Respect For Members Posts Threads Staff & USMB as a Forum

[emilynghiem]

Funny, when I say someone lied, I prove it. I explain the lie and add links to back up my claim.

When Right wingers call me a liar, they stop right there. They are such idiots, they believe simply by calling a name they've "proved it" and walk away with a fist pump and a quick "nailed it". And when I ask them to explain the lie, they say things like "everyone knows" and "no one likes you". And then I throw my head back and laugh long and hard.

OK rdean
can you explain how the liberal Democrats can CLAIM to be prochoice
and against govt intrusion in private decisions regarding abortion
and yet be okay with federal regulations and penalties on health care choice?

The most I get from liberals is justifications like
a. this is just a temporary bill, legislation in progress before it is reformed, to move toward la dee da....
but I don't think they allow temporary bills that are prolife to move toward more govt intrusion
so why the double standard, can you explain this
b. just because the federal govt is requiring citizens to buy insurance
"doesn't mean they are regulating the choices"
the point is to move toward a singlepayer system where the funding goes through govt
but the choices are private and not interfered with
Again, nobody I know on either the prochoice or prolife side
wants taxpayer money funneled to the other group's agenda of choices.
This idea that you can funnel money through federal govt, and NOT have federal regulations
on it seems unrealistic and in denial that public monies must respect all people or else don't go through
federal govt if you can't all agree on the policies! It is contradictory to want things to be public
and then PROTEST when the prolife or other citizens want to be represented by the policy.
c. people are going to buy insurance anyway. taxpayers have to pay for public hospitals anyway, so this is helping by requiring insurance.
My argument is mandating Christian spiritual healing would also cut costs of crime and disease. And people suffering from addictions end up having to go through that ANYWAY.
So "requiring" that would SAVE LIVES, health and taxpayer's money.
But it is not the role of govt to mandate spiritual healing, which is a personal choice,
and likewise NOT govt's place to dictate the BELIEF that "health care is a right through govt"

If the issue were mainly saving money, then anyone could start mandating and dictating
policies that save money. But it negates liberty and choice that people cannot be deprived
of unless they've committed a crime and were found guilty by due process.

Can you please explain how a b and c are not contradictory
when these same arguments are made for things the Left disagrees with?
Somehow the Left "imagines" that their policy is so inclusive that it automatically includes everything
that other people want anyway!

Really? Then why are people protesting their liberties and choices were taken away?

rdean if you can PLEASE PLEASE explain this to me,
I would GREATLY appreciate it. I haven't found a single liberal who could.

And I consider myself a progressive among the liberal Democrats I work with as a registered Democrat.

This seems to be complete denial and misunderstanding of what the conservatives are objecting to.

They REALLY believe the conservatives are "complaining for the sake of objecting to liberal politics"
and don't think the objections are real. They even cite things they think "prove" that the "Conservatives support insurance mandates on a FEDERAL level" when this has never passed before DUE TO Objections!

So PLEASE explain this to me.
If you are so good at it, please!

 

[rdean]

Funny, when I say someone lied, I prove it. I explain the lie and add links to back up my claim.

When Right wingers call me a liar, they stop right there. They are such idiots, they believe simply by calling a name they've "proved it" and walk away with a fist pump and a quick "nailed it". And when I ask them to explain the lie, they say things like "everyone knows" and "no one likes you". And then I throw my head back and laugh long and hard.

OK rdean
can you explain how the liberal Democrats can CLAIM to be prochoice
and against govt intrusion in private decisions regarding abortion
and yet be okay with federal regulations and penalties on health care choice?

The most I get from liberals is justifications like
a. this is just a temporary bill, legislation in progress before it is reformed, to move toward la dee da....
but I don't think they allow temporary bills that are prolife to move toward more govt intrusion
so why the double standard, can you explain this
b. just because the federal govt is requiring citizens to buy insurance
"doesn't mean they are regulating the choices"
the point is to move toward a singlepayer system where the funding goes through govt
but the choices are private and not interfered with
Again, nobody I know on either the prochoice or prolife side
wants taxpayer money funneled to the other group's agenda of choices.
This idea that you can funnel money through federal govt, and NOT have federal regulations
on it seems unrealistic and in denial that public monies must respect all people or else don't go through
federal govt if you can't all agree on the policies! It is contradictory to want things to be public
and then PROTEST when the prolife or other citizens want to be represented by the policy.
c. people are going to buy insurance anyway. taxpayers have to pay for public hospitals anyway, so this is helping by requiring insurance.
My argument is mandating Christian spiritual healing would also cut costs of crime and disease. And people suffering from addictions end up having to go through that ANYWAY.
So "requiring" that would SAVE LIVES, health and taxpayer's money.
But it is not the role of govt to mandate spiritual healing, which is a personal choice,
and likewise NOT govt's place to dictate the BELIEF that "health care is a right through govt"

If the issue were mainly saving money, then anyone could start mandating and dictating
policies that save money. But it negates liberty and choice that people cannot be deprived
of unless they've committed a crime and were found guilty by due process.

Can you please explain how a b and c are not contradictory
when these same arguments are made for things the Left disagrees with?
Somehow the Left "imagines" that their policy is so inclusive that it automatically includes everything
that other people want anyway!

Really? Then why are people protesting their liberties and choices were taken away?

rdean if you can PLEASE PLEASE explain this to me,
I would GREATLY appreciate it. I haven't found a single liberal who could.

And I consider myself a progressive among the liberal Democrats I work with as a registered Democrat.

This seems to be complete denial and misunderstanding of what the conservatives are objecting to.

They REALLY believe the conservatives are "complaining for the sake of objecting to liberal politics"
and don't think the objections are real. They even cite things they think "prove" that the "Conservatives support insurance mandates on a FEDERAL level" when this has never passed before DUE TO Objections!

So PLEASE explain this to me.
If you are so good at it, please!

You said:
So PLEASE explain this to me.
If you are so good at it, please!

Simple. It doesn't even need to be that in depth. Even the US Supreme Court saw the health care law as a "tax". If you don't pay your taxes, you could go to prison.

The problem here isn't the health care law. It's the ignorance and stupidity of the right wing. To have a military, to have roads, to have sewers, to have a government that helps people after disasters like Katrina and Sandy, you need taxes. You need a government to organize. All that has to be "PAID" for.

Republicans with this stupid fucking bullshit like "it's our money" shows the depth of their ignorance. The truth is, "It's OUR country". And "OUR" includes even the people Republicans hate, like gays and blacks and atheists and so on. Republican conservatives try to take the credit for what all whites in this country have accomplished. If today's conservatives are lazy welfare queens, why would anyone think they were more than that in the past?

And worse, who gets the bulk of food stamps and welfare? Whites in Red States, the ultimate welfare queens.
Under Bush, health care costs skyrocketed and medical bills became the number one cause of bankruptcy. Bankrupt the people and you eventually bankrupt the country. Somehow, right wingers are so damn ignorant, they say incredibly stupid things like "get help from the church".

And where does the church get it's help from???? Duh! Small churches without government help can barely keep their doors open, much less help the sick.

Right wingers don't need to be fools. They choose that. When you point out something like Republicans voting against equal pay or voting against health care for first responders or for blocking the BP investigation, they desperately try to justify that with "the bill had a rider" or a flat out "I refuse to believe that", but that doesn't make the truth not true.

If you want to live in this country, if you want roads, if you want to be free, you gotta pay. Freedom isn't free. It take work and money. Try to explain that to the right wing. People who indulge in voter suppression and work tirelessly to deny rights to others complaining about the cost of freedom. What a bunch of creeps.

Hope that helped.

 

[emilynghiem]

Funny, when I say someone lied, I prove it. I explain the lie and add links to back up my claim.

When Right wingers call me a liar, they stop right there. They are such idiots, they believe simply by calling a name they've "proved it" and walk away with a fist pump and a quick "nailed it". And when I ask them to explain the lie, they say things like "everyone knows" and "no one likes you". And then I throw my head back and laugh long and hard.

OK rdean
can you explain how the liberal Democrats can CLAIM to be prochoice
and against govt intrusion in private decisions regarding abortion
and yet be okay with federal regulations and penalties on health care choice?

The most I get from liberals is justifications like
a. this is just a temporary bill, legislation in progress before it is reformed, to move toward la dee da....
but I don't think they allow temporary bills that are prolife to move toward more govt intrusion
so why the double standard, can you explain this
b. just because the federal govt is requiring citizens to buy insurance
"doesn't mean they are regulating the choices"
the point is to move toward a singlepayer system where the funding goes through govt
but the choices are private and not interfered with
Again, nobody I know on either the prochoice or prolife side
wants taxpayer money funneled to the other group's agenda of choices.
This idea that you can funnel money through federal govt, and NOT have federal regulations
on it seems unrealistic and in denial that public monies must respect all people or else don't go through
federal govt if you can't all agree on the policies! It is contradictory to want things to be public
and then PROTEST when the prolife or other citizens want to be represented by the policy.
c. people are going to buy insurance anyway. taxpayers have to pay for public hospitals anyway, so this is helping by requiring insurance.
My argument is mandating Christian spiritual healing would also cut costs of crime and disease. And people suffering from addictions end up having to go through that ANYWAY.
So "requiring" that would SAVE LIVES, health and taxpayer's money.
But it is not the role of govt to mandate spiritual healing, which is a personal choice,
and likewise NOT govt's place to dictate the BELIEF that "health care is a right through govt"

If the issue were mainly saving money, then anyone could start mandating and dictating
policies that save money. But it negates liberty and choice that people cannot be deprived
of unless they've committed a crime and were found guilty by due process.

Can you please explain how a b and c are not contradictory
when these same arguments are made for things the Left disagrees with?
Somehow the Left "imagines" that their policy is so inclusive that it automatically includes everything
that other people want anyway!

Really? Then why are people protesting their liberties and choices were taken away?

rdean if you can PLEASE PLEASE explain this to me,
I would GREATLY appreciate it. I haven't found a single liberal who could.

And I consider myself a progressive among the liberal Democrats I work with as a registered Democrat.

This seems to be complete denial and misunderstanding of what the conservatives are objecting to.

They REALLY believe the conservatives are "complaining for the sake of objecting to liberal politics"
and don't think the objections are real. They even cite things they think "prove" that the "Conservatives support insurance mandates on a FEDERAL level" when this has never passed before DUE TO Objections!

So PLEASE explain this to me.
If you are so good at it, please!

You said:
So PLEASE explain this to me.
If you are so good at it, please!

Simple. It doesn't even need to be that in depth. Even the US Supreme Court saw the health care law as a "tax". If you don't pay your taxes, you could go to prison.

The problem here isn't the health care law. It's the ignorance and stupidity of the right wing. To have a military, to have roads, to have sewers, to have a government that helps people after disasters like Katrina and Sandy, you need taxes. You need a government to organize. All that has to be "PAID" for.

Republicans with this stupid fucking bullshit like "it's our money" shows the depth of their ignorance. The truth is, "It's OUR country". And "OUR" includes even the people Republicans hate, like gays and blacks and atheists and so on. Republican conservatives try to take the credit for what all whites in this country have accomplished. If today's conservatives are lazy welfare queens, why would anyone think they were more than that in the past?

And worse, who gets the bulk of food stamps and welfare? Whites in Red States, the ultimate welfare queens.
Under Bush, health care costs skyrocketed and medical bills became the number one cause of bankruptcy. Bankrupt the people and you eventually bankrupt the country. Somehow, right wingers are so damn ignorant, they say incredibly stupid things like "get help from the church".

And where does the church get it's help from???? Duh! Small churches without government help can barely keep their doors open, much less help the sick.

Right wingers don't need to be fools. They choose that. When you point out something like Republicans voting against equal pay or voting against health care for first responders or for blocking the BP investigation, they desperately try to justify that with "the bill had a rider" or a flat out "I refuse to believe that", but that doesn't make the truth not true.

If you want to live in this country, if you want roads, if you want to be free, you gotta pay. Freedom isn't free. It take work and money. Try to explain that to the right wing. People who indulge in voter suppression and work tirelessly to deny rights to others complaining about the cost of freedom. What a bunch of creeps.

Hope that helped.

Ok rdean. Let's start with just point one.
You claim this is legal as a tax.

Would you be okay with taxing everyone who didn't agree to participate in spiritual healing?
Because spiritual healing would lower the cost of crime and disease, so NOT participating would COST the public more.

Can we isolate this one point:

1. you are okay with taxing people for not buying insurance, exempting those who DO believe that "health care is a right through govt" and "govt has the authority to compel citizens to buy insurance instead of having freedom to pay for health care other ways"

2. are you equally okay with taxing people for not using spiritual healing to lower their health costs, exempting those who DO believe in spiritual healing, and penalizing those who don't want to use that choice to lower health care costs

3. if you say that the insurance option is proven and the spiritual healing option is not proven,
I challenge you on that as well.

Many people are arguing they do NOT believe it is lowering costs, but it taking away freedom while raising costs.

So that is NOT proven.

You can say spiritual healing is not proven to everyone either, but at least that is free and has cured disease, addiction,
abuse and prevented or reduced costs of crime and disease for FREE.

Why is one okay to push by federal law as a MANDATE, without proof or freely chosen consent,
but the other is not.

Can you explain the tax on this mandate first, and then we'll go for the other points, if we get past this one.

 

[emilynghiem]

While we are discussing why is it okay to tax or exempt people based on 'whether or not they buy insurance'
but not okay to exempt or tax people 'whether or not they use Spiritual Healing to lower the cost of crime or disease'

let's start discussing this other issue
Should the govt be used to step in for charity in place of churches?

My point, which I find both OBAMA and BEN CARSON AGREE WITH
is to replace welfare with microlending, so if we use govt/public funds, it is PAID BACK
similar to student loans, so that more people can be helped on a rotating sustainable basis.

Do you agree this is more effective use of taxpayer money than one-way handouts that reward dependency?

Can we start the conversation with that.

If you are going to help people isn't it more productive, cost-effective and sustainable over the longrun to teach people to FISH (rather than argue over the money paid out by either social welfare or corporate welfare which I think is worse and costs taxpayers even more money).

A.

A. And where does the church get it's help from???? Duh! Small churches without government help can barely keep their doors open, much less help the sick.

A. why stop with individuals? Why not help ALL churches and charities to learn to be SELF-SUSTAINING. by mentoring them to BUY PROPERTY to set up endowments and campuses, to manage and train their volunteers and serve families, communities and public on a sustainable basis.

Don't you agree that's better to MICROLEND, and teach/TRAIN/mentor whole groups, not just individuals, how to invest in property ownership and community management and PAY BACK the public the money to invest in the next round of interns trained to manage business and communities?

B.

B. If you want to live in this country, if you want roads, if you want to be free, you gotta pay. Freedom isn't free. It take work and money. Try to explain that to the right wing. People who indulge in voter suppression and work tirelessly to deny rights to others complaining about the cost of freedom. What a bunch of creeps.

Hope that helped.

B. Okay what about people in prisons who committed crimes that cost the public.
Are you holding them accountable for their costs?
Are you okay with continuing to charge more and more to lawabiding taxpayers, who didn't commit these crimes,
to pay 50K a year per inmate, while not having money to pay for health care, and losing our freedom under tax penalties requiring us to pay more on top of what we already pay for inmates health care and housing.

Why should we lose our freedom when we didn't commit these crimes costing states millions if not billions of dollars?
Why can't we hold wrongdoers accountable for those costs, and use our tax money saved to pay for health care instead of charging us more or costing us freedom?

Can you answer this, if you hold all people accountable for costs?

Or do you only believe in going after the lawabiding taxpayers with ability to pay because they are easier to target?

Thanks, rdean

I hope and pray you are the first who can answer these questions
as nobody else I know can explain why the system is allowed to run the way it is.

it makes no sense to me, but maybe you can explain how this is supposed to work,
and expect people to have any consistent sense of accountability. to me, it's crazy making
and that's why our mental health system is overrun, people suffer manic depression and mood swings, because we send mixed signals and encourage people to live in denial, made to believe this is how society works.
Thanks, rdean!
You might just make my year, if I can finally understand all this. Wow!

 

[rdean]

Funny, when I say someone lied, I prove it. I explain the lie and add links to back up my claim.

When Right wingers call me a liar, they stop right there. They are such idiots, they believe simply by calling a name they've "proved it" and walk away with a fist pump and a quick "nailed it". And when I ask them to explain the lie, they say things like "everyone knows" and "no one likes you". And then I throw my head back and laugh long and hard.

OK rdean
can you explain how the liberal Democrats can CLAIM to be prochoice
and against govt intrusion in private decisions regarding abortion
and yet be okay with federal regulations and penalties on health care choice?

The most I get from liberals is justifications like
a. this is just a temporary bill, legislation in progress before it is reformed, to move toward la dee da....
but I don't think they allow temporary bills that are prolife to move toward more govt intrusion
so why the double standard, can you explain this
b. just because the federal govt is requiring citizens to buy insurance
"doesn't mean they are regulating the choices"
the point is to move toward a singlepayer system where the funding goes through govt
but the choices are private and not interfered with
Again, nobody I know on either the prochoice or prolife side
wants taxpayer money funneled to the other group's agenda of choices.
This idea that you can funnel money through federal govt, and NOT have federal regulations
on it seems unrealistic and in denial that public monies must respect all people or else don't go through
federal govt if you can't all agree on the policies! It is contradictory to want things to be public
and then PROTEST when the prolife or other citizens want to be represented by the policy.
c. people are going to buy insurance anyway. taxpayers have to pay for public hospitals anyway, so this is helping by requiring insurance.
My argument is mandating Christian spiritual healing would also cut costs of crime and disease. And people suffering from addictions end up having to go through that ANYWAY.
So "requiring" that would SAVE LIVES, health and taxpayer's money.
But it is not the role of govt to mandate spiritual healing, which is a personal choice,
and likewise NOT govt's place to dictate the BELIEF that "health care is a right through govt"

If the issue were mainly saving money, then anyone could start mandating and dictating
policies that save money. But it negates liberty and choice that people cannot be deprived
of unless they've committed a crime and were found guilty by due process.

Can you please explain how a b and c are not contradictory
when these same arguments are made for things the Left disagrees with?
Somehow the Left "imagines" that their policy is so inclusive that it automatically includes everything
that other people want anyway!

Really? Then why are people protesting their liberties and choices were taken away?

rdean if you can PLEASE PLEASE explain this to me,
I would GREATLY appreciate it. I haven't found a single liberal who could.

And I consider myself a progressive among the liberal Democrats I work with as a registered Democrat.

This seems to be complete denial and misunderstanding of what the conservatives are objecting to.

They REALLY believe the conservatives are "complaining for the sake of objecting to liberal politics"
and don't think the objections are real. They even cite things they think "prove" that the "Conservatives support insurance mandates on a FEDERAL level" when this has never passed before DUE TO Objections!

So PLEASE explain this to me.
If you are so good at it, please!

You said:
So PLEASE explain this to me.
If you are so good at it, please!

Simple. It doesn't even need to be that in depth. Even the US Supreme Court saw the health care law as a "tax". If you don't pay your taxes, you could go to prison.

The problem here isn't the health care law. It's the ignorance and stupidity of the right wing. To have a military, to have roads, to have sewers, to have a government that helps people after disasters like Katrina and Sandy, you need taxes. You need a government to organize. All that has to be "PAID" for.

Republicans with this stupid fucking bullshit like "it's our money" shows the depth of their ignorance. The truth is, "It's OUR country". And "OUR" includes even the people Republicans hate, like gays and blacks and atheists and so on. Republican conservatives try to take the credit for what all whites in this country have accomplished. If today's conservatives are lazy welfare queens, why would anyone think they were more than that in the past?

And worse, who gets the bulk of food stamps and welfare? Whites in Red States, the ultimate welfare queens.
Under Bush, health care costs skyrocketed and medical bills became the number one cause of bankruptcy. Bankrupt the people and you eventually bankrupt the country. Somehow, right wingers are so damn ignorant, they say incredibly stupid things like "get help from the church".

And where does the church get it's help from???? Duh! Small churches without government help can barely keep their doors open, much less help the sick.

Right wingers don't need to be fools. They choose that. When you point out something like Republicans voting against equal pay or voting against health care for first responders or for blocking the BP investigation, they desperately try to justify that with "the bill had a rider" or a flat out "I refuse to believe that", but that doesn't make the truth not true.

If you want to live in this country, if you want roads, if you want to be free, you gotta pay. Freedom isn't free. It take work and money. Try to explain that to the right wing. People who indulge in voter suppression and work tirelessly to deny rights to others complaining about the cost of freedom. What a bunch of creeps.

Hope that helped.

Ok rdean. Let's start with just point one.
You claim this is legal as a tax.

Would you be okay with taxing everyone who didn't agree to participate in spiritual healing?
Because spiritual healing would lower the cost of crime and disease, so NOT participating would COST the public more.

Can we isolate this one point:

1. you are okay with taxing people for not buying insurance, exempting those who DO believe that "health care is a right through govt" and "govt has the authority to compel citizens to buy insurance instead of having freedom to pay for health care other ways"

2. are you equally okay with taxing people for not using spiritual healing to lower their health costs, exempting those who DO believe in spiritual healing, and penalizing those who don't want to use that choice to lower health care costs

3. if you say that the insurance option is proven and the spiritual healing option is not proven,
I challenge you on that as well.

Many people are arguing they do NOT believe it is lowering costs, but it taking away freedom while raising costs.

So that is NOT proven.

You can say spiritual healing is not proven to everyone either, but at least that is free and has cured disease, addiction,
abuse and prevented or reduced costs of crime and disease for FREE.

Why is one okay to push by federal law as a MANDATE, without proof or freely chosen consent,
but the other is not.

Can you explain the tax on this mandate first, and then we'll go for the other points, if we get past this one.

You said:
Ok rdean. Let's start with just point one.
You claim this is legal as a tax.

Would you be okay with taxing everyone who didn't agree to participate in spiritual healing?

Spiritual Healing??????? What the fuck are you talking about? Sorry, I couldn't get passed that.

 

[emilynghiem]

You said:
Ok rdean. Let's start with just point one.
You claim this is legal as a tax.

Would you be okay with taxing everyone who didn't agree to participate in spiritual healing?

Spiritual Healing??????? What the fuck are you talking about? Sorry, I couldn't get passed that.

OK rdean
what I mean by Spiritual Healing
is the FREE and NATURAL practice, purely voluntary/by free choice,
of undergoing therapy and/or prayer for Forgiveness of whatever
in someone's past (their mind, lives or relations currently or could be influences/conflicts from past generations) that is BLOCKING their mind or body from healing naturally.

This method has been applied to heal many diseases, some deemed "incureable" by medicine alone:
* schizophrenia or other mental illness
* cancer
* rheumatoid arthritis
* addictions or self-destructive even criminal illness
such as tied to sexual or drug/alcohol abuse
by healing the SPIRITUAL cause of the sickness and inability to heal naturally

This CAN be replicated and proven scientifically, as practiced by reputable leaders in the field:
Dr. Francis MacNutt in Florida (whose medical study I cited on Rheumatoid Arthritis)
Dr. Phillip Goldfedder who changed his neurosurgery practice after he saw proof demonstrated to him that Spiritual Healing worked, and has been using this to cure more people effectively and FREELY than his previous practice that only dealt with symptoms at a much greater cost.
Also the books by Dr. Scott Peck where he urged the medical and psychiatric profession to follow up on formal research and development of these methods for regular diagnostic and treatment as any other type of medical or mental therapy

Note: it does NOT negate, replace or deny medicine or science, but works alongside any other treatments needed to heal the whole person, body mind and spirit. So even where people STILL use mental and medical treatments, the spiritual healing facilitates the process of healing and recovery so it makes it more effective and reduces costs.

Because this is FREE and is shown to permanently CURE illness ranging from cancer to
Criminal Addictions by identifying and removing the root cause,

That's where Spiritual Healing can DRASTICALLY reduce the cost of health care, including preventing and reducing costs of CRIME and any related costs normally required for taxpayers
to pay. By breaking the cycle of abuse using this therapy for recovery, the savings to taxpayers could more than pay for health care, but convert the mental health and prison system into services to reach more and more of the population through prevention, instead of failed corrections after the fact.

So if you are going to argue that "buying insurance" reduces the cost of health care on the taxpayers, what about "spiritual healing."

Spiritual healing has been shown to cure people of mental and criminal illness.
But insurance does not.

That's why so many people believe in this as saving lives, health, relationships and sanity, which means bigger cost reductions to taxpayers
than just buying insurance which might pay for medications,
while spiritual healing can cure conditions for FREE where people no longer need medications at all. (such as for rheumatoid arthritis in the case of complete recovery, or mental health cases where schizophrenia was completely cured, or preventing the need for expensive procedures later if cancer is cured early on)

Now Clearly, rdean,
spiritual healing CANNOT be regulated much less mandated by govt.
Even if people BELIEVE in it, it must remain freely chosen and cannot be required
(except perhaps in the case of criminal danger that if someone wants to qualify
NOT to be detained as a danger to society, they may be required to go through treatment that works.
So if spiritual healing is the only cure for pedophilia, for example, requiring someone to be cured of a dangerous illness to prevent negligence or liability might indirectly require such treatment if it's the only way proven scientifically to work)

What I'm saying is why can insurance be required as a cost saving measure,
if people don't believe in "health care as right that can be regulated by govt"
why isn't that belief respected as FREE CHOICE
if you are going to say that the cost-saving and lifesaving choice of Spiritual Healing
must remain as a FREE CHOICE and cannot be mandated by govt just because it saves money (and lives).

My argument is why not offer citizens an EQUAL choice.
However you BELIEVE in reducing and paying for your own health care,
whether by insurance, spiritual healing, medical school internships, or business coops,

let people have a free choice.

But why mandate insurance as the only choice, if people don't believe in that,
when spiritual healing would be just as wrong to mandate if people don't believe in it.

The saddest thing is that spiritual healing can be proven scientifically to cure disease
and cut costs FOR FREE. While insurance does not cure disease and costs money.

Why is that not a choice to avoid a tax penalty, but insurance is REQUIRED?

 

[Disir]