Employers shrug off Obamacare robbing Republicans of a campaign issue - Yahoo Finance
1. As I read articles like this
where Obamacare is declared "not an issue because it works"
If that's all it takes to justify federal mandates restricting liberty and imposing national policy on health care,
"because it works":
Well, if Christianity works to reduce costs of addiction, relationship abuse, crime, mental and criminal sickness
Can THAT be legislated nationally also? Can Spiritual Healing be funded because it is found "to work?"
That the practice of Christianity has been shown to aid in recovery, and break the cycle of incarceration,
addiction and abuse.
People may complain, and say Christianity should be a free choice, and not mandated.
But "what if it works" What if it can be proven to heal cancer, schizophrenia, and other conditions
that medicine alone cannot cure. If Spiritual Healing works better than insurance,
and insurance can be mandated, why not?
2. Texas House panel approves full legalization of marijuana - Houston Chronicle
As for Republicans in Texas pushing to legalize Marijuana, where will this lead?
If the public is required to pay for everyone's health care, and marijuana is legalized,
are opponents to both legalization and federal ACA mandates required to pay for the health problems caused by the legalized use of marijuana?
Could requirements be pushed making it illegal to sell marijuana (also alcohol and tobacco) to addicts,
and require all users to go through health screening, diagnosis and treatment.
Why not? If "spiritual healing" works - to diagnose, treat and cure addictions and abuse,
Why not mandate and nationalize it as part of health care?
"If it works" -- if that's all the justification needed to implement a policy through federal govt,
and justify requiring everyone to pay into it, regardless of personal choice or beliefs.
3. Seriously, perhaps the argument that might help to push for VOLUNTARY participation, funding, and mandates is pointing out that ACA places restrictions on religious memberships that "have to be in existence by 1999" in order to qualify for exemptions. That is like a federal regulated monopoly -- purposely putting unequal conditions on other health programs that federal programs don't have to follow in order to handicap any competition and prevent the development of alternatives.
It can be argued that ALL choices and programs that can serve collective health care should be treated equally.
If restrictions are put on some, they should be applied to all.
Right now, Republicans and conservatives are pushing a bill that would require Congressional offices to be under the same mandates, instead of declaring their offices to be exempted as "less than 50 employees".
The idea is by pushing all govt officials to be under the same regulations they passed,
this would cause it to collapse. But instead, by "political conflict of interest" the very people benefiting from the exemptions will oppose this move so they can keep their exemptions.
It may not be a directly financial conflict of interest, but it is at least a political conflict of interest
because of the benefits gained by keeping the interpretation justifying their exemptions.
The fairest way would be to make all options voluntary to fund and participate in,
and/or require members of the various parties to follow the mandates agreed up by their parties.
1. As I read articles like this
where Obamacare is declared "not an issue because it works"
If that's all it takes to justify federal mandates restricting liberty and imposing national policy on health care,
"because it works":
Well, if Christianity works to reduce costs of addiction, relationship abuse, crime, mental and criminal sickness
Can THAT be legislated nationally also? Can Spiritual Healing be funded because it is found "to work?"
That the practice of Christianity has been shown to aid in recovery, and break the cycle of incarceration,
addiction and abuse.
People may complain, and say Christianity should be a free choice, and not mandated.
But "what if it works" What if it can be proven to heal cancer, schizophrenia, and other conditions
that medicine alone cannot cure. If Spiritual Healing works better than insurance,
and insurance can be mandated, why not?
2. Texas House panel approves full legalization of marijuana - Houston Chronicle
As for Republicans in Texas pushing to legalize Marijuana, where will this lead?
If the public is required to pay for everyone's health care, and marijuana is legalized,
are opponents to both legalization and federal ACA mandates required to pay for the health problems caused by the legalized use of marijuana?
Could requirements be pushed making it illegal to sell marijuana (also alcohol and tobacco) to addicts,
and require all users to go through health screening, diagnosis and treatment.
Why not? If "spiritual healing" works - to diagnose, treat and cure addictions and abuse,
Why not mandate and nationalize it as part of health care?
"If it works" -- if that's all the justification needed to implement a policy through federal govt,
and justify requiring everyone to pay into it, regardless of personal choice or beliefs.
3. Seriously, perhaps the argument that might help to push for VOLUNTARY participation, funding, and mandates is pointing out that ACA places restrictions on religious memberships that "have to be in existence by 1999" in order to qualify for exemptions. That is like a federal regulated monopoly -- purposely putting unequal conditions on other health programs that federal programs don't have to follow in order to handicap any competition and prevent the development of alternatives.
It can be argued that ALL choices and programs that can serve collective health care should be treated equally.
If restrictions are put on some, they should be applied to all.
Right now, Republicans and conservatives are pushing a bill that would require Congressional offices to be under the same mandates, instead of declaring their offices to be exempted as "less than 50 employees".
The idea is by pushing all govt officials to be under the same regulations they passed,
this would cause it to collapse. But instead, by "political conflict of interest" the very people benefiting from the exemptions will oppose this move so they can keep their exemptions.
It may not be a directly financial conflict of interest, but it is at least a political conflict of interest
because of the benefits gained by keeping the interpretation justifying their exemptions.
The fairest way would be to make all options voluntary to fund and participate in,
and/or require members of the various parties to follow the mandates agreed up by their parties.
