Petition: Separate ACA by Party

[emilynghiem]

https://www.change.org/petitions/vern-wuensche-separate-aca-by-party

Separate ACA by Party:

For American citizens who hold diverse beliefs about health care and the role of Govt,
the ACA does not recognize or protect these beliefs equally, but discriminates
on the basis of creed in deciding exemptions or imposing fines and penalties.
People who believe in Singlepayer or in Free Market health care should be
free to exercise these Beliefs without infringement by the Beliefs of others,
which the Govt does not have authority to dictate, regulate, mandate or punish --
especially concerning private health care choices on abortion or birth control.

Until agreements can be reached on the ACA, this Petition demands that mandates and terms be separated by Party --
enforced by and for respective members only, by voluntary participation and funding.

Separation by Party would respect Political Beliefs of members, and allow each Party freedom to develop
and enforce policies and terms that represent Party members and protect beliefs equally under law.
Political Parties would not be required to agree with opponents in order to enact and enforce the policies elected by their members.
If Party members do not agree with each other, they should have equal freedom to elect separate plans --
in order to prevent any member or citizen from mandates imposed against their beliefs in violation of Equal
Rights, Freedoms and Protections under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
===================

The above Petition was posted to
Vern Wuensche, VoteforVern.com
President of the United States
Kevin Brady
Michael Burgess
Ted Cruz
Bobby Jindal
Nancy Pelosi
Rick Perry
Ted Poe
Tom Price
Harry Reid
Steve Stockman

Can you recommend any other Candidates, Officials or Leaders I should add to this Petition? If you sign the Petition and post Comments, please copy your Comments here!

Thank you very much!
Yours truly, Emily Nghiem

 

[billyerock1991]

https://www.change.org/petitions/vern-wuensche-separate-aca-by-party

Separate ACA by Party:

For American citizens who hold diverse beliefs about health care and the role of Govt,
the ACA does not recognize or protect these beliefs equally, but discriminates
on the basis of creed in deciding exemptions or imposing fines and penalties.
People who believe in Singlepayer or in Free Market health care should be
free to exercise these Beliefs without infringement by the Beliefs of others,
which the Govt does not have authority to dictate, regulate, mandate or punish --
especially concerning private health care choices on abortion or birth control.

Until agreements can be reached on the ACA, this Petition demands that mandates and terms be separated by Party --
enforced by and for respective members only, by voluntary participation and funding.

Separation by Party would respect Political Beliefs of members, and allow each Party freedom to develop
and enforce policies and terms that represent Party members and protect beliefs equally under law.
Political Parties would not be required to agree with opponents in order to enact and enforce the policies elected by their members.
If Party members do not agree with each other, they should have equal freedom to elect separate plans --
in order to prevent any member or citizen from mandates imposed against their beliefs in violation of Equal
Rights, Freedoms and Protections under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
===================

The above Petition was posted to
Vern Wuensche, VoteforVern.com
President of the United States
Kevin Brady
Michael Burgess
Ted Cruz
Bobby Jindal
Nancy Pelosi
Rick Perry
Ted Poe
Tom Price
Harry Reid
Steve Stockman

Can you recommend any other Candidates, Officials or Leaders I should add to this Petition? If you sign the Petition and post Comments, please copy your Comments here!

Thank you very much!
Yours truly, Emily Nghiem

doesn't nut case come to mind??? every time Emily post .... looks like a real winner ...

 

[dblack]

emily, I totally agree with the goal of this, and I totally support it - but I don't quite get it. Presumably people won't be forced to commit to a political party (or will they?) so how is this different than simply making it optional in general?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"which the Govt does not have authority to dictate, regulate, mandate or punish --"

I will let SCOTUS know you are unhappy.

 

[Moonglow]

VoteforVern.com

 

[emilynghiem]

emily, I totally agree with the goal of this, and I totally support it - but I don't quite get it. Presumably people won't be forced to commit to a political party (or will they?) so how is this different than simply making it optional in general?

Yes, it makes it optional.

The point is to hold the Democrat leadership responsible for crafting and revising the ACA independently WITHOUT imposing it on others through the Federal Govt.

That is different from just repealing it and preventing anyone from using what is already in place.

The point is to SHIFT responsibility and let the Democrat supporters take this on and fix it where it is either Singlepayer through their state/national networks, or whatever format they can agree on; and make it OPTIONAL for anyone else to participate.

But it WOULD BE REQUIRED for those who believe in mandating and regulating health care this way.

If you believe it shoudl be mandatory, then it is mandatory for YOU to set up and manage/fund it.

For everyone else, it would be optional.

Nobody is taking away anyone's rights to set it up and run it if that's what you believe in.

But you can't impose your system on other people of differing beliefs.

Do you see how this is different from just forced repeal?
I agree the point is the same, to make it optional, but this allows and authorizes
the Democrat Party to take on responsibility for the system and still make it work
as their members/leaders agree.

 

[emilynghiem]

https://www.change.org/petitions/vern-wuensche-separate-aca-by-party

Separate ACA by Party:

For American citizens who hold diverse beliefs about health care and the role of Govt,
the ACA does not recognize or protect these beliefs equally, but discriminates
on the basis of creed in deciding exemptions or imposing fines and penalties.
People who believe in Singlepayer or in Free Market health care should be
free to exercise these Beliefs without infringement by the Beliefs of others,
which the Govt does not have authority to dictate, regulate, mandate or punish --
especially concerning private health care choices on abortion or birth control.

Until agreements can be reached on the ACA, this Petition demands that mandates and terms be separated by Party --
enforced by and for respective members only, by voluntary participation and funding.

Separation by Party would respect Political Beliefs of members, and allow each Party freedom to develop
and enforce policies and terms that represent Party members and protect beliefs equally under law.
Political Parties would not be required to agree with opponents in order to enact and enforce the policies elected by their members.
If Party members do not agree with each other, they should have equal freedom to elect separate plans --
in order to prevent any member or citizen from mandates imposed against their beliefs in violation of Equal
Rights, Freedoms and Protections under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
===================

The above Petition was posted to
Vern Wuensche, VoteforVern.com
President of the United States
Kevin Brady
Michael Burgess
Ted Cruz
Bobby Jindal
Nancy Pelosi
Rick Perry
Ted Poe
Tom Price
Harry Reid
Steve Stockman

Can you recommend any other Candidates, Officials or Leaders I should add to this Petition? If you sign the Petition and post Comments, please copy your Comments here!

Thank you very much!
Yours truly, Emily Nghiem

doesn't nut case come to mind??? every time Emily post .... looks like a real winner ...

Hi Billy
How much do you want to bet that the solution will come from separating policies by Party?

Who else has the structure by ELECTED REPS and Platforms VOTED ON BY DELEGATES
to organize people by STATE and Nationally?

Why not use the Party Structure to set up separate health care systems,
and have people manage their own as either business or charity,
as schools programs or internships, as mandatory or voluntary as needed?

* Some people may believe in funding VETERAN Care and building teaching hospitals
to meet the needs of THAT population first.

* Others may want to fund Mental Health or Prison program reforms.

* While others may focus on immigrants, or women's health as their priority.

Since Health Care and how to pay for it are personal choices, depending on people's religious and political beliefs,
why not allow ALL people equal freedom to set up, fund and manage their own systems?

We allow both private and public schools. We allow people the choice of Religious
institutions. Why not set up alternative prisons, teaching hospitals, and medical education
and outreach and let all people organize around the priorities they believe in funding?

 

[emilynghiem]

VoteforVern.com

My Friend Vern IS Earnest.
But not THAT Earnest! ;-)

 

[emilynghiem]

"which the Govt does not have authority to dictate, regulate, mandate or punish --"

I will let SCOTUS know you are unhappy.

It's not just a matter of being happy or unhappy,
but being ethical or unethical.

With matters concerning religious beliefs, or religiously held political beliefs,
it is UNETHICAL to enforce one side over another, which violates the
equal protection and representation of the dissenting citizens.

Such conflicts would require CONSENSUS or SEPARATION to
prevent from abusing Govt to IMPOSE a religious bias one way or another.

Laws on abortion, marriage, death penalty, immigration and now
health care should be carefully written by consensus to be NEUTRAL
and NOT impose conditions that violate the beliefs of citizens equally protected by law.

Otherwise it is unconstitutional and unethical to exclude or discriminate
on the basis of religion or creed.

 

[billyerock1991]

https://www.change.org/petitions/vern-wuensche-separate-aca-by-party



Until agreements can be reached on the ACA, this Petition demands that mandates and terms be separated by Party --
enforced by and for respective members only, by voluntary participation and funding.

Separation by Party would respect Political Beliefs of members, and allow each Party freedom to develop
and enforce policies and terms that represent Party members and protect beliefs equally under law.
Political Parties would not be required to agree with opponents in order to enact and enforce the policies elected by their members.
If Party members do not agree with each other, they should have equal freedom to elect separate plans --
in order to prevent any member or citizen from mandates imposed against their beliefs in violation of Equal
Rights, Freedoms and Protections under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
===================

The above Petition was posted to
Vern Wuensche, VoteforVern.com
President of the United States
Kevin Brady
Michael Burgess
Ted Cruz
Bobby Jindal
Nancy Pelosi
Rick Perry
Ted Poe
Tom Price
Harry Reid
Steve Stockman

Can you recommend any other Candidates, Officials or Leaders I should add to this Petition? If you sign the Petition and post Comments, please copy your Comments here!

Thank you very much!
Yours truly, Emily Nghiem

doesn't nut case come to mind??? every time Emily post .... looks like a real winner ...

Hi Billy
How much do you want to bet that the solution will come from separating policies by Party?

Who else has the structure by ELECTED REPS and Platforms VOTED ON BY DELEGATES
to organize people by STATE and Nationally?

Why not use the Party Structure to set up separate health care systems,
and have people manage their own as either business or charity,
as schools programs or internships, as mandatory or voluntary as needed?

* Some people may believe in funding VETERAN Care and building teaching hospitals
to meet the needs of THAT population first.

* Others may want to fund Mental Health or Prison program reforms.

* While others may focus on immigrants, or women's health as their priority.

Since Health Care and how to pay for it are personal choices, depending on people's religious and political beliefs,
why not allow ALL people equal freedom to set up, fund and manage their own systems?

We allow both private and public schools. We allow people the choice of Religious
institutions. Why not set up alternative prisons, teaching hospitals, and medical education
and outreach and let all people organize around the priorities they believe in funding?

its established law now emily ...what you are trying to do here stomp your feet and scream and cry that you don't like it ... well tuff.... its law ... you have to play now ... if you don't want to buy health care then don't buy health care .... nobody is forcing you to buy it ..your whining about it is just just sour grapes by you ... what you want to do is illegal ... thge law has been passed so deal with it ... do you think I like all these voters ID laws being passed ??? Hell NOOOOOO !!! they pass them because republicans know they can win a election unless the make it hard for voters to vote... thats life deal with it

 

[emilynghiem]

Petition Separate ACA by Party Change.org
ACA Reforms - Constitutional Arguments and Petition to Separate by Party
====================================

Dear Sam Kazman and Michael S. Greve:
c/o CEI and George Mason University

As a Constitutionalist and prochoice Democrat, I am seeking legal help to petition, sue, or compel leaders of my own Party to force the ACA mandates to be changed, in order not to violate my political and religious beliefs.

As the law stands, I find the ACA mandates violate equal protection of political beliefs by endorsing and exempting taxpayers who believe in the "right to health care" (and claim this is established by ACA as the "law of the land") while penalizing those who believe in states' rights (and in the Constitution as the law of the land as voiding the ACA mandates that did not follow Constitutional process or standards).

I have found the conflict boils down to two sets of opposing political beliefs, where the federal govt (including Congress, Presidency and Supreme Court) have all been abused to establish the equivalent of a "national religion" that violates the beliefs of dissenters.

Linked above is the first draft of an ACA Petition, arguing to separate the Mandates and regulations by Party. I believe the States and the people should have the free choice to craft their own mandates, by their own terms, deadlines, and criteria.
Petition Separate ACA by Party Change.org

(Please see second link with Constitutional arguments in a forum I started to reorganize and revise a formal petition. These posts show my attempts to explain the Constitutional issues to others: ACA Reforms - Constitutional Arguments and Petition to Separate by Party

However, I found that too many people interpret the Constitution literally, and are not able to recognize or respect "political beliefs" inherently in the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Thus, I am concerned that either a clarifying Amendment or revision is required,
and perhaps calling a Constitutional Convention to address political beliefs and what is required for an agreed process to resolve conflicts concerning them.

Because I am a prochoice Democrat, I am willing to argue, petition or sue the Party leaders to adhere to the principles of "prochoice" political beliefs, and to recognize the equal freedom of choice to pay for and provide for health care.

Otherwise, I argue that the Democrats are responsible for political discrimination on the basis of creed, by not protecting the free choice of other citizens consistently; and thus favoring the beliefs of Democrats as a political religion, which is unconstitutional to abuse govt to establish federally as done with ACA.

I believe it is wrongful to block only people with opposing beliefs from imposing these by law, based on the political belief in "separation of church and state," while continuing to impose political beliefs approved by the Democrats which seem to violate this very separation. I see this as a form of discrimination, and believe it is my duty as a Democrat and Constitutionalist to correct what I find to be a violation of equal protection of the laws, which Democrats claim to defend.

I do not believe it is necessary to "prove" that harm is caused by imposing religiously held political beliefs by laws. This is already inherently unconstitutional by the First Amendment, and if that is not recognized as a religious issue, then the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendment by including political beliefs as creeds of the people with the right to exercise these without discrimination or penalty. (And if that is not recognized, then I call for a Constitutional Convention to address it.)

If it is necessary to make such an argument, I believe such discrimination weakens the credibility of both Parties in defending the Constitution and not putting partisan and political beliefs before equal protection of all persons.

It is wrongful for govt to start regulating which religious programs or political beliefs will count for exemptions, as this adds religious conditions into taxes that the govt is not supposed to regulate.

If you have any recommendations, I am looking to defend my political beliefs in Constitutional principles in equal protections of the laws, and in isonomy based on mediation to form a consensus on these issues, that have been harmed by the imposition of the ACA mandates against the will of citizens of conflicting beliefs.

Could you please advise if the First and Fourteenth Amendments are adequate to defend the beliefs in the Tenth Amendments, and in equal protections of the law from discrimination by creed? Or if a Constitutional Amendment is required to recognize political beliefs, and to establish a process for resolving such conflicts.

Thank you very much.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
Houston, Texas

ethics-commission.net
ACA Reforms - Constitutional Arguments and Petition to Separate by Party

 

[emilynghiem]

its established law now emily ...what you are trying to do here stomp your feet and scream and cry that you don't like it ... well tuff.... its law ... you have to play now ... if you don't want to buy health care then don't buy health care .... nobody is forcing you to buy it ..your whining about it is just just sour grapes by you ... what you want to do is illegal ... thge law has been passed so deal with it ... do you think I like all these voters ID laws being passed ??? Hell NOOOOOO !!! they pass them because republicans know they can win a election unless the make it hard for voters to vote... thats life deal with it

Dear billyerock1991
If it is established law, then why isn't anyone willing to pay the costs without imposing on others who disagree?

If all the people who disagree weren't forced to fund it against their beliefs,
how established are the practices and policies under ACA?

I have no problem with people funding their own programs they believe in.
If the ACA were limited to just the participants who CHOOSE to fund and follow it voluntarily,
it could be established and developed on a stable basis, and grow as more people choose to invest in it.

As it is, I don't see how this is any more constitutional than forcing the nation to fund a private religious program
without proof of how it works and FREE CHOICE of religious practice. It remains faith-based and biased by political beliefs, and that cannot be forced on people by govt, especially not by punitive tax fines, without violating Constitutional principles.