The Obamacare scam is failing and exposes its built-in treachery

[Arianrhod]

If you are saying we have to PROVE the alternative plans work before "having the right to fund them" --> THEN WHY ISN'T THIS STANDARD APPLIED TO THE CURRENT LEGISLATION?

Just taking this question from your post......

1. There isn't any standard. Well, maybe you could keep your doctor if you like them....or we'll save you 2,500/year (you know when we spend 8,500 per person per year.....left wing math).

2. So you won't get any application. The closest you'll get when you badmouth Obamacare is "You are a racist !".

When you live in a little bubble chanting "$2,500...$8,500" and refuse to accept any information that might challenge that bubble no matter who presents it or from what sources, yes, you're going to be perpetually confused by the fact that people are benefiting from this legislation. The implication is that someone else is paying for your health insurance and you haven't had to think about any of this prior to January 2014, and thinking makes you widdle head hurt.

Dear Arianrhod
It is clear from posts by you and Sun Devil 92
you are both intelligent, aware and fully capable of understanding
and doing the research. The issue is NOT the figures.
Please do not insult each other's intelligence over this,
The issue is CLASHING BELIEFS about the role of govt.
And those beliefs are NOT GOING TO CHANGE.
So quit blaming or thinking it's an intelligence issue.
it's a matter of beliefs, and people have a right to those.
and not to be harassed or forced by govt about those beliefs!

Even if the plans were covered, without flaws, and perfectly balanced,
the ISSUE is NOT GOING THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT FOR HEALTH CARE.

This isn't to be mean and deprive anyone of the CHOICE to do that if they wish.

The PROBLEM is once people depend on GOVT for health care,
then we become DEPENDENT and Enslaved to whatever Govt officials pass.
They no longer answer to us if they control the purse strings on medical care.

This needs to remain in the hands of the people who can CHOOSE
to pay providers and programs that DESERVE our business.

So YES it has to be set up as STABLE as a govt program,
but it has to be by FREE CHOICE so it remains ACCOUNTABLE to the public.
consumers.

It has to do BOTH.

The solution?
A. reform and stop the waste on the failed criminal justice and mental health systems that is wasting billions if not trillions of resources needed for health care
B. convert these institutions into MEDICAL SCHOOL programs and clinics to
CREATE more facilities and service providers

Insurance is NOT going to create enough doctors and clinics to serve a growing population that will now access services. The money should be invested THERE: In medical education, training and building more programs to provide cost-effective services for greater populations. Per district where everyone can access, and we don't have the backlogs we have now on county and other levels.

Arianrhod No matter what figures you cite,
that isn't going to change the fact that people
don't believe in going through govt for health care.

This is as WRONGFUL to force people to change their beliefs
for govt mandates as it is to FORCE people to change
from prochoice to prolife
or prolife to prochoice.

You are intelligent, insightful and thoughtful.
I think you can understand the danger, insult, damage and abuse
involved in the improper use of govt to force people into
policies that deny, oppress or conflict with beliefs people have,
that they cannot help, and can't be forced by govt to change.

Please tell me you undestand this concept and how damaging it is.

You DON'T have to agree with prolife or Christian beliefs
to understand it is wrongful for govt to force them on people
or to force policies that violate these beliefs.

Why can't we respect this is going on with beliefs for and against
the Right to health care. Some people do and some people don't.

How is it fair to all to force one policy or the other through govt?
Why isn't it obvious that we need to give and respect free choice of both beliefs?

You elect representatives who, if they're ethical, serve the people they were elected to represent. How would you propose they represent every single individual's "free choice of belief" without invariably running into conflicts?

My belief is that 3% of Americans don't need to own 50% of the guns in America. Your belief may be that every fertilized egg is a person. How do you reconcile those beliefs with the beliefs of those who hold opposing beliefs, or those who aren't certain?

Your great concern with what you believe government shouldn't do does not make clear what you believe government should do. Feel free to expand on that.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Obamacare's Economic Assumptions Collapse | RealClearPolitics

Economic reality is making it increasingly obvious that we are in the midst of Obamacare’s long anticipated death spiral. Most recently, Aetna joined UnitedHealthcare and Humana as the third of the "big five" insurance firms to announce major cuts to its Obamacare exchange business.

For insurers, it's simple math: Premiums collected must exceed claims paid. If too few healthy, low risk individuals enroll to offset the costs of insuring unhealthy, high risk individuals, the math doesn’t work. This imbalance forces insurers to raise premiums on the low risk individuals who do enroll to cover the costs of insuring high risk individuals. The rising premiums cause even more healthy individuals to drop coverage – resulting in what has been called a death spiral.

Aetna’s CEO Mark Bertolini explained that his company was dropping out of the exchanges because "[p]roviding affordable, high-quality healthcare options to consumers is not possible without a balanced risk pool," and that “individuals in need of high-cost care represent” a percentage of the risk pool so large that it “results in substantial upward pressure on premiums and creates significant sustainability concerns.”

But the Obamamoney tree was going to coverall that.

 

[emilynghiem]

If you are saying we have to PROVE the alternative plans work before "having the right to fund them" --> THEN WHY ISN'T THIS STANDARD APPLIED TO THE CURRENT LEGISLATION?

Just taking this question from your post......

1. There isn't any standard. Well, maybe you could keep your doctor if you like them....or we'll save you 2,500/year (you know when we spend 8,500 per person per year.....left wing math).

2. So you won't get any application. The closest you'll get when you badmouth Obamacare is "You are a racist !".

When you live in a little bubble chanting "$2,500...$8,500" and refuse to accept any information that might challenge that bubble no matter who presents it or from what sources, yes, you're going to be perpetually confused by the fact that people are benefiting from this legislation. The implication is that someone else is paying for your health insurance and you haven't had to think about any of this prior to January 2014, and thinking makes you widdle head hurt.

Dear Arianrhod
It is clear from posts by you and Sun Devil 92
you are both intelligent, aware and fully capable of understanding
and doing the research. The issue is NOT the figures.
Please do not insult each other's intelligence over this,
The issue is CLASHING BELIEFS about the role of govt.
And those beliefs are NOT GOING TO CHANGE.
So quit blaming or thinking it's an intelligence issue.
it's a matter of beliefs, and people have a right to those.
and not to be harassed or forced by govt about those beliefs!

Even if the plans were covered, without flaws, and perfectly balanced,
the ISSUE is NOT GOING THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT FOR HEALTH CARE.

This isn't to be mean and deprive anyone of the CHOICE to do that if they wish.

The PROBLEM is once people depend on GOVT for health care,
then we become DEPENDENT and Enslaved to whatever Govt officials pass.
They no longer answer to us if they control the purse strings on medical care.

This needs to remain in the hands of the people who can CHOOSE
to pay providers and programs that DESERVE our business.

So YES it has to be set up as STABLE as a govt program,
but it has to be by FREE CHOICE so it remains ACCOUNTABLE to the public.
consumers.

It has to do BOTH.

The solution?
A. reform and stop the waste on the failed criminal justice and mental health systems that is wasting billions if not trillions of resources needed for health care
B. convert these institutions into MEDICAL SCHOOL programs and clinics to
CREATE more facilities and service providers

Insurance is NOT going to create enough doctors and clinics to serve a growing population that will now access services. The money should be invested THERE: In medical education, training and building more programs to provide cost-effective services for greater populations. Per district where everyone can access, and we don't have the backlogs we have now on county and other levels.

Arianrhod No matter what figures you cite,
that isn't going to change the fact that people
don't believe in going through govt for health care.

This is as WRONGFUL to force people to change their beliefs
for govt mandates as it is to FORCE people to change
from prochoice to prolife
or prolife to prochoice.

You are intelligent, insightful and thoughtful.
I think you can understand the danger, insult, damage and abuse
involved in the improper use of govt to force people into
policies that deny, oppress or conflict with beliefs people have,
that they cannot help, and can't be forced by govt to change.

Please tell me you undestand this concept and how damaging it is.

You DON'T have to agree with prolife or Christian beliefs
to understand it is wrongful for govt to force them on people
or to force policies that violate these beliefs.

Why can't we respect this is going on with beliefs for and against
the Right to health care. Some people do and some people don't.

How is it fair to all to force one policy or the other through govt?
Why isn't it obvious that we need to give and respect free choice of both beliefs?

You elect representatives who, if they're ethical, serve the people they were elected to represent. How would you propose they represent every single individual's "free choice of belief" without invariably running into conflicts?

My belief is that 3% of Americans don't need to own 50% of the guns in America. Your belief may be that every fertilized egg is a person. How do you reconcile those beliefs with the beliefs of those who hold opposing beliefs, or those who aren't certain?

Your great concern with what you believe government shouldn't do does not make clear what you believe government should do. Feel free to expand on that.

Simple Arianrhod
It's called the First Amendment.
This is why we restrict Congress from making laws
and govt from enforcing them if they affect BELIEFS.

Because people WON'T agree and can't be forced to by govt!

This is why we have the 10th Amendment
and the 14th. To protect rights of people equally
from govt intrusion into areas of personal liberties
and choice that are HUMAN RIGHTS and NATURE.

This is why we have Constitutional laws
restricting what Govt can and cannot legislate.

The problem Arianrhod is that we aren't following
this standard.

We've strayed so much, we have people pushing all
manner of "social legislation" through "Federal Govt"
that it was NEVER DESIGNED to regulate.

That's why this belongs to the States and to the people
so it CAN be decided locally what is and what isn't within govt jurisdiction.
States are ALSO restricted from mandating against people's beliefs.
But if people in a state AGREE on a policy, yes laws can be crafted
that RESPECT consent and representation of THAT population.
But that doesn't mean it can be forced on people of other states.


That's why the marriage issue causes unresolvable
conflict -- it touches on BELIEFS and the state isn't supposed to dictate to the people.

That's why we are supposed to keep those personal decisions and beliefs OUT of Govt:
* Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment
protecting rights of all citizens under govt jurisdiction
* Code of Ethics for Govt Service
where public servants are NOT supposed to put
party interests or agenda BEFORE duty to the Constitution

It's written in the laws, but we aren't
Teaching
Following
Enforcing these laws consistently.

That's why we run into conflicts.
These policies AREN'T the place of govt. Period.

Thanks for asking.
The answer is that simple.

 

[Arianrhod]

If you are saying we have to PROVE the alternative plans work before "having the right to fund them" --> THEN WHY ISN'T THIS STANDARD APPLIED TO THE CURRENT LEGISLATION?

Just taking this question from your post......

1. There isn't any standard. Well, maybe you could keep your doctor if you like them....or we'll save you 2,500/year (you know when we spend 8,500 per person per year.....left wing math).

2. So you won't get any application. The closest you'll get when you badmouth Obamacare is "You are a racist !".

When you live in a little bubble chanting "$2,500...$8,500" and refuse to accept any information that might challenge that bubble no matter who presents it or from what sources, yes, you're going to be perpetually confused by the fact that people are benefiting from this legislation. The implication is that someone else is paying for your health insurance and you haven't had to think about any of this prior to January 2014, and thinking makes you widdle head hurt.

Dear Arianrhod
It is clear from posts by you and Sun Devil 92
you are both intelligent, aware and fully capable of understanding
and doing the research. The issue is NOT the figures.
Please do not insult each other's intelligence over this,
The issue is CLASHING BELIEFS about the role of govt.
And those beliefs are NOT GOING TO CHANGE.
So quit blaming or thinking it's an intelligence issue.
it's a matter of beliefs, and people have a right to those.
and not to be harassed or forced by govt about those beliefs!

Even if the plans were covered, without flaws, and perfectly balanced,
the ISSUE is NOT GOING THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT FOR HEALTH CARE.

This isn't to be mean and deprive anyone of the CHOICE to do that if they wish.

The PROBLEM is once people depend on GOVT for health care,
then we become DEPENDENT and Enslaved to whatever Govt officials pass.
They no longer answer to us if they control the purse strings on medical care.

This needs to remain in the hands of the people who can CHOOSE
to pay providers and programs that DESERVE our business.

So YES it has to be set up as STABLE as a govt program,
but it has to be by FREE CHOICE so it remains ACCOUNTABLE to the public.
consumers.

It has to do BOTH.

The solution?
A. reform and stop the waste on the failed criminal justice and mental health systems that is wasting billions if not trillions of resources needed for health care
B. convert these institutions into MEDICAL SCHOOL programs and clinics to
CREATE more facilities and service providers

Insurance is NOT going to create enough doctors and clinics to serve a growing population that will now access services. The money should be invested THERE: In medical education, training and building more programs to provide cost-effective services for greater populations. Per district where everyone can access, and we don't have the backlogs we have now on county and other levels.

Arianrhod No matter what figures you cite,
that isn't going to change the fact that people
don't believe in going through govt for health care.

This is as WRONGFUL to force people to change their beliefs
for govt mandates as it is to FORCE people to change
from prochoice to prolife
or prolife to prochoice.

You are intelligent, insightful and thoughtful.
I think you can understand the danger, insult, damage and abuse
involved in the improper use of govt to force people into
policies that deny, oppress or conflict with beliefs people have,
that they cannot help, and can't be forced by govt to change.

Please tell me you undestand this concept and how damaging it is.

You DON'T have to agree with prolife or Christian beliefs
to understand it is wrongful for govt to force them on people
or to force policies that violate these beliefs.

Why can't we respect this is going on with beliefs for and against
the Right to health care. Some people do and some people don't.

How is it fair to all to force one policy or the other through govt?
Why isn't it obvious that we need to give and respect free choice of both beliefs?

You elect representatives who, if they're ethical, serve the people they were elected to represent. How would you propose they represent every single individual's "free choice of belief" without invariably running into conflicts?

My belief is that 3% of Americans don't need to own 50% of the guns in America. Your belief may be that every fertilized egg is a person. How do you reconcile those beliefs with the beliefs of those who hold opposing beliefs, or those who aren't certain?

Your great concern with what you believe government shouldn't do does not make clear what you believe government should do. Feel free to expand on that.

Simple Arianrhod
It's called the First Amendment.
This is why we restrict Congress from making laws
and govt from enforcing them if they affect BELIEFS.

Because people WON'T agree and can't be forced to by govt!

This is why we have the 10th Amendment
and the 14th. To protect rights of people equally
from govt intrusion into areas of personal liberties
and choice that are HUMAN RIGHTS and NATURE.

This is why we have Constitutional laws
restricting what Govt can and cannot legislate.

The problem Arianrhod is that we aren't following
this standard.

We've strayed so much, we have people pushing all
manner of "social legislation" through "Federal Govt"
that it was NEVER DESIGNED to regulate.

That's why this belongs to the States and to the people
so it CAN be decided locally what is and what isn't within govt jurisdiction.
States are ALSO restricted from mandating against people's beliefs.
But if people in a state AGREE on a policy, yes laws can be crafted
that RESPECT consent and representation of THAT population.
But that doesn't mean it can be forced on people of other states.


That's why the marriage issue causes unresolvable
conflict -- it touches on BELIEFS and the state isn't supposed to dictate to the people.

That's why we are supposed to keep those personal decisions and beliefs OUT of Govt:
* Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment
protecting rights of all citizens under govt jurisdiction
* Code of Ethics for Govt Service
where public servants are NOT supposed to put
party interests or agenda BEFORE duty to the Constitution

It's written in the laws, but we aren't
Teaching
Following
Enforcing these laws consistently.

That's why we run into conflicts.
These policies AREN'T the place of govt. Period.

Thanks for asking.
The answer is that simple.

All right, then. So when you complain that government doesn't do exactly what you want, you're just exercising your First Amendment right to do so. You don't expect that government will ignore every other American's preferences and cater to you.

That's all I needed to know.

 

[Grizz]

Those people that Big Insurance screws over the most are the same ones who now defend them. What's up with that? Oh yeah, Obama's black.

Did you really just post this tripe?
Everybody has the same access to the ACA plans and subsidies.
The ONLY things that were rejected by MANY States were the Medcaid Expansion and the State Exchanges. The Law EXPRESSLY forbids States that didn't buy into the State Exchanges to et the subsidies...the Law however was ignored and the Subsidies since day 1 have been available to all who qualify.

 

[Grizz]

If they repeal Obamacare, we might get catastrophic plans at a reasonable price.

And you might not. Now, if you were able to present some historical precedents to support your hypothesis, that might be interesting. But you can't, so you'll just toss your Wish List out there in the hope that it will magically come true, amiright?

The big bad insurance companies can ONLY charge premiums APPROVED by HHS AND the State Insurance Commissioners. Since passage of the ACA ALL double digit increases MUST be approved by HHS.

 

[Arianrhod]

If they repeal Obamacare, we might get catastrophic plans at a reasonable price.

And you might not. Now, if you were able to present some historical precedents to support your hypothesis, that might be interesting. But you can't, so you'll just toss your Wish List out there in the hope that it will magically come true, amiright?

The big bad insurance companies can ONLY charge premiums APPROVED by HHS AND the State Insurance Commissioners. Since passage of the ACA ALL double digit increases MUST be approved by HHS.

Are you suggesting that if the HHS and state insurance commissioners vanished overnight, the insurers would roll back their premiums and offer the catastrophic plans of Sunny Boy's dreams out of the goodness of their hearts? Do tell.

 

[Grizz]

If they repeal Obamacare, we might get catastrophic plans at a reasonable price.

And you might not. Now, if you were able to present some historical precedents to support your hypothesis, that might be interesting. But you can't, so you'll just toss your Wish List out there in the hope that it will magically come true, amiright?

The big bad insurance companies can ONLY charge premiums APPROVED by HHS AND the State Insurance Commissioners. Since passage of the ACA ALL double digit increases MUST be approved by HHS.

Are you suggesting that if the HHS and state insurance commissioners vanished overnight, the insurers would roll back their premiums and offer the catastrophic plans of Sunny Boy's dreams out of the goodness of their hearts? Do tell.

You will have to do better than that. But don't suggest tat the Insurance Companies can charge whatever they want because they cannot.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If they repeal Obamacare, we might get catastrophic plans at a reasonable price.

And you might not. Now, if you were able to present some historical precedents to support your hypothesis, that might be interesting. But you can't, so you'll just toss your Wish List out there in the hope that it will magically come true, amiright?

The big bad insurance companies can ONLY charge premiums APPROVED by HHS AND the State Insurance Commissioners. Since passage of the ACA ALL double digit increases MUST be approved by HHS.

Are you suggesting that if the HHS and state insurance commissioners vanished overnight, the insurers would roll back their premiums and offer the catastrophic plans of Sunny Boy's dreams out of the goodness of their hearts? Do tell.

You will have to do better than that. But don't suggest tat the Insurance Companies can charge whatever they want because they cannot.

They'll do what the market asks them to do, if they are allowed.

Business can be very benevolent, but they are in this to make money.

Big government has been helping them do that for a long long time.

 

[dblack]

The main thing is, we need an authority telling us how to live. Think how lost and confused we'd be otherwise.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The main thing is, we need an authority telling us how to live. Think how lost and confused we'd be otherwise.

Good to know your sense of humor is still in tact.

Good one.

WAAT

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Arianrhod:
1.

Just taking this question from your post......

1. There isn't any standard. Well, maybe you could keep your doctor if you like them....or we'll save you 2,500/year (you know when we spend 8,500 per person per year.....left wing math).

2. So you won't get any application. The closest you'll get when you badmouth Obamacare is "You are a racist !".

When you live in a little bubble chanting "$2,500...$8,500" and refuse to accept any information that might challenge that bubble no matter who presents it or from what sources, yes, you're going to be perpetually confused by the fact that people are benefiting from this legislation. The implication is that someone else is paying for your health insurance and you haven't had to think about any of this prior to January 2014, and thinking makes you widdle head hurt.

Dear Arianrhod
It is clear from posts by you and Sun Devil 92
you are both intelligent, aware and fully capable of understanding
and doing the research. The issue is NOT the figures.
Please do not insult each other's intelligence over this,
The issue is CLASHING BELIEFS about the role of govt.
And those beliefs are NOT GOING TO CHANGE.
So quit blaming or thinking it's an intelligence issue.
it's a matter of beliefs, and people have a right to those.
and not to be harassed or forced by govt about those beliefs!

Even if the plans were covered, without flaws, and perfectly balanced,
the ISSUE is NOT GOING THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT FOR HEALTH CARE.

This isn't to be mean and deprive anyone of the CHOICE to do that if they wish.

The PROBLEM is once people depend on GOVT for health care,
then we become DEPENDENT and Enslaved to whatever Govt officials pass.
They no longer answer to us if they control the purse strings on medical care.

This needs to remain in the hands of the people who can CHOOSE
to pay providers and programs that DESERVE our business.

So YES it has to be set up as STABLE as a govt program,
but it has to be by FREE CHOICE so it remains ACCOUNTABLE to the public.
consumers.

It has to do BOTH.

The solution?
A. reform and stop the waste on the failed criminal justice and mental health systems that is wasting billions if not trillions of resources needed for health care
B. convert these institutions into MEDICAL SCHOOL programs and clinics to
CREATE more facilities and service providers

Insurance is NOT going to create enough doctors and clinics to serve a growing population that will now access services. The money should be invested THERE: In medical education, training and building more programs to provide cost-effective services for greater populations. Per district where everyone can access, and we don't have the backlogs we have now on county and other levels.

Arianrhod No matter what figures you cite,
that isn't going to change the fact that people
don't believe in going through govt for health care.

This is as WRONGFUL to force people to change their beliefs
for govt mandates as it is to FORCE people to change
from prochoice to prolife
or prolife to prochoice.

You are intelligent, insightful and thoughtful.
I think you can understand the danger, insult, damage and abuse
involved in the improper use of govt to force people into
policies that deny, oppress or conflict with beliefs people have,
that they cannot help, and can't be forced by govt to change.

Please tell me you undestand this concept and how damaging it is.

You DON'T have to agree with prolife or Christian beliefs
to understand it is wrongful for govt to force them on people
or to force policies that violate these beliefs.

Why can't we respect this is going on with beliefs for and against
the Right to health care. Some people do and some people don't.

How is it fair to all to force one policy or the other through govt?
Why isn't it obvious that we need to give and respect free choice of both beliefs?

You elect representatives who, if they're ethical, serve the people they were elected to represent. How would you propose they represent every single individual's "free choice of belief" without invariably running into conflicts?

My belief is that 3% of Americans don't need to own 50% of the guns in America. Your belief may be that every fertilized egg is a person. How do you reconcile those beliefs with the beliefs of those who hold opposing beliefs, or those who aren't certain?

Your great concern with what you believe government shouldn't do does not make clear what you believe government should do. Feel free to expand on that.

Simple Arianrhod
It's called the First Amendment.
This is why we restrict Congress from making laws
and govt from enforcing them if they affect BELIEFS.

Because people WON'T agree and can't be forced to by govt!

This is why we have the 10th Amendment
and the 14th. To protect rights of people equally
from govt intrusion into areas of personal liberties
and choice that are HUMAN RIGHTS and NATURE.

This is why we have Constitutional laws
restricting what Govt can and cannot legislate.

The problem Arianrhod is that we aren't following
this standard.

We've strayed so much, we have people pushing all
manner of "social legislation" through "Federal Govt"
that it was NEVER DESIGNED to regulate.

That's why this belongs to the States and to the people
so it CAN be decided locally what is and what isn't within govt jurisdiction.
States are ALSO restricted from mandating against people's beliefs.
But if people in a state AGREE on a policy, yes laws can be crafted
that RESPECT consent and representation of THAT population.
But that doesn't mean it can be forced on people of other states.


That's why the marriage issue causes unresolvable
conflict -- it touches on BELIEFS and the state isn't supposed to dictate to the people.

That's why we are supposed to keep those personal decisions and beliefs OUT of Govt:
* Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment
protecting rights of all citizens under govt jurisdiction
* Code of Ethics for Govt Service
where public servants are NOT supposed to put
party interests or agenda BEFORE duty to the Constitution

It's written in the laws, but we aren't
Teaching
Following
Enforcing these laws consistently.

That's why we run into conflicts.
These policies AREN'T the place of govt. Period.

Thanks for asking.
The answer is that simple.

All right, then. So when you complain that government doesn't do exactly what you want, you're just exercising your First Amendment right to do so. You don't expect that government will ignore every other American's preferences and cater to you.

That's all I needed to know.

Nope, Arianrhod you are talking to the wrong person.
I am the ONE person I know who will go to bat for people's beliefs
* FOR OR AGAINST abortion/prochoice/prolife/right to life/right to health care/free choice/free market

I DON'T have to agree or support someone's beliefs
to defend their arguments that govt infringement on them is unconstitutional.

* FOR OR AGAINST gun rights, gun control, legislation for or against

I DON'T have to agree or support someone's beliefs
to defend their arguments that govt infringement on them is unconstitutional.

* FOR OR AGAINST traditional marriage, gay marriage, transgender or benefits laws through the state

I DON'T have to agree or support someone's beliefs
to defend their arguments that govt infringement on them is unconstitutional.

* FOR OR AGAINST the death penalty, life in prison, restorative or retributive justice

I DON'T have to agree or support someone's beliefs
to defend their arguments that govt infringement on them is unconstitutional.

Do you understand, Arianrhod
that the arguments I make barring Govt from regulating or penalizing people's beliefs
APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL BELIEFS OF ALL PEOPLE
WHETHER I AM FOR OR AGAINST THAT BELIEF.

 

[Arianrhod]

Dear Arianrhod:
1.

When you live in a little bubble chanting "$2,500...$8,500" and refuse to accept any information that might challenge that bubble no matter who presents it or from what sources, yes, you're going to be perpetually confused by the fact that people are benefiting from this legislation. The implication is that someone else is paying for your health insurance and you haven't had to think about any of this prior to January 2014, and thinking makes you widdle head hurt.

Dear Arianrhod
It is clear from posts by you and Sun Devil 92
you are both intelligent, aware and fully capable of understanding
and doing the research. The issue is NOT the figures.
Please do not insult each other's intelligence over this,
The issue is CLASHING BELIEFS about the role of govt.
And those beliefs are NOT GOING TO CHANGE.
So quit blaming or thinking it's an intelligence issue.
it's a matter of beliefs, and people have a right to those.
and not to be harassed or forced by govt about those beliefs!

Even if the plans were covered, without flaws, and perfectly balanced,
the ISSUE is NOT GOING THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT FOR HEALTH CARE.

This isn't to be mean and deprive anyone of the CHOICE to do that if they wish.

The PROBLEM is once people depend on GOVT for health care,
then we become DEPENDENT and Enslaved to whatever Govt officials pass.
They no longer answer to us if they control the purse strings on medical care.

This needs to remain in the hands of the people who can CHOOSE
to pay providers and programs that DESERVE our business.

So YES it has to be set up as STABLE as a govt program,
but it has to be by FREE CHOICE so it remains ACCOUNTABLE to the public.
consumers.

It has to do BOTH.

The solution?
A. reform and stop the waste on the failed criminal justice and mental health systems that is wasting billions if not trillions of resources needed for health care
B. convert these institutions into MEDICAL SCHOOL programs and clinics to
CREATE more facilities and service providers

Insurance is NOT going to create enough doctors and clinics to serve a growing population that will now access services. The money should be invested THERE: In medical education, training and building more programs to provide cost-effective services for greater populations. Per district where everyone can access, and we don't have the backlogs we have now on county and other levels.

Arianrhod No matter what figures you cite,
that isn't going to change the fact that people
don't believe in going through govt for health care.

This is as WRONGFUL to force people to change their beliefs
for govt mandates as it is to FORCE people to change
from prochoice to prolife
or prolife to prochoice.

You are intelligent, insightful and thoughtful.
I think you can understand the danger, insult, damage and abuse
involved in the improper use of govt to force people into
policies that deny, oppress or conflict with beliefs people have,
that they cannot help, and can't be forced by govt to change.

Please tell me you undestand this concept and how damaging it is.

You DON'T have to agree with prolife or Christian beliefs
to understand it is wrongful for govt to force them on people
or to force policies that violate these beliefs.

Why can't we respect this is going on with beliefs for and against
the Right to health care. Some people do and some people don't.

How is it fair to all to force one policy or the other through govt?
Why isn't it obvious that we need to give and respect free choice of both beliefs?

You elect representatives who, if they're ethical, serve the people they were elected to represent. How would you propose they represent every single individual's "free choice of belief" without invariably running into conflicts?

My belief is that 3% of Americans don't need to own 50% of the guns in America. Your belief may be that every fertilized egg is a person. How do you reconcile those beliefs with the beliefs of those who hold opposing beliefs, or those who aren't certain?

Your great concern with what you believe government shouldn't do does not make clear what you believe government should do. Feel free to expand on that.

Simple Arianrhod
It's called the First Amendment.
This is why we restrict Congress from making laws
and govt from enforcing them if they affect BELIEFS.

Because people WON'T agree and can't be forced to by govt!

This is why we have the 10th Amendment
and the 14th. To protect rights of people equally
from govt intrusion into areas of personal liberties
and choice that are HUMAN RIGHTS and NATURE.

This is why we have Constitutional laws
restricting what Govt can and cannot legislate.

The problem Arianrhod is that we aren't following
this standard.

We've strayed so much, we have people pushing all
manner of "social legislation" through "Federal Govt"
that it was NEVER DESIGNED to regulate.

That's why this belongs to the States and to the people
so it CAN be decided locally what is and what isn't within govt jurisdiction.
States are ALSO restricted from mandating against people's beliefs.
But if people in a state AGREE on a policy, yes laws can be crafted
that RESPECT consent and representation of THAT population.
But that doesn't mean it can be forced on people of other states.


That's why the marriage issue causes unresolvable
conflict -- it touches on BELIEFS and the state isn't supposed to dictate to the people.

That's why we are supposed to keep those personal decisions and beliefs OUT of Govt:
* Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment
protecting rights of all citizens under govt jurisdiction
* Code of Ethics for Govt Service
where public servants are NOT supposed to put
party interests or agenda BEFORE duty to the Constitution

It's written in the laws, but we aren't
Teaching
Following
Enforcing these laws consistently.

That's why we run into conflicts.
These policies AREN'T the place of govt. Period.

Thanks for asking.
The answer is that simple.

All right, then. So when you complain that government doesn't do exactly what you want, you're just exercising your First Amendment right to do so. You don't expect that government will ignore every other American's preferences and cater to you.

That's all I needed to know.

Nope, Arianrhod you are talking to the wrong person.
I am the ONE person I know who will go to bat for people's beliefs
* FOR OR AGAINST abortion/prochoice/prolife/right to life/right to health care/free choice/free market

I DON'T have to agree or support someone's beliefs
to defend their arguments that govt infringement on them is unconstitutional.

* FOR OR AGAINST gun rights, gun control, legislation for or against

I DON'T have to agree or support someone's beliefs
to defend their arguments that govt infringement on them is unconstitutional.

* FOR OR AGAINST traditional marriage, gay marriage, transgender or benefits laws through the state

I DON'T have to agree or support someone's beliefs
to defend their arguments that govt infringement on them is unconstitutional.

* FOR OR AGAINST the death penalty, life in prison, restorative or retributive justice

I DON'T have to agree or support someone's beliefs
to defend their arguments that govt infringement on them is unconstitutional.

Do you understand, Arianrhod
that the arguments I make barring Govt from regulating or penalizing people's beliefs
APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL BELIEFS OF ALL PEOPLE
WHETHER I AM FOR OR AGAINST THAT BELIEF.

That's very nice, but one's health status is not a "belief," and the ability to access health care should not be dependent on someone else's "belief."

If you truly want to defend your fellow Americans, try being proactive in seeing that they get the basics of first-world health care.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Arianrhod:
1.

Dear Arianrhod
It is clear from posts by you and Sun Devil 92
you are both intelligent, aware and fully capable of understanding
and doing the research. The issue is NOT the figures.
Please do not insult each other's intelligence over this,
The issue is CLASHING BELIEFS about the role of govt.
And those beliefs are NOT GOING TO CHANGE.
So quit blaming or thinking it's an intelligence issue.
it's a matter of beliefs, and people have a right to those.
and not to be harassed or forced by govt about those beliefs!

Even if the plans were covered, without flaws, and perfectly balanced,
the ISSUE is NOT GOING THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT FOR HEALTH CARE.

This isn't to be mean and deprive anyone of the CHOICE to do that if they wish.

The PROBLEM is once people depend on GOVT for health care,
then we become DEPENDENT and Enslaved to whatever Govt officials pass.
They no longer answer to us if they control the purse strings on medical care.

This needs to remain in the hands of the people who can CHOOSE
to pay providers and programs that DESERVE our business.

So YES it has to be set up as STABLE as a govt program,
but it has to be by FREE CHOICE so it remains ACCOUNTABLE to the public.
consumers.

It has to do BOTH.

The solution?
A. reform and stop the waste on the failed criminal justice and mental health systems that is wasting billions if not trillions of resources needed for health care
B. convert these institutions into MEDICAL SCHOOL programs and clinics to
CREATE more facilities and service providers

Insurance is NOT going to create enough doctors and clinics to serve a growing population that will now access services. The money should be invested THERE: In medical education, training and building more programs to provide cost-effective services for greater populations. Per district where everyone can access, and we don't have the backlogs we have now on county and other levels.

Arianrhod No matter what figures you cite,
that isn't going to change the fact that people
don't believe in going through govt for health care.

This is as WRONGFUL to force people to change their beliefs
for govt mandates as it is to FORCE people to change
from prochoice to prolife
or prolife to prochoice.

You are intelligent, insightful and thoughtful.
I think you can understand the danger, insult, damage and abuse
involved in the improper use of govt to force people into
policies that deny, oppress or conflict with beliefs people have,
that they cannot help, and can't be forced by govt to change.

Please tell me you undestand this concept and how damaging it is.

You DON'T have to agree with prolife or Christian beliefs
to understand it is wrongful for govt to force them on people
or to force policies that violate these beliefs.

Why can't we respect this is going on with beliefs for and against
the Right to health care. Some people do and some people don't.

How is it fair to all to force one policy or the other through govt?
Why isn't it obvious that we need to give and respect free choice of both beliefs?

You elect representatives who, if they're ethical, serve the people they were elected to represent. How would you propose they represent every single individual's "free choice of belief" without invariably running into conflicts?

My belief is that 3% of Americans don't need to own 50% of the guns in America. Your belief may be that every fertilized egg is a person. How do you reconcile those beliefs with the beliefs of those who hold opposing beliefs, or those who aren't certain?

Your great concern with what you believe government shouldn't do does not make clear what you believe government should do. Feel free to expand on that.

Simple Arianrhod
It's called the First Amendment.
This is why we restrict Congress from making laws
and govt from enforcing them if they affect BELIEFS.

Because people WON'T agree and can't be forced to by govt!

This is why we have the 10th Amendment
and the 14th. To protect rights of people equally
from govt intrusion into areas of personal liberties
and choice that are HUMAN RIGHTS and NATURE.

This is why we have Constitutional laws
restricting what Govt can and cannot legislate.

The problem Arianrhod is that we aren't following
this standard.

We've strayed so much, we have people pushing all
manner of "social legislation" through "Federal Govt"
that it was NEVER DESIGNED to regulate.

That's why this belongs to the States and to the people
so it CAN be decided locally what is and what isn't within govt jurisdiction.
States are ALSO restricted from mandating against people's beliefs.
But if people in a state AGREE on a policy, yes laws can be crafted
that RESPECT consent and representation of THAT population.
But that doesn't mean it can be forced on people of other states.


That's why the marriage issue causes unresolvable
conflict -- it touches on BELIEFS and the state isn't supposed to dictate to the people.

That's why we are supposed to keep those personal decisions and beliefs OUT of Govt:
* Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment
protecting rights of all citizens under govt jurisdiction
* Code of Ethics for Govt Service
where public servants are NOT supposed to put
party interests or agenda BEFORE duty to the Constitution

It's written in the laws, but we aren't
Teaching
Following
Enforcing these laws consistently.

That's why we run into conflicts.
These policies AREN'T the place of govt. Period.

Thanks for asking.
The answer is that simple.

All right, then. So when you complain that government doesn't do exactly what you want, you're just exercising your First Amendment right to do so. You don't expect that government will ignore every other American's preferences and cater to you.

That's all I needed to know.

Nope, Arianrhod you are talking to the wrong person.
I am the ONE person I know who will go to bat for people's beliefs
* FOR OR AGAINST abortion/prochoice/prolife/right to life/right to health care/free choice/free market

I DON'T have to agree or support someone's beliefs
to defend their arguments that govt infringement on them is unconstitutional.

* FOR OR AGAINST gun rights, gun control, legislation for or against

I DON'T have to agree or support someone's beliefs
to defend their arguments that govt infringement on them is unconstitutional.

* FOR OR AGAINST traditional marriage, gay marriage, transgender or benefits laws through the state

I DON'T have to agree or support someone's beliefs
to defend their arguments that govt infringement on them is unconstitutional.

* FOR OR AGAINST the death penalty, life in prison, restorative or retributive justice

I DON'T have to agree or support someone's beliefs
to defend their arguments that govt infringement on them is unconstitutional.

Do you understand, Arianrhod
that the arguments I make barring Govt from regulating or penalizing people's beliefs
APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL BELIEFS OF ALL PEOPLE
WHETHER I AM FOR OR AGAINST THAT BELIEF.

That's very nice, but one's health status is not a "belief," and the ability to access health care should not be dependent on someone else's "belief."

If you truly want to defend your fellow Americans, try being proactive in seeing that they get the basics of first-world health care.

YES IT IS Arianrhod:
The right to life is a political belief that govt should protect the life of the unborn.
Some people don't believe that, some absolutely do.

The right to health care is a political belief that govt should protect and provide for this right.
Some people don't believe that, some absolutely do, and some absolutely oppose.

It is like believing if the church should provide for charity.
Some people believe this is a duty, a given.
Others do not believe in going through the church
but going through the govt to provide for social care for the public.

Okay, Arianrhod I think we've found where the issue is.

If we cannot agree this is a belief,
can we agree we have different beliefs that it is.

So some people BELIEVE it is a belief
and others believe it is a natural right.

Are you okay with acknowledging this difference?

That's fine if you don't see right to health care as a belief but a right.
Can you understand the same way you can't see it any other way,
the people opposed also cannot see it as a right. They cannot
help or change their beliefs about what is a right and what is a belief.

Do you understand that also? Or instead?
I think you are highly discerning and perceptive.

Do you see the different levels of thought on this,
and how people's BELIEFS affect how they see
health care as a right or as a belief that govt should manage it?

Thanks, I think we've hit the nail on the head here!

 

[Arianrhod]

That's very nice, but one's health status is not a "belief," and the ability to access health care should not be dependent on someone else's "belief."

If you truly want to defend your fellow Americans, try being proactive in seeing that they get the basics of first-world health care.

YES IT IS Arianrhod

Health is not a belief. No matter how many paragraphs you expend trying to claim that it is.

 

[emilynghiem]

That's very nice, but one's health status is not a "belief," and the ability to access health care should not be dependent on someone else's "belief."

If you truly want to defend your fellow Americans, try being proactive in seeing that they get the basics of first-world health care.

YES IT IS Arianrhod

Health is not a belief. No matter how many paragraphs you expend trying to claim that it is.

Dear Arianrhod
You are mixing two different things.
HEALTH is one thing
HEALTH CARE THROUGH GOVT is another thing

When you talk about HEALTH in the CONTEXT of
FEDERAL GOVT
you have already changed the nature of HEALTH
from something naturally existing to
something that depends on political constructs.

So you can no longer compare HEALTH
to "health care rights" <-- when THESE are filtered through GOVT.
=================================
Compare
* LIFE is a RIGHT and not a belief;
* but the >>>BELIEF<<< that "Life is a Right to be PROTECTED BY GOVT" IS a BELIEF

"LIFE" <-- which exists naturally and is not given by Govt
is different from "the belief in the Right to Life through Govt"

Now substitute HEALTH for LIFE
* HEALTH is naturally existing
* but the BELIEF in political rights to GOVERN and MANAGE
health care THROUGH GOVT is not naturally existing

You cannot forget that you are arguing
about this IN THE CONTEXT OF FEDERAL GOVT

That TOTALLY changes the dynamic

Same as with CHRISTIANITY which is a natural right
to exercise one's religion. BUT NOT IN THE CONTEXT
OF GOVT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS TO PAY OR PARTICIPATE.

One's faith is naturally existent, and nobody has the right to deny that
especially not govt. BUT INJECTING FAITH INTO GOVT is a totally different level.

Do you understand that HEALTH is one thing
but MANAGING IT THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT
is a completely different context and dynamic?

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

Same with MARRIAGE laws

* right to marriage OUTSIDE OF GOVT
is a natural freedom and extension/expression
of Free Exercise of Religion and one's personal beliefs and life

so that's why it's unconstitutional to BAN people
from marriage which is a spiritual personal and/or religious choice
that govt cannot restrict much less penalize people for.
that's like banning someone's religious practice in private.
unless they are breaking criminal or civil law, like killing raping
or abusing or violating rights of others claiming it's their religion,
then it's not govt's business to regulate restrict or ban the
free exercise of someone's beliefs as long as people consent
and there is no abuse or coercion or other violation going on.

* but ENDORSING and REGULATING marriage
THROUGH GOVT is a different context

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

So back to health care
YES anyone has the right to maintain their
own health and provide/share access to health care resources.

but mandating this through FEDERAL GOVT
is no longer within the free choice/consent of the people
but involves IMPOSING on the rights/freedoms of OTHER PEOPLE

So that's where the limits on religious freedom end -- where they
start imposing on others who DON'T consent and DON'T believe
in being forced to go along with a program instead of other choices.

The difference between this and other areas that CAN be
regulated and forced by govt is where we CONSENT to
authorize govt to manage SECULAR areas and duties we
AGREE belong to govt.

But obviously we don't all agree on SOCIAL and SPIRITUAL areas
including
* right to life and right to health care
* marriage laws and benefits
* transgender and sexual orientation

If we all CONSENT to give rights/responsibilities to govt,
then YES we can write marriage laws and benefits laws
that authorize govt to manage social programs and policies.

But if we don't agree, it can't be forced on us
without violating Constitutional equal protections of
representations, beliefs and due process of law.

This has been VIOLATED in the past, so it seems
we have become accustomed to "bullying and coercion"
"discrimination and exclusion" and justified this as "politics as usual."

Just because there has been bullying in the past
does not make it right. I have been arguing it is UNLAWFUL
as a form of CONSPIRING to VIOLATE EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS.

Both parties are GUILTY of lobbying to censor and discriminate
against the equal rights and beliefs of people of the other party!!!

I DO believe that is Unconstitutional
to pass laws,
to invest money into campaigns and
to elect leaders and lobbyists who keep
pushing threats or enforcing discrimination against the beliefs of others THROUGH GOVT.

If you want to lobby against something on your own,
sure, that's part of your religious freedom and free speech
to express your beliefs.

But Arianrhod where I draw the line is NOT
abusing Govt, legal or legislative processes, public funds resources or authority, such as taxpayer money used to lobby for Obamacare enrollment.

Anything that is public should remain NEUTRAL and ALL inclusive.

What has been pushed through GOVT is DISCRIMINATORY
penalizing and exclusionary AGAINST people
whose beliefs and consent are VIOLATED.

 

[Arianrhod]

That's very nice, but one's health status is not a "belief," and the ability to access health care should not be dependent on someone else's "belief."

If you truly want to defend your fellow Americans, try being proactive in seeing that they get the basics of first-world health care.

YES IT IS Arianrhod

Health is not a belief. No matter how many paragraphs you expend trying to claim that it is.

Dear Arianrhod
You are mixing two different things.
HEALTH is one thing
HEALTH CARE THROUGH GOVT is another thing

When you talk about HEALTH in the CONTEXT of
FEDERAL GOVT
you have already changed the nature of HEALTH
from something naturally existing to
something that depends on political constructs.

So you can no longer compare HEALTH
to "health care rights" <-- when THESE are filtered through GOVT.
=================================
Compare
* LIFE is a RIGHT and not a belief;
* but the >>>BELIEF<<< that "Life is a Right to be PROTECTED BY GOVT" IS a BELIEF

"LIFE" <-- which exists naturally and is not given by Govt
is different from "the belief in the Right to Life through Govt"

Now substitute HEALTH for LIFE
* HEALTH is naturally existing
* but the BELIEF in political rights to GOVERN and MANAGE
health care THROUGH GOVT is not naturally existing

You cannot forget that you are arguing
about this IN THE CONTEXT OF FEDERAL GOVT

That TOTALLY changes the dynamic

Same as with CHRISTIANITY which is a natural right
to exercise one's religion. BUT NOT IN THE CONTEXT
OF GOVT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS TO PAY OR PARTICIPATE.

One's faith is naturally existent, and nobody has the right to deny that
especially not govt. BUT INJECTING FAITH INTO GOVT is a totally different level.

Do you understand that HEALTH is one thing
but MANAGING IT THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT
is a completely different context and dynamic?

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

Same with MARRIAGE laws

* right to marriage OUTSIDE OF GOVT
is a natural freedom and extension/expression
of Free Exercise of Religion and one's personal beliefs and life

so that's why it's unconstitutional to BAN people
from marriage which is a spiritual personal and/or religious choice
that govt cannot restrict much less penalize people for.
that's like banning someone's religious practice in private.
unless they are breaking criminal or civil law, like killing raping
or abusing or violating rights of others claiming it's their religion,
then it's not govt's business to regulate restrict or ban the
free exercise of someone's beliefs as long as people consent
and there is no abuse or coercion or other violation going on.

* but ENDORSING and REGULATING marriage
THROUGH GOVT is a different context

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

So back to health care
YES anyone has the right to maintain their
own health and provide/share access to health care resources.

but mandating this through FEDERAL GOVT
is no longer within the free choice/consent of the people
but involves IMPOSING on the rights/freedoms of OTHER PEOPLE

So that's where the limits on religious freedom end -- where they
start imposing on others who DON'T consent and DON'T believe
in being forced to go along with a program instead of other choices.

The difference between this and other areas that CAN be
regulated and forced by govt is where we CONSENT to
authorize govt to manage SECULAR areas and duties we
AGREE belong to govt.

But obviously we don't all agree on SOCIAL and SPIRITUAL areas
including
* right to life and right to health care
* marriage laws and benefits
* transgender and sexual orientation

If we all CONSENT to give rights/responsibilities to govt,
then YES we can write marriage laws and benefits laws
that authorize govt to manage social programs and policies.

But if we don't agree, it can't be forced on us
without violating Constitutional equal protections of
representations, beliefs and due process of law.

This has been VIOLATED in the past, so it seems
we have become accustomed to "bullying and coercion"
"discrimination and exclusion" and justified this as "politics as usual."

Just because there has been bullying in the past
does not make it right. I have been arguing it is UNLAWFUL
as a form of CONSPIRING to VIOLATE EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS.

Both parties are GUILTY of lobbying to censor and discriminate
against the equal rights and beliefs of people of the other party!!!

I DO believe that is Unconstitutional
to pass laws,
to invest money into campaigns and
to elect leaders and lobbyists who keep
pushing threats or enforcing discrimination against the beliefs of others THROUGH GOVT.

If you want to lobby against something on your own,
sure, that's part of your religious freedom and free speech
to express your beliefs.

But Arianrhod where I draw the line is NOT
abusing Govt, legal or legislative processes, public funds resources or authority, such as taxpayer money used to lobby for Obamacare enrollment.

Anything that is public should remain NEUTRAL and ALL inclusive.

What has been pushed through GOVT is DISCRIMINATORY
penalizing and exclusionary AGAINST people
whose beliefs and consent are VIOLATED.

A lot of words that you could have distilled down to "Government BAD."

 

[dblack]

That's very nice, but one's health status is not a "belief," and the ability to access health care should not be dependent on someone else's "belief."

If you truly want to defend your fellow Americans, try being proactive in seeing that they get the basics of first-world health care.

YES IT IS Arianrhod

Health is not a belief. No matter how many paragraphs you expend trying to claim that it is.

Dear Arianrhod
You are mixing two different things.
HEALTH is one thing
HEALTH CARE THROUGH GOVT is another thing

When you talk about HEALTH in the CONTEXT of
FEDERAL GOVT
you have already changed the nature of HEALTH
from something naturally existing to
something that depends on political constructs.

So you can no longer compare HEALTH
to "health care rights" <-- when THESE are filtered through GOVT.
=================================
Compare
* LIFE is a RIGHT and not a belief;
* but the >>>BELIEF<<< that "Life is a Right to be PROTECTED BY GOVT" IS a BELIEF

"LIFE" <-- which exists naturally and is not given by Govt
is different from "the belief in the Right to Life through Govt"

Now substitute HEALTH for LIFE
* HEALTH is naturally existing
* but the BELIEF in political rights to GOVERN and MANAGE
health care THROUGH GOVT is not naturally existing

You cannot forget that you are arguing
about this IN THE CONTEXT OF FEDERAL GOVT

That TOTALLY changes the dynamic

Same as with CHRISTIANITY which is a natural right
to exercise one's religion. BUT NOT IN THE CONTEXT
OF GOVT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS TO PAY OR PARTICIPATE.

One's faith is naturally existent, and nobody has the right to deny that
especially not govt. BUT INJECTING FAITH INTO GOVT is a totally different level.

Do you understand that HEALTH is one thing
but MANAGING IT THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT
is a completely different context and dynamic?

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

Same with MARRIAGE laws

* right to marriage OUTSIDE OF GOVT
is a natural freedom and extension/expression
of Free Exercise of Religion and one's personal beliefs and life

so that's why it's unconstitutional to BAN people
from marriage which is a spiritual personal and/or religious choice
that govt cannot restrict much less penalize people for.
that's like banning someone's religious practice in private.
unless they are breaking criminal or civil law, like killing raping
or abusing or violating rights of others claiming it's their religion,
then it's not govt's business to regulate restrict or ban the
free exercise of someone's beliefs as long as people consent
and there is no abuse or coercion or other violation going on.

* but ENDORSING and REGULATING marriage
THROUGH GOVT is a different context

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

So back to health care
YES anyone has the right to maintain their
own health and provide/share access to health care resources.

but mandating this through FEDERAL GOVT
is no longer within the free choice/consent of the people
but involves IMPOSING on the rights/freedoms of OTHER PEOPLE

So that's where the limits on religious freedom end -- where they
start imposing on others who DON'T consent and DON'T believe
in being forced to go along with a program instead of other choices.

The difference between this and other areas that CAN be
regulated and forced by govt is where we CONSENT to
authorize govt to manage SECULAR areas and duties we
AGREE belong to govt.

But obviously we don't all agree on SOCIAL and SPIRITUAL areas
including
* right to life and right to health care
* marriage laws and benefits
* transgender and sexual orientation

If we all CONSENT to give rights/responsibilities to govt,
then YES we can write marriage laws and benefits laws
that authorize govt to manage social programs and policies.

But if we don't agree, it can't be forced on us
without violating Constitutional equal protections of
representations, beliefs and due process of law.

This has been VIOLATED in the past, so it seems
we have become accustomed to "bullying and coercion"
"discrimination and exclusion" and justified this as "politics as usual."

Just because there has been bullying in the past
does not make it right. I have been arguing it is UNLAWFUL
as a form of CONSPIRING to VIOLATE EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS.

Both parties are GUILTY of lobbying to censor and discriminate
against the equal rights and beliefs of people of the other party!!!

I DO believe that is Unconstitutional
to pass laws,
to invest money into campaigns and
to elect leaders and lobbyists who keep
pushing threats or enforcing discrimination against the beliefs of others THROUGH GOVT.

If you want to lobby against something on your own,
sure, that's part of your religious freedom and free speech
to express your beliefs.

But Arianrhod where I draw the line is NOT
abusing Govt, legal or legislative processes, public funds resources or authority, such as taxpayer money used to lobby for Obamacare enrollment.

Anything that is public should remain NEUTRAL and ALL inclusive.

What has been pushed through GOVT is DISCRIMINATORY
penalizing and exclusionary AGAINST people
whose beliefs and consent are VIOLATED.

A lot of words that you could have distilled down to "Government BAD."

'Cause that's pretty much all you're going to hear, eh?

 

[Arianrhod]

That's very nice, but one's health status is not a "belief," and the ability to access health care should not be dependent on someone else's "belief."

If you truly want to defend your fellow Americans, try being proactive in seeing that they get the basics of first-world health care.

YES IT IS Arianrhod

Health is not a belief. No matter how many paragraphs you expend trying to claim that it is.

Dear Arianrhod
You are mixing two different things.
HEALTH is one thing
HEALTH CARE THROUGH GOVT is another thing

When you talk about HEALTH in the CONTEXT of
FEDERAL GOVT
you have already changed the nature of HEALTH
from something naturally existing to
something that depends on political constructs.

So you can no longer compare HEALTH
to "health care rights" <-- when THESE are filtered through GOVT.
=================================
Compare
* LIFE is a RIGHT and not a belief;
* but the >>>BELIEF<<< that "Life is a Right to be PROTECTED BY GOVT" IS a BELIEF

"LIFE" <-- which exists naturally and is not given by Govt
is different from "the belief in the Right to Life through Govt"

Now substitute HEALTH for LIFE
* HEALTH is naturally existing
* but the BELIEF in political rights to GOVERN and MANAGE
health care THROUGH GOVT is not naturally existing

You cannot forget that you are arguing
about this IN THE CONTEXT OF FEDERAL GOVT

That TOTALLY changes the dynamic

Same as with CHRISTIANITY which is a natural right
to exercise one's religion. BUT NOT IN THE CONTEXT
OF GOVT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS TO PAY OR PARTICIPATE.

One's faith is naturally existent, and nobody has the right to deny that
especially not govt. BUT INJECTING FAITH INTO GOVT is a totally different level.

Do you understand that HEALTH is one thing
but MANAGING IT THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT
is a completely different context and dynamic?

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

Same with MARRIAGE laws

* right to marriage OUTSIDE OF GOVT
is a natural freedom and extension/expression
of Free Exercise of Religion and one's personal beliefs and life

so that's why it's unconstitutional to BAN people
from marriage which is a spiritual personal and/or religious choice
that govt cannot restrict much less penalize people for.
that's like banning someone's religious practice in private.
unless they are breaking criminal or civil law, like killing raping
or abusing or violating rights of others claiming it's their religion,
then it's not govt's business to regulate restrict or ban the
free exercise of someone's beliefs as long as people consent
and there is no abuse or coercion or other violation going on.

* but ENDORSING and REGULATING marriage
THROUGH GOVT is a different context

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

So back to health care
YES anyone has the right to maintain their
own health and provide/share access to health care resources.

but mandating this through FEDERAL GOVT
is no longer within the free choice/consent of the people
but involves IMPOSING on the rights/freedoms of OTHER PEOPLE

So that's where the limits on religious freedom end -- where they
start imposing on others who DON'T consent and DON'T believe
in being forced to go along with a program instead of other choices.

The difference between this and other areas that CAN be
regulated and forced by govt is where we CONSENT to
authorize govt to manage SECULAR areas and duties we
AGREE belong to govt.

But obviously we don't all agree on SOCIAL and SPIRITUAL areas
including
* right to life and right to health care
* marriage laws and benefits
* transgender and sexual orientation

If we all CONSENT to give rights/responsibilities to govt,
then YES we can write marriage laws and benefits laws
that authorize govt to manage social programs and policies.

But if we don't agree, it can't be forced on us
without violating Constitutional equal protections of
representations, beliefs and due process of law.

This has been VIOLATED in the past, so it seems
we have become accustomed to "bullying and coercion"
"discrimination and exclusion" and justified this as "politics as usual."

Just because there has been bullying in the past
does not make it right. I have been arguing it is UNLAWFUL
as a form of CONSPIRING to VIOLATE EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS.

Both parties are GUILTY of lobbying to censor and discriminate
against the equal rights and beliefs of people of the other party!!!

I DO believe that is Unconstitutional
to pass laws,
to invest money into campaigns and
to elect leaders and lobbyists who keep
pushing threats or enforcing discrimination against the beliefs of others THROUGH GOVT.

If you want to lobby against something on your own,
sure, that's part of your religious freedom and free speech
to express your beliefs.

But Arianrhod where I draw the line is NOT
abusing Govt, legal or legislative processes, public funds resources or authority, such as taxpayer money used to lobby for Obamacare enrollment.

Anything that is public should remain NEUTRAL and ALL inclusive.

What has been pushed through GOVT is DISCRIMINATORY
penalizing and exclusionary AGAINST people
whose beliefs and consent are VIOLATED.

A lot of words that you could have distilled down to "Government BAD."

'Cause that's pretty much all you're going to hear, eh?

Depends on the poster.

 

[dblack]

YES IT IS Arianrhod

Health is not a belief. No matter how many paragraphs you expend trying to claim that it is.

Dear Arianrhod
You are mixing two different things.
HEALTH is one thing
HEALTH CARE THROUGH GOVT is another thing

When you talk about HEALTH in the CONTEXT of
FEDERAL GOVT
you have already changed the nature of HEALTH
from something naturally existing to
something that depends on political constructs.

So you can no longer compare HEALTH
to "health care rights" <-- when THESE are filtered through GOVT.
=================================
Compare
* LIFE is a RIGHT and not a belief;
* but the >>>BELIEF<<< that "Life is a Right to be PROTECTED BY GOVT" IS a BELIEF

"LIFE" <-- which exists naturally and is not given by Govt
is different from "the belief in the Right to Life through Govt"

Now substitute HEALTH for LIFE
* HEALTH is naturally existing
* but the BELIEF in political rights to GOVERN and MANAGE
health care THROUGH GOVT is not naturally existing

You cannot forget that you are arguing
about this IN THE CONTEXT OF FEDERAL GOVT

That TOTALLY changes the dynamic

Same as with CHRISTIANITY which is a natural right
to exercise one's religion. BUT NOT IN THE CONTEXT
OF GOVT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS TO PAY OR PARTICIPATE.

One's faith is naturally existent, and nobody has the right to deny that
especially not govt. BUT INJECTING FAITH INTO GOVT is a totally different level.

Do you understand that HEALTH is one thing
but MANAGING IT THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT
is a completely different context and dynamic?

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

Same with MARRIAGE laws

* right to marriage OUTSIDE OF GOVT
is a natural freedom and extension/expression
of Free Exercise of Religion and one's personal beliefs and life

so that's why it's unconstitutional to BAN people
from marriage which is a spiritual personal and/or religious choice
that govt cannot restrict much less penalize people for.
that's like banning someone's religious practice in private.
unless they are breaking criminal or civil law, like killing raping
or abusing or violating rights of others claiming it's their religion,
then it's not govt's business to regulate restrict or ban the
free exercise of someone's beliefs as long as people consent
and there is no abuse or coercion or other violation going on.

* but ENDORSING and REGULATING marriage
THROUGH GOVT is a different context

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

So back to health care
YES anyone has the right to maintain their
own health and provide/share access to health care resources.

but mandating this through FEDERAL GOVT
is no longer within the free choice/consent of the people
but involves IMPOSING on the rights/freedoms of OTHER PEOPLE

So that's where the limits on religious freedom end -- where they
start imposing on others who DON'T consent and DON'T believe
in being forced to go along with a program instead of other choices.

The difference between this and other areas that CAN be
regulated and forced by govt is where we CONSENT to
authorize govt to manage SECULAR areas and duties we
AGREE belong to govt.

But obviously we don't all agree on SOCIAL and SPIRITUAL areas
including
* right to life and right to health care
* marriage laws and benefits
* transgender and sexual orientation

If we all CONSENT to give rights/responsibilities to govt,
then YES we can write marriage laws and benefits laws
that authorize govt to manage social programs and policies.

But if we don't agree, it can't be forced on us
without violating Constitutional equal protections of
representations, beliefs and due process of law.

This has been VIOLATED in the past, so it seems
we have become accustomed to "bullying and coercion"
"discrimination and exclusion" and justified this as "politics as usual."

Just because there has been bullying in the past
does not make it right. I have been arguing it is UNLAWFUL
as a form of CONSPIRING to VIOLATE EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS.

Both parties are GUILTY of lobbying to censor and discriminate
against the equal rights and beliefs of people of the other party!!!

I DO believe that is Unconstitutional
to pass laws,
to invest money into campaigns and
to elect leaders and lobbyists who keep
pushing threats or enforcing discrimination against the beliefs of others THROUGH GOVT.

If you want to lobby against something on your own,
sure, that's part of your religious freedom and free speech
to express your beliefs.

But Arianrhod where I draw the line is NOT
abusing Govt, legal or legislative processes, public funds resources or authority, such as taxpayer money used to lobby for Obamacare enrollment.

Anything that is public should remain NEUTRAL and ALL inclusive.

What has been pushed through GOVT is DISCRIMINATORY
penalizing and exclusionary AGAINST people
whose beliefs and consent are VIOLATED.

A lot of words that you could have distilled down to "Government BAD."

'Cause that's pretty much all you're going to hear, eh?

Depends on the poster.

Blinders for the win!