Is it acceptable for the government to force on you something you do not want?

[emilynghiem]

Obama is truly the dumbest mutherf*cker I ever laid eyes on

So you think it's OK for a person without medical insurance to let taxpayers fit the bill for their healthcare?

No, but they can be held responsible for paying it in whatever manner
they please. And without depriving liberty of other people as punishment.

Nobody said insurance was the only way to pay for or reduce health care costs.

What if requirements were placed on those people who DID incur
costs, such as those convicted of crimes or fraud against taxpayers.
why not charge costs and impose on the liberties of those
responsible for crimes and costs, instead of punishing lawabiding
citizens who have not committed crimes or abuses but agree to
pay their costs other ways. Insurance can still be an equal option
how to pay, but must remain a free choice to respect civil liberties.

Only people who commit crimes or abuse taxpayer money
deserve to lose liberties by being forced to pay as prescribed by govt.

people who have not committed crimes deserve freedom
to pay in any ways they choose, as long as they don't impose
costs on people who want to regulate otherwise. So separate
the systems and let people choose which way they want to pay.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here's a really good BAD example of courts and enforcement gone wrong:
Politician Wants Arrests After Gays Marry Matt Baume

YES it is clearly unconstitutional to ban gay marriage for those who believe in it
but what courts should do is ORDER the parties of that state to resolve
their issues and write a better law that IS constitutional and doesn't offend impose ban or exclude EITHER
beliefs for or against gay marriage.

so I don't tell you what the right answer is.
I tell you your answer is biased and unconstitutional by discriminating by creed,
and you are ordered to resolve your own beliefs and revise the law to satisfy your consent

I have no authority to tell you what that answer is
I can offer suggestions but can't impose them on you rprivate beliefs.
that's the difference.
anyone here get this?

 

[HenryBHough]

Face it.

You knew when you voted for what morphed into Our Kenyan Emperor that you were hoping for a change to hugely higher taxes.

You just believe, as you were led to believe, that the taxes would crush only others.

Chalk it as a part of growing up.

 

[emilynghiem]

Face it.

You knew when you voted for what morphed into Our Kenyan Emperor that you were hoping for a change to hugely higher taxes.

You just believe, as you were led to believe, that the taxes would crush only others.

Chalk it as a part of growing up.

Either that or they are secretly depending on the CONSTITUTIONALISTS on the right to crush it.
So they can blame them for opposing health care, and don't have to agree it was flawed or try to fix it.

I have a Democrat friend who is privately against the mandates,
but won't dare stand up with the opposition against the Democrats defending and pushing this.

So he is just waiting on the opposition crush it, while complaining about these same folks when he doesn't agree.
But it's okay to use the bigger bully to political advantage when it suits the agenda. Just don't credit or support them,
but keep attacking them while depending on them to do the dirty work to clean up this mess caused by the other party.

And all the while blaming them for OPPOSING unconstitutional encroachments
while you secretly AGREE with gun rights and states' rights. People who don't want to be the bad guy,
"take it for granted someone else will fight that fight for them." We know who that is. How convenient.

No wonder so many opponents were saying not to fight this
but let it crash exactly as written, so it is blamed on Democrats.
If the opposition interferes and it crashes, then it is blamed on them.

Note: Others who aren't happy about it, just silently wait for someone else to reform it and turn it all the way into singlepayer. If they didn't get singlepayer from pushing the first time, what makes them think they're going to get it by reforming this afterwards with even more added opposition. [The only way I could see that happening is using the Democrat party membership as a network of willing participants to set up a system, and leave others to their own systems.
If more people choose FREELY to use the mandatory system, then it can grow to greater levels of coverage. But participation and funding has to be by free choice because it involves personal liberties in financial decisions and choices about health care, as well as political beliefs on the role and limits of govt.]

 

[OnePercenter]

Obama is truly the dumbest mutherf*cker I ever laid eyes on

So you think it's OK for a person without medical insurance to let taxpayers fit the bill for their healthcare?

No, but they can be held responsible for paying it in whatever manner
they please. And without depriving liberty of other people as punishment.

Nobody said insurance was the only way to pay for or reduce health care costs.

What if requirements were placed on those people who DID incur
costs, such as those convicted of crimes or fraud against taxpayers.
why not charge costs and impose on the liberties of those
responsible for crimes and costs, instead of punishing lawabiding
citizens who have not committed crimes or abuses but agree to
pay their costs other ways. Insurance can still be an equal option
how to pay, but must remain a free choice to respect civil liberties.

Only people who commit crimes or abuse taxpayer money
deserve to lose liberties by being forced to pay as prescribed by govt.

people who have not committed crimes deserve freedom
to pay in any ways they choose, as long as they don't impose
costs on people who want to regulate otherwise. So separate
the systems and let people choose which way they want to pay.

What if they have no money?

 

[dblack]

Obama is truly the dumbest mutherf*cker I ever laid eyes on

So you think it's OK for a person without medical insurance to let taxpayers fit the bill for their healthcare?

No, but they can be held responsible for paying it in whatever manner
they please. And without depriving liberty of other people as punishment.

Nobody said insurance was the only way to pay for or reduce health care costs.

What if requirements were placed on those people who DID incur
costs, such as those convicted of crimes or fraud against taxpayers.
why not charge costs and impose on the liberties of those
responsible for crimes and costs, instead of punishing lawabiding
citizens who have not committed crimes or abuses but agree to
pay their costs other ways. Insurance can still be an equal option
how to pay, but must remain a free choice to respect civil liberties.

Only people who commit crimes or abuse taxpayer money
deserve to lose liberties by being forced to pay as prescribed by govt.

people who have not committed crimes deserve freedom
to pay in any ways they choose, as long as they don't impose
costs on people who want to regulate otherwise. So separate
the systems and let people choose which way they want to pay.

What if they have no money?

Obama is truly the dumbest mutherf*cker I ever laid eyes on

So you think it's OK for a person without medical insurance to let taxpayers fit the bill for their healthcare?

No, but they can be held responsible for paying it in whatever manner
they please. And without depriving liberty of other people as punishment.

Nobody said insurance was the only way to pay for or reduce health care costs.

What if requirements were placed on those people who DID incur
costs, such as those convicted of crimes or fraud against taxpayers.
why not charge costs and impose on the liberties of those
responsible for crimes and costs, instead of punishing lawabiding
citizens who have not committed crimes or abuses but agree to
pay their costs other ways. Insurance can still be an equal option
how to pay, but must remain a free choice to respect civil liberties.

Only people who commit crimes or abuse taxpayer money
deserve to lose liberties by being forced to pay as prescribed by govt.

people who have not committed crimes deserve freedom
to pay in any ways they choose, as long as they don't impose
costs on people who want to regulate otherwise. So separate
the systems and let people choose which way they want to pay.

What if they have no money?

Here's an idea: if someone proves themselves irresponsible, if they rack up bills they can't pay, then you can force them to pay ante to your buddies at the insurance companies. But until then, you have no right to make then suck corporate dick. Fair enough?

 

[OnePercenter]

Here's an idea: if someone proves themselves irresponsible, if they rack up bills they can't pay, then you can force them to pay ante to your buddies at the insurance companies. But until then, you have no right to make then suck corporate dick. Fair enough?

If someone proves themselves irresponsible then the damage is already been done. What ACA does is to make sure people pay their own way.

 

[emilynghiem]

Obama is truly the dumbest mutherf*cker I ever laid eyes on

So you think it's OK for a person without medical insurance to let taxpayers fit the bill for their healthcare?

No, but they can be held responsible for paying it in whatever manner
they please. And without depriving liberty of other people as punishment.

Nobody said insurance was the only way to pay for or reduce health care costs.

What if requirements were placed on those people who DID incur
costs, such as those convicted of crimes or fraud against taxpayers.
why not charge costs and impose on the liberties of those
responsible for crimes and costs, instead of punishing lawabiding
citizens who have not committed crimes or abuses but agree to
pay their costs other ways. Insurance can still be an equal option
how to pay, but must remain a free choice to respect civil liberties.

Only people who commit crimes or abuse taxpayer money
deserve to lose liberties by being forced to pay as prescribed by govt.

people who have not committed crimes deserve freedom
to pay in any ways they choose, as long as they don't impose
costs on people who want to regulate otherwise. So separate
the systems and let people choose which way they want to pay.

What if they have no money?

There are free and equal choices of how to get help
* insurance and or loans on credit
* charity help, donations or loans
* school programs training interns nurses or doctors with public service in HMO as part of it
* i propose to set up systems through networks by party that wont impose but will offer choices to citizens to enroll in
* other people who want free market ask to set up accounts to pay in like a sales tax toward health care including insurance as a choice
* Note: ppl who commit crimes can work with programs to pay.costa back over time and use that to pay for health care. Right now prisons can cost 50 K A HEAD PER year. So either pay taxpayers back or cut those costs byvdeterring crime and that state budget can be used to.lend or cover costs without charging the wtong people
* Christian groups who offer spiritual healing can cut costs this way and stretch charity resources

So ppl can preserve freedom of choice and still manage group options to save resources and serve more ppl withput wasting administration trying to force or micromanage ppl's free choices

 

[dblack]

Here's an idea: if someone proves themselves irresponsible, if they rack up bills they can't pay, then you can force them to pay ante to your buddies at the insurance companies. But until then, you have no right to make then suck corporate dick. Fair enough?

If someone proves themselves irresponsible then the damage is already been done. What ACA does is to make sure people pay their own way.

Guilty until proven innocent. The fascist's refrain.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here's an idea: if someone proves themselves irresponsible, if they rack up bills they can't pay, then you can force them to pay ante to your buddies at the insurance companies. But until then, you have no right to make then suck corporate dick. Fair enough?

If someone proves themselves irresponsible then the damage is already been done. What ACA does is to make sure people pay their own way.

Then why isnt this done with criminal convictions and costs incurred by the actual wrongdoers. Why is it considered wrong to use their labor to pay costs, but okay to charge innocent citizens to pay for the crimes of others? Why is it okay to tax our labor in advance before we commit any abuse when you dont treat criminals this way after theycommit a crime.

If you believe in right to health care
Well others believe in right to life for unborn.

So if you want to stop ppl before damage is done, why cant prolife penalize the choice of abortion.

What is more damaging or risky?
Choosing abortion? which cant be undone.
Or choosing to pay for health care after you need it instead of paying in advance.
Which can be fixed afterwards unlike cases where abortion causes damage.

 

[Dana7360]

Even if it saves my life, the government has no right to force me to take any insurance, unless required for a license for something I choose, like driving a car. My greatest objection to health care managed by any government is that I have no choice about which doctor I will see or what treatment will be paid. If I believed doctors I would have already been dead four times, but instead I make my own choice of something better that insurance would not pay for anyway. Whatever the insurance covers should be 100% our own choice, especially not any government dumb rule.

Your ignorance should be your greater concern, as the ACA doesn't 'force' anyone to have insurance.

Even if it saves my life, the government has no right to force me to take any insurance, unless required for a license for something I choose, like driving a car. My greatest objection to health care managed by any government is that I have no choice about which doctor I will see or what treatment will be paid. If I believed doctors I would have already been dead four times, but instead I make my own choice of something better that insurance would not pay for anyway. Whatever the insurance covers should be 100% our own choice, especially not any government dumb rule.

Fuck that, when you hit me with your car you better have insurance. What? Trust that people will pay you out of pocket or something?

if they don't, they get arrested and a lean is put on their paycheck until they have paid you off

Even if it saves my life, the government has no right to force me to take any insurance, unless required for a license for something I choose, like driving a car. My greatest objection to health care managed by any government is that I have no choice about which doctor I will see or what treatment will be paid. If I believed doctors I would have already been dead four times, but instead I make my own choice of something better that insurance would not pay for anyway. Whatever the insurance covers should be 100% our own choice, especially not any government dumb rule.

Fuck that, when you hit me with your car you better have insurance. What? Trust that people will pay you out of pocket or something?

What if it's your fault? You better have insurance.

No because I dont want too.


See how fucking stupid that is?

then you get your license suspended and get arrested if found driving


you not having health ins has little to no impact on the rest of us.

but fining me for not having it has a big impact

"if they don't, they get arrested and a lean is put on their paycheck until they have paid you
then you get your license suspended and get arrested if found driving"

Because that doesn't happen, doesn't work, because people were getting screwed by uninsured drivers, you are now required to carry insurance.

"you not having health ins has little to no impact on the rest of us."

Tax payers paying for your health does indeed have an impact.

I get so tired of stupid people.

Of course that person not having insurance effects everyone.

The person gets sick or has an accident. Knows that if they go to the doctor they will have a huge bill so they don't go. The condition gets worse because the person didn't go see a doctor to get it taken care of. It gets to the point that it's life threatening and the person goes to the ER. Where it's many times more expensive than a doctor's office.

The person is then facing huge hospital bills and the ER didn't even fix the problem. All the ER did was make the person stable and then tell them to see a doctor.

So the person doesn't have the money to pay those bills. What happens? The costs that the person didn't pay get shifted onto those who can pay. Which makes everyone else's insurance and medical costs increase.

If the person has a sickness that's transmitted to those they come in contact with, then the sickness is spread around to more people and they spread it around to more people.

All because one person didn't want to pay for insurance.

 

[emilynghiem]

Even if it saves my life, the government has no right to force me to take any insurance, unless required for a license for something I choose, like driving a car. My greatest objection to health care managed by any government is that I have no choice about which doctor I will see or what treatment will be paid. If I believed doctors I would have already been dead four times, but instead I make my own choice of something better that insurance would not pay for anyway. Whatever the insurance covers should be 100% our own choice, especially not any government dumb rule.

Your ignorance should be your greater concern, as the ACA doesn't 'force' anyone to have insurance.

Even if it saves my life, the government has no right to force me to take any insurance, unless required for a license for something I choose, like driving a car. My greatest objection to health care managed by any government is that I have no choice about which doctor I will see or what treatment will be paid. If I believed doctors I would have already been dead four times, but instead I make my own choice of something better that insurance would not pay for anyway. Whatever the insurance covers should be 100% our own choice, especially not any government dumb rule.

Fuck that, when you hit me with your car you better have insurance. What? Trust that people will pay you out of pocket or something?

if they don't, they get arrested and a lean is put on their paycheck until they have paid you off

Fuck that, when you hit me with your car you better have insurance. What? Trust that people will pay you out of pocket or something?

What if it's your fault? You better have insurance.

No because I dont want too.


See how fucking stupid that is?

then you get your license suspended and get arrested if found driving


you not having health ins has little to no impact on the rest of us.

but fining me for not having it has a big impact

"if they don't, they get arrested and a lean is put on their paycheck until they have paid you
then you get your license suspended and get arrested if found driving"

Because that doesn't happen, doesn't work, because people were getting screwed by uninsured drivers, you are now required to carry insurance.

"you not having health ins has little to no impact on the rest of us."

Tax payers paying for your health does indeed have an impact.

I get so tired of stupid people.

Of course that person not having insurance effects everyone.

The person gets sick or has an accident. Knows that if they go to the doctor they will have a huge bill so they don't go. The condition gets worse because the person didn't go see a doctor to get it taken care of. It gets to the point that it's life threatening and the person goes to the ER. Where it's many times more expensive than a doctor's office.

The person is then facing huge hospital bills and the ER didn't even fix the problem. All the ER did was make the person stable and then tell them to see a doctor.

So the person doesn't have the money to pay those bills. What happens? The costs that the person didn't pay get shifted onto those who can pay. Which makes everyone else's insurance and medical costs increase.

If the person has a sickness that's transmitted to those they come in contact with, then the sickness is spread around to more people and they spread it around to more people.

All because one person didn't want to pay for insurance.

Which is worse, more damaging, and costs more to society. Committing a crime that costs 50K person per year.
Or not buying insurance and relying on loans, charity or friends until you can pay back.

Which person gets due process to prove they incurred a debt to.society?

And which person is assumed not tobe able or willing to pay so they lose their free choice in advance.

Which person costs more but isnt
Expected to buy insurance to.cover costs fir their crime,
And which person already pays for the health care of such people
but is now expected to pay more
without committing any crimes.

Does that make any sense to keep
Charging and punishing the law abiding citizens more and more instead of going after wrongdoers charging up these.costs?

Why not charge them for costs of their own crimes,
and credit.billions in state.budgets back to taxpayers to pay for health care.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This thread is more evidence that single payer or some variation close to it is the only sensible way to go.

 

[dblack]

Here's an idea: if someone proves themselves irresponsible, if they rack up bills they can't pay, then you can force them to pay ante to your buddies at the insurance companies. But until then, you have no right to make then suck corporate dick. Fair enough?

If someone proves themselves irresponsible then the damage is already been done. What ACA does is to make sure people pay their own way.

Then why isnt this done with criminal convictions and costs incurred by the actual wrongdoers. Why is it considered wrong to use their labor to pay costs, but okay to charge innocent citizens to pay for the crimes of others? Why is it okay to tax our labor in advance before we commit any abuse when you don't treat criminals this way after they commit a crime.

Sadly, a lot of people seem to want this kind of government.

 

[emilynghiem]

This thread is more evidence that single payer or some variation close to it is the only sensible way to go.

Yes but if you make everyone use SOME system to pay and to hold delinquents accountable for their costs, you cant have the party of the poor assuming the rich are criminal without due process while letting the poor ride assuming they cant pay. Where is the motivation to charge ppl more if you commit crimes that incur costs to society, and granting ppl freedom to choose as reward for taking responsibility for costs. Where is the incentive to teach ppl how to cover their costs instead of dumping things on taxpayers to.pay without accountability. If politicians arent listening to objections and reforms now, what makes you think they will listen later. If parties had to pay for the programs their members want, they have incentive to listen to the paying membership and make it work for them. It should be organized by party so there is loyalty and commitment to make it work since they are paying for it and depending on it to cover their audience they represent. And not experiment at the cost of charging outside people who didnt agree to problems with those plans and want to fund a different way. So let them fund that other way for them. Religions separate all the time and are still practiced freely under one Constitition. Political parties vote on their own policies, serve their own members, and fund their own reps candidates and campagns. So why not use that structure to organize resources and programs for health care. Why the close mindedness that everyone has to pay into one insurance structure to work. Thats like saying all people have to be under one party, or one reiligion, or one state to cover everyone equally. Clearly religious and political freedom to choose affiliation is more important. It is a fundamental inherent human right to choose this, and thats why the protests are on both sides to protect their beliefs. Anyone with Constititional convictions would protect those beliefs, and those who are fairminded would do so equally. So let those who believe in right to health care and prochoice of abortion be under Democrat singlepayer, and those who believe in prolife and individual liberty of people and states to choose how to pay for that be under Republican free market plan. And let citizens choose where to sign up as a paying member and or buy services from theother group under their conditions. If you want to wait till after you need insurance to join and pay, then your party pays the difference and if they refuse, then you are stuck paying under their plan. If you support singlepayer and then you want the free spiritual healing under the prolife plan that was taxed by your mandates then you may have to do something embarrassing like admit that was wrong to exclude that choice. Sadly insurance would still be a free choice under the prolife proliberty plan, which would recognize more choices instead of punishing them with tax mandates. Thats fine, all the people who believe in that can and should pay for your own mandates under Democrat Shariah law, but cant force infidels to pay who dont believe in worshipping insurance companies as the only way to provide health care. Whoever agrees to take all the charity cases and costs WITHOUT conditions, and leave insurance as an option, I want the path.that promotes free spiritual healing to cure the cause of crime and disease to cut costs of prisons and convert into medical programs so we can cover all people by free choice without punishing the wrong ppl.
If both parties cant offer the plan I believe in then i cant be forced to fund political religions I dont believe in. I believe in free choice, and this isnt it. This violates my beliefs and is unconstitutional to impose by federal law.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sadly, a lot of people seem to want this kind of government.

Funny that Democrats see Jihadists and Shariah law "forced through govt as the only way or youre an infidel and dont count" as a separate belief and not the same as Muslims who believe in freedom for all religion and no compulsion or coercion. they can respect this and demand this distinction be made.

But when it comes to Democrats own sacred political beliefs in health care as a right through govt,
They dont see the difference between forcing it on people as a Jihadist does declaring war on opposition as the enemy to be overruled, and offering it freely as a choice to practice without coersion or threat of penalty. They truly believe it is the only right way, and must be forced by law like the fundamentalists do, who they ironically complain about. There . is no recognition of political belief, not unless their Pope declares this To be valid under law and courts approve. The govt is their religion.

If Christian and Atheist Constitutionalists cant explain this to liberal Democrats, next I will petition Muslim Constitutionalists to address and mediate this conflict with political beliefs.
Someone should be able to see it and explain it where both sides get they have equal but separate political beliefs. Since these beliefs involve the role and limits on govt, the beliefs cant be separated from govt, but the beliefs can be recognized separately from each other and mediate between equals to form agreement on policy. if Hindus and Muslims are too busy blaming each other beliefs as wrong, they cant mediate to find a common solution respectng both. We need a neutral team of mediators so maybe the Muslims who fight this battle every day can explain it better. There is too much rejection of ChristianscConservatives and Constitutionals to listen to them. Maybe Muslims can reach and get the point across from what they experience every day being harassed like this.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[emilynghiem]

Obama is truly the dumbest mutherf*cker I ever laid eyes on

So you think it's OK for a person without medical insurance to let taxpayers fit the bill for their healthcare?

No, but they can be held responsible for paying it in whatever manner
they please. And without depriving liberty of other people as punishment.

Nobody said insurance was the only way to pay for or reduce health care costs.

What if requirements were placed on those people who DID incur
costs, such as those convicted of crimes or fraud against taxpayers.
why not charge costs and impose on the liberties of those
responsible for crimes and costs, instead of punishing lawabiding
citizens who have not committed crimes or abuses but agree to
pay their costs other ways. Insurance can still be an equal option
how to pay, but must remain a free choice to respect civil liberties.

Only people who commit crimes or abuse taxpayer money
deserve to lose liberties by being forced to pay as prescribed by govt.

people who have not committed crimes deserve freedom
to pay in any ways they choose, as long as they don't impose
costs on people who want to regulate otherwise. So separate
the systems and let people choose which way they want to pay.

What if they have no money?

OK OnePercenter I found it

1. what about shoes? If people can't afford shoes they can't go to school, go to businesses or restaurants that require shoes, and can injure themselves and cause greater health care costs if they cut up their feet walking barefoot especially
in dangerous sites that require shoes.

Does this mean we should mandate govt to pay for people's shoes?
Where does it end?

2. what about housing? since people can't vote if they don't have an address, do we have to require all people to get housing through govt? since this affects their security, and also their representation in govt and right to vote.

Since we could house more people if everyone agreed to live in lower cost apts and public housing,
should ALL people be required to live under govt housing (and pay fines and higher taxes for private houses)
to pay for houses for people who cannot afford it?

Doesn't such legislation depend on whether taxpayers AGREE what to pay for
(such as public education).

3. who brought you into the world without the ability to make sure
you had enough enough resources to have shoes, and/or adequate
education so you could support yourself?

especially if you are prochoice and believe it is a choice to have a child,
who is responsible for that choice? and for making sure you can cover
housing and clothing and teach children to be independent and not depend on others?

how much is personal responsibility, how much is collective social responsibility,
and do we have authority to DICTATE how this social responsibility is
managed through govt/state or through church/charities as an equal choice?

NOTE: I saw that you give charity through your business to USO.
If that was mandated, that would no longer be a free choice.
It is different if it comes by free choice and free enterprise
or if it is regulated and mandated by govt.
Christianity works as a free choice, but if it was mandated by govt, it would be fought and fail over conflicts.
So charity is the same way, must be freely chosen or it is different.
Also, your donations could be done differently. If the USO set up business plans
to invest in longterm training education and jobs for vets in financial independence,
the investing in that could be part of business and fully deductible as opposed to nonprofit.

4. for health care, why don't people have equal choice to pay for health
care through schools, charities, businesses, nonprofits?

Why can it "only be provided by govt"

Why is that the only choice?

And why aren't people respected equally who have other beliefs besides govt?
Some people want EQUAL choice to choose the public option or private.
Some people don't belive federal govt has any authority at all to make taxpayers pay for this,and
only believe in private choices.

Since there are political beliefs involved, why aren't these treated equally
1. belief in govt only such as Singlepayer that can ONLY be done through govt and no other way
2. belief in equal choice but favoring govt as the default, and leaving private sector as secondary options without penalty
3. belief in equal choice but favoring private sector as the default, and leaving govt as a separate option without penalty
4. belief in private sector as the default, where govt can be a venue if laws are passed by consent but cannot be forced
5. belief that govt cannot provide health care at all as unconstitutional and this cannot be changed.
power belongs to the state or to the people, so if people choose to set this up by state that is lawful but not federal govt.

Because the majority of people's beliefs are moderate and "optional"
it is assumed that all opposition to the bill is "optional".
The beliefs in state powers, and/or issues of political beliefs requiring consent of the governed instead of mandating
through federal govt, are being skirted by assuming these are not inherent beliefs protected by govt,
but are "optional" to consider as generic political opposition and not inherent beliefs or creeds similar to religions.

 

[emilynghiem]

I get so tired of stupid people.

Of course that person not having insurance effects everyone.

The person gets sick or has an accident. Knows that if they go to the doctor they will have a huge bill so they don't go. The condition gets worse because the person didn't go see a doctor to get it taken care of. It gets to the point that it's life threatening and the person goes to the ER. Where it's many times more expensive than a doctor's office.

The person is then facing huge hospital bills and the ER didn't even fix the problem. All the ER did was make the person stable and then tell them to see a doctor.

So the person doesn't have the money to pay those bills. What happens? The costs that the person didn't pay get shifted onto those who can pay. Which makes everyone else's insurance and medical costs increase.

If the person has a sickness that's transmitted to those they come in contact with, then the sickness is spread around to more people and they spread it around to more people.

All because one person didn't want to pay for insurance.

Dear Dana7360
If you are so concerned, then why not go after criminals whose crimes cost people their lives, property
and public resources that could have paid for other people's education and health care.

Do you go after the drunk driver who costs property damage, losses of health and life,
and costs to taxpayers for the state expenses of prosecution, defense and incarceration?

And either make THEM pay this back, or make THEM buy insurance to cover the cost of crimes?

by your reasoning, why not go after the criminals who cost the public 50K a year for prison costs?

Why only go after law abiding citizens except out of laziness and expedience.
That's doesn't sound very conscientious and consistent to me.

How is your thinking any different from criminals who go after the person with money
because they can't afford things, and don't have friends to ask for money,
so they force the money to come from someone else. How is this different from a thief looking for opportunity?

If most rapes are committed by men, are we going to charge men a rape tax or make men buy rape insurance,
to cover costs of all the rapists who aren't caught and/or can't pay for the damages they cost,
and charge the "men with ability to pay" by forcing them to pay for rape insurance?

Where does this end?

Are we going to treat ALL citizens like criminals in advance, deprive them of liberty and free choice to buy insurance,
just because of the actions of other people?

Now I'm not knocking you if you REALLY believe this is the best or only way to pay.
But why the big push to force this through federal govt?
Why not let states vote on it as in Massachusetts, where it can be repealed or reformed within a state.

Why not give people the free and equal choice of participation including
other ways to pay for health care without mandating insurance?
No other options were offered. The bill was forced through with this mandate in it,
and penalizes and regulates other choices to make them prohibitive.

The way programs usually work, from businesses to schools and nonprofits to churches and charities,
is you start with the membership that WANTS to invest and participate in a program.
You prove how well it works, and then people naturally refer and recommend and join.
so the better it works, the more people invest so it grows to serve more people efficiently.
And if another system works better or equal, then equal numbers of people will flock there.

So this rewards effective programs by people choosing to invest, participate and join.
And it naturally weeds out problems because people won't buy that product or service.

Why was this factor taken out, so that there is no motivation to make sure it covers all costs.
If people are forced to buy it regardless if it works or fails, there is no check on the system.
Govt already has problems with public schools and public housing not having enough check,
and now health care has been added on without solving the other problems. Prisons also,
and sadly enough, solving the prison problems could pay for health care per state without adding more cost to taxpayers.

Dana if you really care for accountability, look into prisons and what taxpayers are paying
for health care, housing and education there, which could already pay for these other programs without charging us more!

 

[JakeStarkey]

emily, offer something constructive, please.

And your type of problem solving would require a major change to the Constitution.

Better get cracking instread of complaining about your moral injuries.

Yes, you are required to obey a law you don't like in our society.

You are not allowed to ignore it without possible penalty.

 

[emilynghiem]

emily, offer something constructive, please.
And your type of problem solving would require a major change to the Constitution.
Better get cracking instread of complaining about your moral injuries.
Yes, you are required to obey a law you don't like in our society.
You are not allowed to ignore it without possible penalty.

Yes JakeStarkey I am trying to SUMMARIZE the problem and solution
in short bullet points, and not this long back and forth hashing out of what is or is not the way to say it.

======================================================
NOTE: I looked for my first draft of objections on Constitutional grounds when ACA first
passed through Congress. I will see if I kept a printed copy of that letter to Congresswoman SJ Lee.
I think it was just two pages listing the points that violated equal religious freedom.

Here is a later draft from last year, which is still written from a Constitutional viewpoint
that is NOT recognized by liberals who see no problem with ACA.

So it is hard to use arguments that are like "Christians citing and explaining the Bible
when the audience is a bunch of atheists." I have been trying to explain this is in secular terms,
and apparently even Constitutional terms are too religious and not the same beliefs as liberals.

That's why this is taking so long, JS.

It is like trying to deciper a foreign code, in order to translate concepts
from one system to the next. We can't just keep "preaching and writing laws that only
one side can understand" and get mad when people don't agree and support them.

I am trying to explain what is wrong with this picture in terms that BOTH SIDES can understand and AGREE.

When the point can be made, it will be either very short, or won't be necessary to preach
because people "will have gotten the point and don't need to be lectured to get it anymore."

I'll keep looking for that original letter, before I got how deep the political beliefs and biases are. thanks!
====================================================================
Why is religious discimination okay? And required by ACA?

1. Supporters of ACA believe it works and offer proof that it "helps more people than it harms."

So do believers in Christianity, yet proponents of ACA would never agree to mandate that.

Unlike ACA, Christianity is free and does not threaten to impose fines if people don't pay for Christian programs and use them. It still works to serve and help more people on a completely voluntary basis, with respect to Constitutional religious freedom to choose. Why can't ACA be optional to choose with equal respect for Constitutional freedoms?

If Christianity cannot be imposed as the only way, why is it okay to impose ACA? if Christianity must be proven first and chosen freely, why not with ACA? If people can merely use majority-vote to mandate ACA for all people, based on faith that it works to solve more problems than it causes, what's to stop the majority of Americans from voting Christianity as mandatory for all?

The proof of the benefits of Christianity in helping more people and cutting costs of crime, disease and abuse in relationships, are well-known and even documented medically.

The testimonies of spiritual healing curing cancer, schizophrenia, abuse, addiction, and other physical, mental, and even criminal illness offer "proof" that it works; yet it is still reserved as a free choice and not mandated by law. Studies have shown that over 80% of illnesses are caused by "unforgiveness"; where forgiveness therapy is found in all methods of spiritual healing. Yet all these therapies based on forgiveness work by "FREE CHOICE" and "voluntary participation."

Why not ACA?

Christianity is optional and unlawful for govt to impose as a requirement to believe in, much less force citizens to pay for under penalty of law.

So why is it okay to require nonbelievers to participate, fund and believe in benefits of ACA? Why are states and businesses required to follow it, or face tax penalties even if they believe in other choices for paying for health care?

If other choices besides Christianity are respected under law, why does ACA impose fines on any other choice besides buying insurance under the regulations prescribed by federal government?

2. On political and religious discriminationi by party: Why do believers in prochoice principles only defend party members who believe in abortion, but deny free choice to people who believe in free market health care? If the principle is the same, to keep federal government and politics out of personal health care decisions and private choices, why is it okay to block regulations on the choice of abortion but impose federal penalties on the choice of health care?

Isn't this discrimination by creed? Has ACA legalized federal regulations and penalties by creed?

If people denounce discrimination against homosexuality, where marriage is only allowed for heterosexual couples, why is it okay to discriminate against people of Constitutional beliefs? Where these views are denounced, denied and overruled as invalid: mocked as excuses to defend immoral greed, similar to arguments denouncing equal rights for gays as enabling immoral lust, or denouncing belief in abortion rights as irreponsible and legalizing murder.

Not only are prochoice advocates actively denying equal choice and discriminating against followers of other parties and political beliefs, including Constitutional beliefs in limits on federal goverment, but are rewarded for discrimination: by being exempted from taxes while Constitutionalists are fined who do not believe in federal authority to impose mandates.

Believers in the choice of abortion being legal, unregulated and unpenalized, apply prochoice principles to DEFEND this choice, putting the "right to choose" ABOVE any other consequences to either women, children, or society for the implications of abortion. Political and religious beliefs in the "right to life" are placed second, if recognized at all, because the "right to choose" is championed as fundamental over faith-based arguments and beliefs.

However, these same people advocate the "right to health care" based on political beliefs in government-managed health care and faith that more lives and costs will be saved, at the expense of free choice. For people of Constitutional belifes, the "right to choose" is NOT DEFENDED but DENIED, INVALIDATED and PENALIZED for those who believe in freedom in health care choices, which the federal government now regulates the ACA.

Why the double standard? Doesn't this constitute religious discrimination to defend and exempit from penalty the "right to choose" for people who believe the choice of abortion should be legal, but to regulate and punish the "right to choose" for people who believe in paying for their own health care outside government regulations. What crime is committed, and where is the due process to prove that citizens had any ill intent before depriving us of liberty?

3. As for penalizing criminals and holding citizens responsible for their own costs, why the double standard on "involuntary servitude"? Taxpayers already pay millions if not billions of dollars per state on prosecution, incarceration, health care and other costs for inmates convicted of crimes; yet these criminals are not required to work to pay their own costs, even if their violent acts put themselves or innocent people in the hospital at public expense.

Defenders of ACA argue that taxpayers should be forced to be responsible for their own health care costs. Opponents argue they didn't agree to the terms and conditions of buying private insurance, and being forced to purchase or to pay fines to government taken from salaries amounts to "involuntary servitude" where no crime was committed or proven by due process.

Why is restitution and reimbursement not pursued for people who have committed crimes and been convicted under due process, because fear of imposing "involuntary servitude" and abusing the labor of inmates. But it's okay to force "involuntary servitude" by taxing the labor of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS without consent or representation on the terms of the contract?

If convicted criminals in prison still deserves human rights not to be forced to work to offset costs of care, why don't law-abiding citizens deserve not to be forced against our will? When we have committed no crime, and should not be assumed in advance to have any such ill intent.

Why are we punished for our Constitutional beliefs in freedom and civil liberties, while those who have different political beliefs than us are rewarded with exemptions and allowed to mandate their beliefs as a "national religion" that all citizens are required to follow or be fined?