Let's Reform The Individual Mandate In ACA

[dblack]

The real difference is not that one of us is basing our opinion on moral beliefs. The real difference is that one of us looks at the moral beliefs of everyone in the nation and the outcome of having those moral beliefs while the other only looks at their own moral beliefs and considered looking at outcomes to be fascism.

Uh... ok. I'm not sure what I can say to clear things up for you. You're not getting anything like what I meant from my post.

I understood exactly what you meant. You have a moral belief that you are pushing but you don't consider it equal to others because it isn't meant to directly impact other people. When I point to the indirect impact of implementing your moral beliefs you call me a fascist.

I'm not calling you anything. I'm just saying you don't understand my point of view because you don't understand the difference between a freedom and a moral belief.

This discussion is fundamentally boring because your entire world view comes down to one moral belief that is self supporting independent of reality. People either share your world view or they don't. Discussion over.

Alrighty then.

 

[The Rabbi]

The real difference is not that one of us is basing our opinion on moral beliefs. The real difference is that one of us looks at the moral beliefs of everyone in the nation and the outcome of having those moral beliefs while the other only looks at their own moral beliefs and considered looking at outcomes to be fascism.

You've looked at the moral beliefs of 300M people, many of whom are immigrants from vastly different societies?
You're simply lying.

Wow what a stupid post.

I didnt pretend to know the beliefs of all 300M people here. That was you, Sparky.

 

[Bombur]

Uh... ok. I'm not sure what I can say to clear things up for you. You're not getting anything like what I meant from my post.

I understood exactly what you meant. You have a moral belief that you are pushing but you don't consider it equal to others because it isn't meant to directly impact other people. When I point to the indirect impact of implementing your moral beliefs you call me a fascist.

I'm not calling you anything. I'm just saying you don't understand my point of view because you don't understand the difference between a freedom and a moral belief.

This discussion is fundamentally boring because your entire world view comes down to one moral belief that is self supporting independent of reality. People either share your world view or they don't. Discussion over.

Alrighty then.

Believing that people should be free is a moral belief.

This isn't really up for argument.

I admit it is fundamentally different to believe that government is morally obligated to defend the freedom of people and saying government is morally obligated to tax people and provide UHC. When freedom is your moral priority then the consequence of not providing public education and health care is justified by the presence of freedom. Like I said it is a self supporting moral belief that ignores reality by definition.

No nation that I am aware of operates like the way you describe. It is a moral stand that is fine to have on a message board but it has really no place in reality. No nation is going to get rid of public education, it is simply too important to a modern economy. No industrialized nation will not have some sort of government run healthcare insurance. The real world consequences and the moral beliefs of the people are simply too great.

You have already lost the moral argument and the only argument you have is a moral one.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here's a modest proposal:
The Obamacare roll out and the rough time people have had getting insurance have led to many people not being able to get affordable insurance. If they can't prove they have insurance they will have to pay the penalty under Obamacare.
To help them out, let's let people opt out of the mandate. Perhaps they can simply make a statement that complying is a hardship and that will excuse them from the penalty.
What do you think?

That's a good idea! Can you start a petition online at change.org
and post it here. Maybe we can get people here to sign it, send it to Congressional reps,
and Parties and ask everyone to sign it.

I was worried I'd have to find a Constitutional law group willing to sue to stop it!

I think your idea is EASIER to post a simple petition.
I will definitely sign it, and send it to all my friends, left and right, against the ACA mandates.
========================

P.S.
My concept on "equal political beliefs" is too complicated, and requires people to take
responsibility for funding health reforms by party, which
is a whole other battle to fight ideologically.

Yours seems mainstream that the average citizen gets and will sign.
Nobody wants to impose a hardship on people.

And I think the fine is supposed to be 10% of your income or 95.00
whichever is HIGHER. I don't think people even know the true cost.
If they are waiting until the last minute to file their taxes, they
won't have time to buy cheaper insurance to get into compliance
if they find out late that the fine will cost them more....

===============================

Dear Liberty Legal Foundation:
Stephen Hotze's lawsuit against ACA from Houston
has been successful in proving that he had standing,
and has the added advantage of facing a Conservative
Court of Appeals that respects Constitutional arguments.

One point that is not made in his suit, is that PROPONENTS
of the ACA are violating equal RELIGIOUS FREEDOM of
both believers in "health care as a right" and "health care as a choice"
by restricting our choices to only paying for health care insurance.

The bill should have made it optional how each citizen wishes to
pay for health care, in order to respect both the beliefs in
singlepayer or "health care as a right" and free market or "health care as a choice."

These are equal political beliefs protected under the
First and Fourteenth Amendment.

As a Constitutionalist, who believes in free choice of political beliefs,
and respecting people's beliefs equally in either
"health care as a right" under singlepayer
or
"health care as a choice" under free market

I would like to SUE the Political Parties of the Congress members and
President voting/signing for ACA with its insurance mandates,
and petition them to amend the mandate to be voluntary per party.

So that the regulations and exchanges can be shifted to the
Democrat or Supporting Party members and mandated for those
who choose freely to sign up, pay and participate voluntarily
under those terms, including any mandates on coverage.

And Petition any Opposing Parties to set up alternative systems
based on free market models, for their members to sign up and
participate voluntarily.

The Parties should protect and defend equal choices of
political beliefs of their members, to prevent imposition of ACA mandates
in violation of Constitutional free exercise and protection of both.

This issue of equal political beliefs without discrimination,
and the proposed solution by separating the systems by party,
has not been mentioned in any lawsuit or petition I have read so far.

Can I please ask your help to find legal representation
to write this up and either petition or sue the Party leaders
to amend the ACA mandates to be separated by Party
in order to protect "equal political beliefs" of all citizens
regardless of party and without discrimination by creed.

Thank you very much
Yours truly,
Emily

Emily Nghiem
Freedmen's Town
Houston Texas
713 820- 5130
[email protected]

 

[dblack]

I understood exactly what you meant. You have a moral belief that you are pushing but you don't consider it equal to others because it isn't meant to directly impact other people. When I point to the indirect impact of implementing your moral beliefs you call me a fascist.

I'm not calling you anything. I'm just saying you don't understand my point of view because you don't understand the difference between a freedom and a moral belief.

This discussion is fundamentally boring because your entire world view comes down to one moral belief that is self supporting independent of reality. People either share your world view or they don't. Discussion over.

Alrighty then.

Believing that people should be free is a moral belief.

This isn't really up for argument.

I admit it is fundamentally different to believe that government is morally obligated to defend the freedom of people and saying government is morally obligated to tax people and provide UHC. When freedom is your moral priority then the consequence of not providing public education and health care is justified by the presence of freedom. Like I said it is a self supporting moral belief that ignores reality by definition.

No nation that I am aware of operates like the way you describe. It is a moral stand that is fine to have on a message board but it has really no place in reality. No nation is going to get rid of public education, it is simply too important to a modern economy. No industrialized nation will not have some sort of government run healthcare insurance. The real world consequences and the moral beliefs of the people are simply too great.

You have already lost the moral argument and the only argument you have is a moral one.

I thought you were done? You don't want listen to what I'm telling you, preferring to instead shadowbox against your strawman. Have at it!

 

[emilynghiem]

I understood exactly what you meant. You have a moral belief that you are pushing but you don't consider it equal to others because it isn't meant to directly impact other people. When I point to the indirect impact of implementing your moral beliefs you call me a fascist.

I'm not calling you anything. I'm just saying you don't understand my point of view because you don't understand the difference between a freedom and a moral belief.

This discussion is fundamentally boring because your entire world view comes down to one moral belief that is self supporting independent of reality. People either share your world view or they don't. Discussion over.

Alrighty then.

Believing that people should be free is a moral belief.

This isn't really up for argument.

I admit it is fundamentally different to believe that government is morally obligated to defend the freedom of people and saying government is morally obligated to tax people and provide UHC. When freedom is your moral priority then the consequence of not providing public education and health care is justified by the presence of freedom. Like I said it is a self supporting moral belief that ignores reality by definition.

No nation that I am aware of operates like the way you describe. It is a moral stand that is fine to have on a message board but it has really no place in reality. No nation is going to get rid of public education, it is simply too important to a modern economy. No industrialized nation will not have some sort of government run healthcare insurance. The real world consequences and the moral beliefs of the people are simply too great.

You have already lost the moral argument and the only argument you have is a moral one.

Dear Bombay:
OK so if there is only a moral argument and belief,
the govt is not supposed to infringe or regulate that either!

People SHOULD have equal rights to fund their moral beliefs and take responsibility.

so if people want to fund group education, group housing, group health, group correctional programs, etc. let them fund and manage that themselves, such as through their party.

and let people who believe in free market systems of housing, health care and education fund their own systems through business or charity plans or schools, etc.

the govt should remain neutral, or only govern policies and programs that all sides agree to fund and manage through govt, including agreement at the state or federal level; if there are any conflicts that cannot be resolved to satisfy everyone's beliefs, those should be separated and remain locally managed at the last level where there was homogenous agreement and consensus among constituents.

 

[Bombur]

I'm not calling you anything. I'm just saying you don't understand my point of view because you don't understand the difference between a freedom and a moral belief.



Alrighty then.

Believing that people should be free is a moral belief.

This isn't really up for argument.

I admit it is fundamentally different to believe that government is morally obligated to defend the freedom of people and saying government is morally obligated to tax people and provide UHC. When freedom is your moral priority then the consequence of not providing public education and health care is justified by the presence of freedom. Like I said it is a self supporting moral belief that ignores reality by definition.

No nation that I am aware of operates like the way you describe. It is a moral stand that is fine to have on a message board but it has really no place in reality. No nation is going to get rid of public education, it is simply too important to a modern economy. No industrialized nation will not have some sort of government run healthcare insurance. The real world consequences and the moral beliefs of the people are simply too great.

You have already lost the moral argument and the only argument you have is a moral one.

I thought you were done? You don't want listen to what I'm telling you, preferring to instead shadowbox against your strawman. Have at it!

I apologize for trying to educate you.

 

[The Rabbi]

Believing that people should be free is a moral belief.

This isn't really up for argument.

I admit it is fundamentally different to believe that government is morally obligated to defend the freedom of people and saying government is morally obligated to tax people and provide UHC. When freedom is your moral priority then the consequence of not providing public education and health care is justified by the presence of freedom. Like I said it is a self supporting moral belief that ignores reality by definition.

No nation that I am aware of operates like the way you describe. It is a moral stand that is fine to have on a message board but it has really no place in reality. No nation is going to get rid of public education, it is simply too important to a modern economy. No industrialized nation will not have some sort of government run healthcare insurance. The real world consequences and the moral beliefs of the people are simply too great.

You have already lost the moral argument and the only argument you have is a moral one.

I thought you were done? You don't want listen to what I'm telling you, preferring to instead shadowbox against your strawman. Have at it!

I apologize for trying to educate you.

That's a joke, right? You dont know whether something is political or moral and couldn't tell the difference if you tried.

 

[dblack]

Believing that people should be free is a moral belief.

This isn't really up for argument.

I admit it is fundamentally different to believe that government is morally obligated to defend the freedom of people and saying government is morally obligated to tax people and provide UHC. When freedom is your moral priority then the consequence of not providing public education and health care is justified by the presence of freedom. Like I said it is a self supporting moral belief that ignores reality by definition.

No nation that I am aware of operates like the way you describe. It is a moral stand that is fine to have on a message board but it has really no place in reality. No nation is going to get rid of public education, it is simply too important to a modern economy. No industrialized nation will not have some sort of government run healthcare insurance. The real world consequences and the moral beliefs of the people are simply too great.

You have already lost the moral argument and the only argument you have is a moral one.

I thought you were done? You don't want listen to what I'm telling you, preferring to instead shadowbox against your strawman. Have at it!

I apologize for trying to educate you.

No worries. It's fine.

 

[Bombur]

I'm not calling you anything. I'm just saying you don't understand my point of view because you don't understand the difference between a freedom and a moral belief.



Alrighty then.

Believing that people should be free is a moral belief.

This isn't really up for argument.

I admit it is fundamentally different to believe that government is morally obligated to defend the freedom of people and saying government is morally obligated to tax people and provide UHC. When freedom is your moral priority then the consequence of not providing public education and health care is justified by the presence of freedom. Like I said it is a self supporting moral belief that ignores reality by definition.

No nation that I am aware of operates like the way you describe. It is a moral stand that is fine to have on a message board but it has really no place in reality. No nation is going to get rid of public education, it is simply too important to a modern economy. No industrialized nation will not have some sort of government run healthcare insurance. The real world consequences and the moral beliefs of the people are simply too great.

You have already lost the moral argument and the only argument you have is a moral one.

Dear Bombay:
OK so if there is only a moral argument and belief,
the govt is not supposed to infringe or regulate that either!

People SHOULD have equal rights to fund their moral beliefs and take responsibility.

so if people want to fund group education, group housing, group health, group correctional programs, etc. let them fund and manage that themselves, such as through their party.

and let people who believe in free market systems of housing, health care and education fund their own systems through business or charity plans or schools, etc.

the govt should remain neutral, or only govern policies and programs that all sides agree to fund and manage through govt, including agreement at the state or federal level; if there are any conflicts that cannot be resolved to satisfy everyone's beliefs, those should be separated and remain locally managed at the last level where there was homogenous agreement and consensus among constituents.

Under such a system would the ones crying for freedom also pay for the societal costs their beliefs wrought?

 

[Bombur]

I thought you were done? You don't want listen to what I'm telling you, preferring to instead shadowbox against your strawman. Have at it!

I apologize for trying to educate you.

That's a joke, right? You dont know whether something is political or moral and couldn't tell the difference if you tried.

You are absolutely horrible at logic and clearly know nothing about ethics. How many times are you going to convince me in this one thread that you have nothing to say?

 

[The Rabbi]

I apologize for trying to educate you.

That's a joke, right? You dont know whether something is political or moral and couldn't tell the difference if you tried.

You are absolutely horrible at logic and clearly know nothing about ethics. How many times are you going to convince me in this one thread that you have nothing to say?

OK, so you admit that you cannot define the difference if your life depended on it. That's what makes you a lo-lo.

 

[Bombur]

Is this some new form of arguing that I am not aware of?

Make unsubstantiated claims about someone else not knowing the difference between two words and then demanding that they define them.

Rabbi clown shoes.

 

[The Rabbi]

Is this some new form of arguing that I am not aware of?

Make unsubstantiated claims about someone else not knowing the difference between two words and then demanding that they define them.

Rabbi clown shoes.

Your own posts indicate yiou do not understand the difference between a political principle and a moral principle. I am asking you to demonstrate you do actually understand the difference.
And you are failing. Because you are a lo-lo.

 

[Bombur]

Is this some new form of arguing that I am not aware of?

Make unsubstantiated claims about someone else not knowing the difference between two words and then demanding that they define them.

Rabbi clown shoes.

Your own posts indicate yiou do not understand the difference between a political principle and a moral principle. I am asking you to demonstrate you do actually understand the difference.
And you are failing. Because you are a lo-lo.

How about this. If you have a point then you make it.

I am not interested in doing busy work to placate some clown like you who has already demonstrated in this thread that they are poorly informed and horribly illogical.

 

[dblack]

Is this some new form of arguing that I am not aware of?

Make unsubstantiated claims about someone else not knowing the difference between two words and then demanding that they define them.

Rabbi clown shoes.

Bombur, you're the one who diverted things into a pointless debate over definitions. I don't care really how you label things. I think the purpose of government should be to stop thugs from getting their way with violence. I don't want government working to make society more efficient, more productive, healthier, more educated, or any of the other ways that you think people should be improved. I don't want government taking care of me. I don't want government teaching me the right way to live, and/or forcing me to live that way. I don't want government dictating my personal decisions "for my own good". Hopefully that's clear, but I suppose there room in there to muddy up some word meanings and run for cover.

 

[emilynghiem]

keep going ...

What do you have against roads and public education? They have been the cornerstones for making our society more productive. Why are you against efficiency?

Christian schools teach worship of God, government schools teach worship of government.

So it takes "Constitutional education" to teach respect for the Constitution?

 

[kaz]

What do you have against roads and public education? They have been the cornerstones for making our society more productive. Why are you against efficiency?

Christian schools teach worship of God, government schools teach worship of government.

So it takes "Constitutional education" to teach respect for the Constitution?

I'm not sure what that means

 

[Bombur]

Is this some new form of arguing that I am not aware of?

Make unsubstantiated claims about someone else not knowing the difference between two words and then demanding that they define them.

Rabbi clown shoes.

Bombur, you're the one who diverted things into a pointless debate over definitions. I don't care really how you label things. I think the purpose of government should be to stop thugs from getting their way with violence. I don't want government working to make society more efficient, more productive, healthier, more educated, or any of the other ways that you think people should be improved. I don't want government taking care of me. I don't want government teaching me the right way to live, and/or forcing me to live that way. I don't want government dictating my personal decisions "for my own good". Hopefully that's clear, but I suppose there room in there to muddy up some word meanings and run for cover.

You made an illogical claim that was easily addressed. I wouldn't exactly call it pointless.

Now your belief system, that is by definition pointless.