else, seems to me that...

... a healthier populace is good economics
... universal preventive & diagnostic services to prevent and/or mitigate long term health issues is good economics
... taking the preposterous health care cost monkey off the backs of American corporations is good economics
... relieving insurers of the massive administration of the more basic forms of care is good economics
... maintaining a competitive and innovative market environment (as we have now with Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage) is good economics

Is anyone going to disagree with the above?

Not necessarily, but I disagree, vehemently, that good economics should be a primary concern of government. By some accounting, slavery was "good economics". But it was evil and we, eventually, rejected it as such. Good economics should never trump individual freedom.

There is no country on the planet that has ever provided 100% "individual freedom" to anyone, nor will there be. America has lived, through good times and bad, with laws, rules and expectations.

"We are a nation of laws", the Right is fond of saying, and it can easily be argued that any law restricts freedom to some degree.

The reason people want to be "free", at its very foundation, bottom line, is that they feel it will improve the quality of their lives. My argument is that our quality of life is improved when our economy is better and thriving than when it is worse and hamstrung.

.

 

[G.T.]

I think that every single person uses health care.

It was ruled like a tax in this way, as taxes are justified b.c. everyone benefits from that which they pay for - National Defense, for instance. Police and Fire Rescue, for instance.

Everyone benefits, so everyone (as scaled by the ugly progressive tax system) pays. That is its justification, as with having health insurance, yes insurance, the cost of care for the uninsured was so vast that when the uninsured cant pay, costs plow upward for EVERYone (for care AND insurance).

To me the mandate is justified by this. EVERYone has skin in the game, i.e. WILL use health care. Its as basic as the very right to life, especially at this point in science and history.

Health care is as important if not MORE important than National Defense.


Just because the founders werent bright enough at the time to realize this doesnt mean its unAmerican. We progress. They some of them thought slavery was completely kosher, too. So yea, they missed some shit and were lacking.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Health care isn't being "mandated."

C_Clayton_Jones
Right, it's even WORSE,

Taxpayers are mandated to PURCHASE INSURANCE
which isn't directly paying for health care, but is through PRIVATE profit making companies.

So it's even worse than that!

That's why the Health Care for All lobbies are AGAINST the Insurance mandates creating a middle man for profit.

NOBODY I know is for the ACA mandates unless it is a political move to try to push for something else.
In the meantime, this is unconstitutional by establishing beliefs and discriminating by creed -- exempting people who COMPLY with the belief in govt health care mandates while penalizing people who believe in free choice of paying for health care, but are being fined for their beliefs.

You remind me of when people can't understand how anyone could justify slavery.
Well, it built the economy, which relied on slave labor.

Sounds very much like your mentality here, where the ends justifies the means.
And you somehow override the fact people don't agree to forfeit their labor to pay for mandates they didn't vote on or consent to.

You have the same mindset of people who endorsed slavery as a necessary stage in national development.
To you it is justified to deprive people of liberty; to others it is not. There are better ways to provide
health care WITHOUT mandating insurance on the federal level. If people don't agree, then it's usurping their labor
to pay for services to others they didn't agree to voluntarily. So that's a form of involuntary servitude.

C_Clayton_Jones You have the right to volunteer your own labor, salary and services but not that of other people. This is the same mentality of the rich in power justifying usurping the labor of the poor.

Here it is the political dominant view (of beliefs in health care as a right through govt) usurping the will and labor of
the oppressed view (of free choice in how to provide health care to the masses, such as through FREE spiritual healing instead of FOR PROFIT insurance).

It's still the oppressive class and political belief DOMINATING and censoring the oppressed class with other beliefs.

And last I checked, neither Congress, Government, nor any public institution had the right to abridge or prohibit the free exercise of religion, deprive people of liberty without due process or impose servitude unless as restitution for a crime,
or discriminate on the basis of creed. And here you support federal mandates that fine people for believing in free choice of how to pay for health care other ways besides insurance, such as by reducing costs of crime and disease through Spiritual Healing that is FREE.

You are the reason the liberals comes across as pushing a slavemaster relationship on people who don't know their rights.
Shame on you.

All it would take to make the ACA mandates constitutional is to recognize them as VOLUNTARY to opt into. And then that would be lawful. But mandating them under penalty is not only unconstitutional, but goes against human nature and free will.

Slavery was considered part of property laws until it was established in writing as unconstitutional.
So it was still wrong and caused damage, even when it was endorsed by govt.

Sorry you can't see that same paradigm applies here.
Which explains how perfectly good people like Jefferson could have justified
slavery as a necessary institution at the time. You remind me of that kind of thinking!

You are not required to have health insurance. The healthcare mandate is a healthcare tax that you can exempt yourself from by having health insurance.

Why is that so hard for you people to understand?

 

[dblack]

Health care isn't being "mandated."

C_Clayton_Jones
Right, it's even WORSE,

Taxpayers are mandated to PURCHASE INSURANCE
which isn't directly paying for health care, but is through PRIVATE profit making companies.

So it's even worse than that!

That's why the Health Care for All lobbies are AGAINST the Insurance mandates creating a middle man for profit.

NOBODY I know is for the ACA mandates unless it is a political move to try to push for something else.
In the meantime, this is unconstitutional by establishing beliefs and discriminating by creed -- exempting people who COMPLY with the belief in govt health care mandates while penalizing people who believe in free choice of paying for health care, but are being fined for their beliefs.

You remind me of when people can't understand how anyone could justify slavery.
Well, it built the economy, which relied on slave labor.

Sounds very much like your mentality here, where the ends justifies the means.
And you somehow override the fact people don't agree to forfeit their labor to pay for mandates they didn't vote on or consent to.

You have the same mindset of people who endorsed slavery as a necessary stage in national development.
To you it is justified to deprive people of liberty; to others it is not. There are better ways to provide
health care WITHOUT mandating insurance on the federal level. If people don't agree, then it's usurping their labor
to pay for services to others they didn't agree to voluntarily. So that's a form of involuntary servitude.

C_Clayton_Jones You have the right to volunteer your own labor, salary and services but not that of other people. This is the same mentality of the rich in power justifying usurping the labor of the poor.

Here it is the political dominant view (of beliefs in health care as a right through govt) usurping the will and labor of
the oppressed view (of free choice in how to provide health care to the masses, such as through FREE spiritual healing instead of FOR PROFIT insurance).

It's still the oppressive class and political belief DOMINATING and censoring the oppressed class with other beliefs.

And last I checked, neither Congress, Government, nor any public institution had the right to abridge or prohibit the free exercise of religion, deprive people of liberty without due process or impose servitude unless as restitution for a crime,
or discriminate on the basis of creed. And here you support federal mandates that fine people for believing in free choice of how to pay for health care other ways besides insurance, such as by reducing costs of crime and disease through Spiritual Healing that is FREE.

You are the reason the liberals comes across as pushing a slavemaster relationship on people who don't know their rights.
Shame on you.

All it would take to make the ACA mandates constitutional is to recognize them as VOLUNTARY to opt into. And then that would be lawful. But mandating them under penalty is not only unconstitutional, but goes against human nature and free will.

Slavery was considered part of property laws until it was established in writing as unconstitutional.
So it was still wrong and caused damage, even when it was endorsed by govt.

Sorry you can't see that same paradigm applies here.
Which explains how perfectly good people like Jefferson could have justified
slavery as a necessary institution at the time. You remind me of that kind of thinking!

You are not required to have health insurance. The healthcare mandate is a healthcare tax that you can exempt yourself from by having health insurance.

Why is that so hard for you people to understand?

Because it's doublespeak.

 

[dblack]

The reason people want to be "free", at its very foundation, bottom line, is that they feel it will improve the quality of their lives.

It's more subtle than that. People don't want freedom because it will necessarily improve the quality of their lives. Sometimes it does the opposite. They want freedom because we all have different notions of quality.

My argument is that our quality of life is improved when our economy is better and thriving than when it is worse and hamstrung.

You should be free to work toward that goal. My complaint is only with the practice of using government to force others to help you.

 

[Greenbeard]

1. But the mandates are not requiring that ppl pay their health care costs.
It requires ppl to pay for insurance which is paying private insurance companies.

Doctors get paid for the work they do. Period. Nobody is asking them to offer their labor for free. Certainly not under the way things work now, nor under any idea I've ever heard proposed.

B. Also isnt it still taking ppl labor to penalize them a percent off their taxes to pay for the medical services for others.

So even if those medical service providers arent the ones being enslaved, arent the ppl whose income from labor is seized by govt being forced to forfeit that labor.

First the doctors are enslaved because they're going to stop getting paid, now everyone but the doctors is enslaved because somebody has to pay those doctors?

Are we at least agreed at this point that nobody wants medical professionals to work without compensation?

C. Also what about doctors who cant afford to operate under the given mandates. Many doctors have closed their offices. So their choices are to quit their business, or to allocate more of their labor or monetary resources due to added administrative or other regulations. so to prevent from being enslaved by more than they can afford to operate, they are forced to quit. Does that count?

What regulations are you talking about? Someone practicing medicine being required to possess a medical license? I'm pretty sure we require them to go to medical school, too, before we let them practice medicine. Oh the humanity!

You're using some very strange conception of slavery.

 

[emilynghiem]

I think that every single person uses health care.

It was ruled like a tax in this way, as taxes are justified b.c. everyone benefits from that which they pay for - National Defense, for instance. Police and Fire Rescue, for instance.

Everyone benefits, so everyone (as scaled by the ugly progressive tax system) pays. That is its justification, as with having health insurance, yes insurance, the cost of care for the uninsured was so vast that when the uninsured cant pay, costs plow upward for EVERYone (for care AND insurance).

To me the mandate is justified by this. EVERYone has skin in the game, i.e. WILL use health care. Its as basic as the very right to life, especially at this point in science and history.

Health care is as important if not MORE important than National Defense.


Just because the founders werent bright enough at the time to realize this doesnt mean its unAmerican. We progress. They some of them thought slavery was completely kosher, too. So yea, they missed some shit and were lacking.

Ok G.T. and everyone has beliefs about what is right wrong true or false.

Does that mean govt should regulate that?
Or just what we AGREE govt should govern.
We AGREE that murder is a matter of the state, but DISAGREE if abortion euthanasia or executions are murder.

People COULD be required to pay for their own health care sytem so they are not STEALING or ABUSING the credit or costs of others. But who's to say govt should mandate HOW individuals pay or provide health care. Should govt dictate how you pay for your housing since everyone needs an address to vote?

Since everyone needs to eat is govt going to dictate we all eat vegetarian to save resources and feed more people?

You can require ppl dont steal, but can govt dictate private choices just because everyone needs things? Isnt that just a scare tactic to keep ppl dependent on govt to manage choices instead of rewarding ppl for taking responsibility?

What happened to the days where you didnt have kids if you couldnt afford to pay the costs so you had to teach them dont smoke do drugs or drive drunk because i cant afford you to FU your brain or total your body, the car or kill someone else.

Are we going to keep babying ppl to depend on govt to pay costs we didnt figure out how to manage by preventative education and training in public health and safety?

Why not invest in your own community programs which can be developed per state.

Why jam everything on the shoulders of federal govt, then drown in the bureaucracy and not be able to get things done or changed because too much complex policy is pushed top down. Why not organize locally and build upward where the resources and power are vested in ppl trained in and rewarded for developing local solutions such as reforming prisons and mental wards as treatment centers, fixing VA programs, or organizibg cooperative health care through businesses schools and charities.

Sure if ppl WANT to opt in to govt programs why not give ppl FREE CHOICE.
And ppl who want to develop medical programs other ways to serve populations, why punish that with tax penalties, why not reward that with tax breaks for investing in things like Veteran care, mental health and recovery programs, public health outreach or internships, etc.

Where is this leap coming from to mandate insurance as the only way to pay for health care or face fines. Even laws on abortion do not restrict ppl much less punish their FREE CHOICE so why this paranoia that ppl who want FREE CHOICE of health care are assumed criminal and cant be trusted to pay costs of health care. Thats like ppl who distrust prochoice as "wanting abortion" when prochoice means not to PENALIZE THE CHOICE.

If you trust people with FREE CHOICE of abortion and dont want that penalized or regulated by govt, why not with FREE CHOICE to pay for health care other ways and leave the govt or insurance as an OPTION to help pay if ppl CHOOSE to pay in and CHOOSE to be under the mandates.

Right now prolife ppl CHOOSE to enforce that for themselves but cant impose on others who demand FREE CHOICE without penalty. Why can right to health be treated similarly as right to life where prochoice is reapected equally in both cases?