Will You Sign This Petition?

[emilynghiem]

http://chn.ge/16DgapU

Petitioning U.S. Congress, House and Senate c/o Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee and Ted Cruz

Delay contested Health Care policies for one year to prevent Government shutdown

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"More cost-effective, Constitutional options for providing Health Care should be developed and offered first, before enforcing contested mandates that don't offer freedom of choice. Delaying enforcement for one year will allow the rest of the federal budget to pass to avoid a government shutdown. Opponents already compromised by allowing this bill to move forward without support of over half the nation. [Constituents] who support it should "meet in the middle" by allowing citizens the same freedom as special interests to "opt in or out" of these contested mandates and to pursue alternatives in keeping with free choice for all citizens."

Petition by
EMILY NGHIEM, Dem. Precinct 30,
Freedmen's Town National Historic District, TX*

*NOTE: This is Rep. SJL's District, where our Congresswoman signed onto HUD reforms to restore landmark sites in this National Historic District as a sustainable community campus.

Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
http://www.houstonprogressive.org

These Plans passed into federal law 20 years ago would have provided sustainable health care services, jobs and education through student internships embedded into public housing to stop the drain on federal taxpayers.

Instead these restoration plans were demolished under Democrat Administrations while funneling millions in taxes to developers to destroy this national African American landmark to Freed Slave churches as the only settlement of its kind left in the country.

================
Reasons for signing:

EMILY NGHIEM DEM. PRECINCT 30,
FREEDMEN'S TOWN NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, TX

"Fellow Democrats and Leaders should unite to enforce Constitutional principles and ethics; resolve conflicts instead of blaming each other; and include differences in political beliefs for equal representation, religious freedom of choice, and equal protections of the laws for all citizens and groups, especially taxpayers." ethics-commission.net

 

[eflatminor]

Just to be clear, am I correct that neither Comrade Jackson-Lee nor Tea Party Cruz have actually signed on to this idea and that it's just a suggestion aimed at both of them?

 

[KevinWestern]

http://chn.ge/16DgapU

Petitioning U.S. Congress, House and Senate c/o Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee and Ted Cruz

Delay contested Health Care policies for one year to prevent Government shutdown

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"More cost-effective, Constitutional options for providing Health Care should be developed and offered first, before enforcing contested mandates that don't offer freedom of choice. Delaying enforcement for one year will allow the rest of the federal budget to pass to avoid a government shutdown. Opponents already compromised by allowing this bill to move forward without support of over half the nation. [Constituents] who support it should "meet in the middle" by allowing citizens the same freedom as special interests to "opt in or out" of these contested mandates and to pursue alternatives in keeping with free choice for all citizens."

Petition by
EMILY NGHIEM, Dem. Precinct 30,
Freedmen's Town National Historic District, TX*

*NOTE: This is Rep. SJL's District, where our Congresswoman signed onto HUD reforms to restore landmark sites in this National Historic District as a sustainable community campus.

Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
http://www.houstonprogressive.org

These Plans passed into federal law 20 years ago would have provided sustainable health care services, jobs and education through student internships embedded into public housing to stop the drain on federal taxpayers.

Instead these restoration plans were demolished under Democrat Administrations while funneling millions in taxes to developers to destroy this national African American landmark to Freed Slave churches as the only settlement of its kind left in the country.

================
Reasons for signing:

EMILY NGHIEM DEM. PRECINCT 30,
FREEDMEN'S TOWN NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, TX

"Fellow Democrats and Leaders should unite to enforce Constitutional principles and ethics; resolve conflicts instead of blaming each other; and include differences in political beliefs for equal representation, religious freedom of choice, and equal protections of the laws for all citizens and groups, especially taxpayers." ethics-commission.net

No, because it wouldn't solve anything. It would just be delaying something that we must inevitably deal with.

 

[emilynghiem]

Just to be clear, am I correct that neither Comrade Jackson-Lee nor Tea Party Cruz have actually signed on to this idea and that it's just a suggestion aimed at both of them?

As far as I know, most Democrats are pushing the ACA and blaming GOP for obstruction.

I am assuming SJL supports ACA.

If she does not, maybe this is not so hard, and we could get it through
if the Democrats can find a way to save face and still get their candidates
elected after Obama. If they feel this threatens their candidacy for office,
they will either tow the party line, or take the Fifth Amendment.

I am hoping they will use alternatives proposed from within the Democrat
ranks to save face, to enforce health care and support for vets with the
proposed plans, and quit pushing ACA which is Unconstitutional and against free choice.

But I haven't had much luck, convincing either party to pay for their own proposals.

The only luck I've had is Republicans wanting to hold Democrats to pay for their welfare,
or Democrats wanting GOP to pay for their war spending and corporate welfare.
But when it comes to holding both accountable, they either stall out or blame the other.
So this is why we deadlock!

 

[emilynghiem]

No, because it wouldn't solve anything. It would just be delaying something that we must inevitably deal with.

Great Kevin! I agree, we SHOULD deal with it.
So why didn't we deal with it BEFORE passing a controversial bill?

Why not take a year to work this out properly BEFORE pushing it through another level
toward enforcement, where it is "taxation without representation"

Why not allow parties the option to fund the parts they agree with,
while working the rest out?

PRECISELY!!! We need more time to work this out BEFORE enforcing it.
We need to reward not punish taxpayers for investing in other means of providing
sustainable services, such as building more teaching hospitals and clinics, or
home health campus housing, where students can work off educational loans
by serving elderly, vets, disabled etc. so everyone can afford housing health care
and school!

Why not invest in other options instead of just imposing one that people disagreed with???

How come big politicians and corporate interests can "opt out" but citizens can't?
Why not recognize ALL citizens equal freedom to opt in and out, and
WRITE BETTER LAWS that people AGREE to follow and fund?

(and if people/parties don't agree, then let political groups fund their own programs
directly, and leave federal taxpayers out of it!) Why not? Who's scared of accountability?

 

[KevinWestern]

No, because it wouldn't solve anything. It would just be delaying something that we must inevitably deal with.

Great Kevin! I agree, we SHOULD deal with it.
So why didn't we deal with it BEFORE passing a controversial bill?

Why not take a year to work this out properly BEFORE pushing it through another level
toward enforcement, where it is "taxation without representation"

Why not allow parties the option to fund the parts they agree with,
while working the rest out?

PRECISELY!!! We need more time to work this out BEFORE enforcing it.
We need to reward not punish taxpayers for investing in other means of providing
sustainable services, such as building more teaching hospitals and clinics, or
home health campus housing, where students can work off educational loans
by serving elderly, vets, disabled etc. so everyone can afford housing health care
and school!

Why not invest in other options instead of just imposing one that people disagreed with???

How come big politicians and corporate interests can "opt out" but citizens can't?
Why not recognize ALL citizens equal freedom to opt in and out, and
WRITE BETTER LAWS that people AGREE to follow and fund?

(and if people/parties don't agree, then let political groups fund their own programs
directly, and leave federal taxpayers out of it!) Why not? Who's scared of accountability?

That makes sense. Perhaps I was reading wrong? If Obamacare will be a disaster (which I think it will, because now is not the time to roll something like this out given our money situation), it should be squashed immediately before too much damage is done..

 

[Wry Catcher]

http://chn.ge/16DgapU

Petitioning U.S. Congress, House and Senate c/o Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee and Ted Cruz

Delay contested Health Care policies for one year to prevent Government shutdown

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"More cost-effective, Constitutional options for providing Health Care should be developed and offered first, before enforcing contested mandates that don't offer freedom of choice. Delaying enforcement for one year will allow the rest of the federal budget to pass to avoid a government shutdown. Opponents already compromised by allowing this bill to move forward without support of over half the nation. [Constituents] who support it should "meet in the middle" by allowing citizens the same freedom as special interests to "opt in or out" of these contested mandates and to pursue alternatives in keeping with free choice for all citizens."

Petition by
EMILY NGHIEM, Dem. Precinct 30,
Freedmen's Town National Historic District, TX*

*NOTE: This is Rep. SJL's District, where our Congresswoman signed onto HUD reforms to restore landmark sites in this National Historic District as a sustainable community campus.

Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
http://www.houstonprogressive.org

These Plans passed into federal law 20 years ago would have provided sustainable health care services, jobs and education through student internships embedded into public housing to stop the drain on federal taxpayers.

Instead these restoration plans were demolished under Democrat Administrations while funneling millions in taxes to developers to destroy this national African American landmark to Freed Slave churches as the only settlement of its kind left in the country.

================
Reasons for signing:

EMILY NGHIEM DEM. PRECINCT 30,
FREEDMEN'S TOWN NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, TX

"Fellow Democrats and Leaders should unite to enforce Constitutional principles and ethics; resolve conflicts instead of blaming each other; and include differences in political beliefs for equal representation, religious freedom of choice, and equal protections of the laws for all citizens and groups, especially taxpayers." ethics-commission.net

What a ridiculous idea. First and most importantly, the vast majority of the People haven't read the act; nor do the vast majority understand how the ACA will impact them and their family.

I wonder what in the law the author of the OP objects to and why s/he hasn't offered a concise explanation of why to delay its full implementation?

Those who have been influenced by the distractors of the ACA and haven't done some research are doing themselves and many others a disservice. "Time Magazine" published a Special Edition earlier this year giving its readers an exposé of the system the ACA will reform.

For the curious and those who want to understand the issue of health care in America this is a great primer:

Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us - TIME

 

[emilynghiem]

What a ridiculous idea. First and most importantly, the vast majority of the People haven't read the act; nor do the vast majority understand how the ACA will impact them and their family.

I wonder what in the law the author of the OP objects to and why s/he hasn't offered a concise explanation of why to delay its full implementation?

Those who have been influenced by the distractors of the ACA and haven't done some research are doing themselves and many others a disservice. "Time Magazine" published a Special Edition earlier this year giving its readers an exposé of the system the ACA will reform.

For the curious and those who want to understand the issue of health care in America this is a great primer:

Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us - TIME

Dear Wry Catcher: That's fine. If you and others who voted for it or support it LIKE the bill as written, all I'm asking is "that group of people" pay for it and be under it.

let the others who object or haven't seen how it works yet
CHOOSE to opt in AFTER they decide they want it.

Just don't impose it "on faith" with PENALTIES for not buying into it or paying into it.

I could oppose it on this principle alone, without getting into detail.
Every time I tried before, getting into detail, I got nowhere with people.

If it is so good, like a business that has good services to offer,
then let people CHOOSE to patronize and sign up as a member!

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

P.S. in principle here are some of the key ones

1. pro-choice and free exercise of religion
a. the Democrats and libs/progressives pushing this bill claim to be prochoice and don't
want govt interfering with medical choices, but then push this federal mandate
that goes against their objections to pro-life advocates wanting to push laws to save lives
b. the bill discriminates against people or groups on the basis of religion or political favor
Amish and other groups are given freedom to opt out
Corporations, Lobby interests and especially govt officials pushing made sure they were exempted
But not all citizens are given the equal choice to exempt themselves or opt out? Why not?

This contradiction in principle in itself causes harm and division, to our relationships and to the nation as a whole,
and is the reason people won't listen to each other's points once this political distrust in agenda is reinforced.
It causes damage PERIOD.

2. taxation without representation
since over half the nation and in particular members of parties who believe in either limited federal govt and/or don't believe the federal govt has jurisdiction over health care mandates
are NOT represented by this set up

Obama's cousin, a medical doctor who blogs from DC, made it clear the issue of reform should focus on creating more health care services and providers NOT insurance which doesn't provide any medical services

So all the work I and others have done to promote SUSTAINABLE means of providing low-cost public health care by combining medical education and service internships with social services to reform welfare and public housing HAVE BEEN POLITICALLY CENSORED

everything has been eclipsed by this push to fight over insurance being pushed as both a federal tax to get it to pass as Constitutional while playing both sides of the fence and both giving favor to certain corporate interests while killing small companies and workers that are in trouble over this bill. Several companies I know of had to cut full time jobs to part time so the workers are left having to work multiple part time jobs or rely on government?

Where is the focus and reward for taxpayers and businesses to INVEST in building
teaching hospitals that could provide both services and medical education at the same time?

We don't even see that in the media because people and politicians are too busy fighting over a bill that was pushed on people without their consent!

If they didn't read a 1000+ page bill, that's even WORSE to pass it and then read it after.

Why not make it optional to OPT IN like all the other politicians who passed it?
If it's so good!

Like the insurance companies who testified before Congress and DIDN'T NEED federal legislation to serve their customers properly. USAA for one. People CHOOSE to be members of that group because they serve well!

People need FREE CHOICE.
That is the basis of the prochoice stance of the Democrats and liberals they went against.
That is the basis of the libertarians and Conservatives who believe in Constitutional
free exercise of religion and free market choice.

So:
3. Constitutional integrity
The states and people need to be in charge of health care and prison/educational reform which is attached in how to fund it,
NOT the federal govt which is overburdened as is.

What hasn't been addressed is how come taxpayers pay for health and mental care for criminals but not law abiding citizens.
So if all citizens had to sign agreements to pay for the costs they incurred, maybe we'd have a workable budget.

Why charge taxpayers MORE money to fix problems,
while losing billions in states like CA and TX over crime that is already triple charged to taxpayers?
a. first for the crime and damages to victims and society
b. second for the costs of policing and prosecution
c. third spending 50K a year for imprisonment while creating another burdensome case of someone who won't be able to work with a criminal record
and/or 80K a year for false incarceration

This was not addressed, because it is on a STATE level.
But that is what could pay for health care, housing and education combined:
by reforming the criminal justice system in each STATE.

4. spiritual healing cannot be legislated or mandated by federal govt

The CHEAPEST way to cut the costs of health care would be to
offer free education, training and assistance/services in SPIRITUAL HEALING

which has been medically PROVEN to cure/prevent
Cancer, Diabetes, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and other diseases including some without medical cure (thus cutting costs of lifelong medications that placate symptoms instead of curing the cause)
Mental illness including addictions and schizophrenia, manic depression, suicide etc.
Criminal illness including pedophilia

So this could prevent crime, save lives, save health care costs and
save billions wasted on imprisonment which DOESN'T PREVENT CAUSES OF CRIMINAL ILLNESS AND ABUSE
all these costs occur AFTER THE FACT

This cannot be addressed by federal govt

The groups such as Christian Science who even brought this up, that they used and relied
on trained spiritual healers for their practice were not allowed recognition or exemption as the Amish
or "members of groups in existence before 1999 who pay their own medical expenses"

so this is NOT an area that federal govt can BEGIN to legislate or regulate

BUT IT HAS

the bill already spells out exemptions that discriminate on the basis of what GOVT deemed to be
religious exceptions

Everyone else is expected to PROVE they fit exemptions
or be part of a special corporate or political class that got exemptions by political favor

WHY NOT open the door for ALL GROUPS and ALL people to be exempt?

Why are SUPPORTERS allowed to push this bill without proving it works first?

When Spiritual Healing has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN TO be free and cost-effective
and yet it cannot be pushed as a choice on people because of Constitutional limits?

This makes no sense.

If anything, people who practice spiritual healing should have equal right
to set up hospitals and training to provide low cost permanent treatment
as an alternative to paying for insurance or being penalized?

So unless there is an option to opt out or in, and to invest taxes DIRECTLY
into vet housing and health care, and campuses to provide services on
a low cost basis by integrating with educational credits for interns to afford school,
and/or using spiritual healing to cut the costs of crime, disease and abuse,
then this is not CONSTITUTIONALLY inclusive but discriminates on the basis of religion.

You can choose to support or fund it
but it cannot be forced on people without free choice
without violating a number of Constitutional principles and ethics.

Sorry.

You can have it if you want it, but please take responsibility for paying for it!
Don't expect other people to pay for it and then complain if there are better options they'd rather invest taxes in.

I have found a lot of solutions that I would recommend
and they are all based on FREE CHOICE.

 

[Amelia]

Signed!

 

[Amelia]

Shared on FB.

 

[Alfalfa]

Wow. 3 sigs in 24 hours.

This "petition's on fire!"

 

[Wry Catcher]

What a ridiculous idea. First and most importantly, the vast majority of the People haven't read the act; nor do the vast majority understand how the ACA will impact them and their family.

I wonder what in the law the author of the OP objects to and why s/he hasn't offered a concise explanation of why to delay its full implementation?

Those who have been influenced by the distractors of the ACA and haven't done some research are doing themselves and many others a disservice. "Time Magazine" published a Special Edition earlier this year giving its readers an exposé of the system the ACA will reform.

For the curious and those who want to understand the issue of health care in America this is a great primer:

Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us - TIME

Dear Wry Catcher: That's fine. If you and others who voted for it or support it LIKE the bill as written, all I'm asking is "that group of people" pay for it and be under it.

let the others who object or haven't seen how it works yet
CHOOSE to opt in AFTER they decide they want it.

Just don't impose it "on faith" with PENALTIES for not buying into it or paying into it.

I could oppose it on this principle alone, without getting into detail.
Every time I tried before, getting into detail, I got nowhere with people.

If it is so good, like a business that has good services to offer,
then let people CHOOSE to patronize and sign up as a member!

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

P.S. in principle here are some of the key ones

1. pro-choice and free exercise of religion
a. the Democrats and libs/progressives pushing this bill claim to be prochoice and don't
want govt interfering with medical choices, but then push this federal mandate
that goes against their objections to pro-life advocates wanting to push laws to save lives
b. the bill discriminates against people or groups on the basis of religion or political favor
Amish and other groups are given freedom to opt out
Corporations, Lobby interests and especially govt officials pushing made sure they were exempted
But not all citizens are given the equal choice to exempt themselves or opt out? Why not?

This contradiction in principle in itself causes harm and division, to our relationships and to the nation as a whole,
and is the reason people won't listen to each other's points once this political distrust in agenda is reinforced.
It causes damage PERIOD.

2. taxation without representation
since over half the nation and in particular members of parties who believe in either limited federal govt and/or don't believe the federal govt has jurisdiction over health care mandates
are NOT represented by this set up

Obama's cousin, a medical doctor who blogs from DC, made it clear the issue of reform should focus on creating more health care services and providers NOT insurance which doesn't provide any medical services

So all the work I and others have done to promote SUSTAINABLE means of providing low-cost public health care by combining medical education and service internships with social services to reform welfare and public housing HAVE BEEN POLITICALLY CENSORED

everything has been eclipsed by this push to fight over insurance being pushed as both a federal tax to get it to pass as Constitutional while playing both sides of the fence and both giving favor to certain corporate interests while killing small companies and workers that are in trouble over this bill. Several companies I know of had to cut full time jobs to part time so the workers are left having to work multiple part time jobs or rely on government?

Where is the focus and reward for taxpayers and businesses to INVEST in building
teaching hospitals that could provide both services and medical education at the same time?

We don't even see that in the media because people and politicians are too busy fighting over a bill that was pushed on people without their consent!

If they didn't read a 1000+ page bill, that's even WORSE to pass it and then read it after.

Why not make it optional to OPT IN like all the other politicians who passed it?
If it's so good!

Like the insurance companies who testified before Congress and DIDN'T NEED federal legislation to serve their customers properly. USAA for one. People CHOOSE to be members of that group because they serve well!

People need FREE CHOICE.
That is the basis of the prochoice stance of the Democrats and liberals they went against.
That is the basis of the libertarians and Conservatives who believe in Constitutional
free exercise of religion and free market choice.

So:
3. Constitutional integrity
The states and people need to be in charge of health care and prison/educational reform which is attached in how to fund it,
NOT the federal govt which is overburdened as is.

What hasn't been addressed is how come taxpayers pay for health and mental care for criminals but not law abiding citizens.
So if all citizens had to sign agreements to pay for the costs they incurred, maybe we'd have a workable budget.

Why charge taxpayers MORE money to fix problems,
while losing billions in states like CA and TX over crime that is already triple charged to taxpayers?
a. first for the crime and damages to victims and society
b. second for the costs of policing and prosecution
c. third spending 50K a year for imprisonment while creating another burdensome case of someone who won't be able to work with a criminal record
and/or 80K a year for false incarceration

This was not addressed, because it is on a STATE level.
But that is what could pay for health care, housing and education combined:
by reforming the criminal justice system in each STATE.

4. spiritual healing cannot be legislated or mandated by federal govt

The CHEAPEST way to cut the costs of health care would be to
offer free education, training and assistance/services in SPIRITUAL HEALING

which has been medically PROVEN to cure/prevent
Cancer, Diabetes, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and other diseases including some without medical cure (thus cutting costs of lifelong medications that placate symptoms instead of curing the cause)
Mental illness including addictions and schizophrenia, manic depression, suicide etc.
Criminal illness including pedophilia

So this could prevent crime, save lives, save health care costs and
save billions wasted on imprisonment which DOESN'T PREVENT CAUSES OF CRIMINAL ILLNESS AND ABUSE
all these costs occur AFTER THE FACT

This cannot be addressed by federal govt

The groups such as Christian Science who even brought this up, that they used and relied
on trained spiritual healers for their practice were not allowed recognition or exemption as the Amish
or "members of groups in existence before 1999 who pay their own medical expenses"

so this is NOT an area that federal govt can BEGIN to legislate or regulate

BUT IT HAS

the bill already spells out exemptions that discriminate on the basis of what GOVT deemed to be
religious exceptions

Everyone else is expected to PROVE they fit exemptions
or be part of a special corporate or political class that got exemptions by political favor

WHY NOT open the door for ALL GROUPS and ALL people to be exempt?

Why are SUPPORTERS allowed to push this bill without proving it works first?

When Spiritual Healing has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN TO be free and cost-effective
and yet it cannot be pushed as a choice on people because of Constitutional limits?

This makes no sense.

If anything, people who practice spiritual healing should have equal right
to set up hospitals and training to provide low cost permanent treatment
as an alternative to paying for insurance or being penalized?

So unless there is an option to opt out or in, and to invest taxes DIRECTLY
into vet housing and health care, and campuses to provide services on
a low cost basis by integrating with educational credits for interns to afford school,
and/or using spiritual healing to cut the costs of crime, disease and abuse,
then this is not CONSTITUTIONALLY inclusive but discriminates on the basis of religion.

You can choose to support or fund it
but it cannot be forced on people without free choice
without violating a number of Constitutional principles and ethics.

Sorry.

You can have it if you want it, but please take responsibility for paying for it!
Don't expect other people to pay for it and then complain if there are better options they'd rather invest taxes in.

I have found a lot of solutions that I would recommend
and they are all based on FREE CHOICE.

This ^^^ is a lot to respond to, and I won't go into point by point detail. That said, the general theme above is that it's not fair to force people to buy health care. Is that correct?

Consider, everyone will need health care at some time, and those who do not have health insurance will generally wait to get treatment which they will get free at a public or private hospital ER.

Generally early treatment for most disease or injury is less expense and, of course, the patient will be billed with the cost determined not by actual treatment expenses, but by Chargemaster. Most will never pay, hence you and I pay their bill via taxes.

So, who is treated most unfairly? The freeloader or the taxpayer?

 

[Michelle420]

What a ridiculous idea. First and most importantly, the vast majority of the People haven't read the act; nor do the vast majority understand how the ACA will impact them and their family.

I wonder what in the law the author of the OP objects to and why s/he hasn't offered a concise explanation of why to delay its full implementation?

Those who have been influenced by the distractors of the ACA and haven't done some research are doing themselves and many others a disservice. "Time Magazine" published a Special Edition earlier this year giving its readers an exposé of the system the ACA will reform.

For the curious and those who want to understand the issue of health care in America this is a great primer:

Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us - TIME

Dear Wry Catcher: That's fine. If you and others who voted for it or support it LIKE the bill as written, all I'm asking is "that group of people" pay for it and be under it.

let the others who object or haven't seen how it works yet
CHOOSE to opt in AFTER they decide they want it.

Just don't impose it "on faith" with PENALTIES for not buying into it or paying into it.

I could oppose it on this principle alone, without getting into detail.
Every time I tried before, getting into detail, I got nowhere with people.

If it is so good, like a business that has good services to offer,
then let people CHOOSE to patronize and sign up as a member!

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

P.S. in principle here are some of the key ones

1. pro-choice and free exercise of religion
a. the Democrats and libs/progressives pushing this bill claim to be prochoice and don't
want govt interfering with medical choices, but then push this federal mandate
that goes against their objections to pro-life advocates wanting to push laws to save lives
b. the bill discriminates against people or groups on the basis of religion or political favor
Amish and other groups are given freedom to opt out
Corporations, Lobby interests and especially govt officials pushing made sure they were exempted
But not all citizens are given the equal choice to exempt themselves or opt out? Why not?

This contradiction in principle in itself causes harm and division, to our relationships and to the nation as a whole,
and is the reason people won't listen to each other's points once this political distrust in agenda is reinforced.
It causes damage PERIOD.

2. taxation without representation
since over half the nation and in particular members of parties who believe in either limited federal govt and/or don't believe the federal govt has jurisdiction over health care mandates
are NOT represented by this set up

Obama's cousin, a medical doctor who blogs from DC, made it clear the issue of reform should focus on creating more health care services and providers NOT insurance which doesn't provide any medical services

So all the work I and others have done to promote SUSTAINABLE means of providing low-cost public health care by combining medical education and service internships with social services to reform welfare and public housing HAVE BEEN POLITICALLY CENSORED

everything has been eclipsed by this push to fight over insurance being pushed as both a federal tax to get it to pass as Constitutional while playing both sides of the fence and both giving favor to certain corporate interests while killing small companies and workers that are in trouble over this bill. Several companies I know of had to cut full time jobs to part time so the workers are left having to work multiple part time jobs or rely on government?

Where is the focus and reward for taxpayers and businesses to INVEST in building
teaching hospitals that could provide both services and medical education at the same time?

We don't even see that in the media because people and politicians are too busy fighting over a bill that was pushed on people without their consent!

If they didn't read a 1000+ page bill, that's even WORSE to pass it and then read it after.

Why not make it optional to OPT IN like all the other politicians who passed it?
If it's so good!

Like the insurance companies who testified before Congress and DIDN'T NEED federal legislation to serve their customers properly. USAA for one. People CHOOSE to be members of that group because they serve well!

People need FREE CHOICE.
That is the basis of the prochoice stance of the Democrats and liberals they went against.
That is the basis of the libertarians and Conservatives who believe in Constitutional
free exercise of religion and free market choice.

So:
3. Constitutional integrity
The states and people need to be in charge of health care and prison/educational reform which is attached in how to fund it,
NOT the federal govt which is overburdened as is.

What hasn't been addressed is how come taxpayers pay for health and mental care for criminals but not law abiding citizens.
So if all citizens had to sign agreements to pay for the costs they incurred, maybe we'd have a workable budget.

Why charge taxpayers MORE money to fix problems,
while losing billions in states like CA and TX over crime that is already triple charged to taxpayers?
a. first for the crime and damages to victims and society
b. second for the costs of policing and prosecution
c. third spending 50K a year for imprisonment while creating another burdensome case of someone who won't be able to work with a criminal record
and/or 80K a year for false incarceration

This was not addressed, because it is on a STATE level.
But that is what could pay for health care, housing and education combined:
by reforming the criminal justice system in each STATE.

4. spiritual healing cannot be legislated or mandated by federal govt

The CHEAPEST way to cut the costs of health care would be to
offer free education, training and assistance/services in SPIRITUAL HEALING

which has been medically PROVEN to cure/prevent
Cancer, Diabetes, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and other diseases including some without medical cure (thus cutting costs of lifelong medications that placate symptoms instead of curing the cause)
Mental illness including addictions and schizophrenia, manic depression, suicide etc.
Criminal illness including pedophilia

So this could prevent crime, save lives, save health care costs and
save billions wasted on imprisonment which DOESN'T PREVENT CAUSES OF CRIMINAL ILLNESS AND ABUSE
all these costs occur AFTER THE FACT

This cannot be addressed by federal govt

The groups such as Christian Science who even brought this up, that they used and relied
on trained spiritual healers for their practice were not allowed recognition or exemption as the Amish
or "members of groups in existence before 1999 who pay their own medical expenses"

so this is NOT an area that federal govt can BEGIN to legislate or regulate

BUT IT HAS

the bill already spells out exemptions that discriminate on the basis of what GOVT deemed to be
religious exceptions

Everyone else is expected to PROVE they fit exemptions
or be part of a special corporate or political class that got exemptions by political favor

WHY NOT open the door for ALL GROUPS and ALL people to be exempt?

Why are SUPPORTERS allowed to push this bill without proving it works first?

When Spiritual Healing has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN TO be free and cost-effective
and yet it cannot be pushed as a choice on people because of Constitutional limits?

This makes no sense.

If anything, people who practice spiritual healing should have equal right
to set up hospitals and training to provide low cost permanent treatment
as an alternative to paying for insurance or being penalized?

So unless there is an option to opt out or in, and to invest taxes DIRECTLY
into vet housing and health care, and campuses to provide services on
a low cost basis by integrating with educational credits for interns to afford school,
and/or using spiritual healing to cut the costs of crime, disease and abuse,
then this is not CONSTITUTIONALLY inclusive but discriminates on the basis of religion.

You can choose to support or fund it
but it cannot be forced on people without free choice
without violating a number of Constitutional principles and ethics.

Sorry.

You can have it if you want it, but please take responsibility for paying for it!
Don't expect other people to pay for it and then complain if there are better options they'd rather invest taxes in.

I have found a lot of solutions that I would recommend
and they are all based on FREE CHOICE.

This ^^^ is a lot to respond to, and I won't go into point by point detail. That said, the general theme above is that it's not fair to force people to buy health care. Is that correct?

Consider, everyone will need health care at some time, and those who do not have health insurance will generally wait to get treatment which they will get free at a public or private hospital ER.

Generally early treatment for most disease or injury is less expense and, of course, the patient will be billed with the cost determined not by actual treatment expenses, but by Chargemaster. Most will never pay, hence you and I pay their bill via taxes.

So, who is treated most unfairly? The freeloader or the taxpayer?

What about people who do not seek medical treatment ?

Also people who turn to alternative medicine instead of mainstream.

Where is the opt-out option?

 

[kaz]

Other, people's healthcare isn't the responsibility or even a Constitutional authority of the federal government. Not only the ACA, but all Federal restrictions need to be repealed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dear Wry Catcher: That's fine. If you and others who voted for it or support it LIKE the bill as written, all I'm asking is "that group of people" pay for it and be under it.

let the others who object or haven't seen how it works yet
CHOOSE to opt in AFTER they decide they want it.

Just don't impose it "on faith" with PENALTIES for not buying into it or paying into it.

I could oppose it on this principle alone, without getting into detail.
Every time I tried before, getting into detail, I got nowhere with people.

If it is so good, like a business that has good services to offer,
then let people CHOOSE to patronize and sign up as a member!

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

P.S. in principle here are some of the key ones

1. pro-choice and free exercise of religion
a. the Democrats and libs/progressives pushing this bill claim to be prochoice and don't
want govt interfering with medical choices, but then push this federal mandate
that goes against their objections to pro-life advocates wanting to push laws to save lives
b. the bill discriminates against people or groups on the basis of religion or political favor
Amish and other groups are given freedom to opt out
Corporations, Lobby interests and especially govt officials pushing made sure they were exempted
But not all citizens are given the equal choice to exempt themselves or opt out? Why not?

This contradiction in principle in itself causes harm and division, to our relationships and to the nation as a whole,
and is the reason people won't listen to each other's points once this political distrust in agenda is reinforced.
It causes damage PERIOD.

2. taxation without representation
since over half the nation and in particular members of parties who believe in either limited federal govt and/or don't believe the federal govt has jurisdiction over health care mandates
are NOT represented by this set up

Obama's cousin, a medical doctor who blogs from DC, made it clear the issue of reform should focus on creating more health care services and providers NOT insurance which doesn't provide any medical services

So all the work I and others have done to promote SUSTAINABLE means of providing low-cost public health care by combining medical education and service internships with social services to reform welfare and public housing HAVE BEEN POLITICALLY CENSORED

everything has been eclipsed by this push to fight over insurance being pushed as both a federal tax to get it to pass as Constitutional while playing both sides of the fence and both giving favor to certain corporate interests while killing small companies and workers that are in trouble over this bill. Several companies I know of had to cut full time jobs to part time so the workers are left having to work multiple part time jobs or rely on government?

Where is the focus and reward for taxpayers and businesses to INVEST in building
teaching hospitals that could provide both services and medical education at the same time?

We don't even see that in the media because people and politicians are too busy fighting over a bill that was pushed on people without their consent!

If they didn't read a 1000+ page bill, that's even WORSE to pass it and then read it after.

Why not make it optional to OPT IN like all the other politicians who passed it?
If it's so good!

Like the insurance companies who testified before Congress and DIDN'T NEED federal legislation to serve their customers properly. USAA for one. People CHOOSE to be members of that group because they serve well!

People need FREE CHOICE.
That is the basis of the prochoice stance of the Democrats and liberals they went against.
That is the basis of the libertarians and Conservatives who believe in Constitutional
free exercise of religion and free market choice.

So:
3. Constitutional integrity
The states and people need to be in charge of health care and prison/educational reform which is attached in how to fund it,
NOT the federal govt which is overburdened as is.

What hasn't been addressed is how come taxpayers pay for health and mental care for criminals but not law abiding citizens.
So if all citizens had to sign agreements to pay for the costs they incurred, maybe we'd have a workable budget.

Why charge taxpayers MORE money to fix problems,
while losing billions in states like CA and TX over crime that is already triple charged to taxpayers?
a. first for the crime and damages to victims and society
b. second for the costs of policing and prosecution
c. third spending 50K a year for imprisonment while creating another burdensome case of someone who won't be able to work with a criminal record
and/or 80K a year for false incarceration

This was not addressed, because it is on a STATE level.
But that is what could pay for health care, housing and education combined:
by reforming the criminal justice system in each STATE.

4. spiritual healing cannot be legislated or mandated by federal govt

The CHEAPEST way to cut the costs of health care would be to
offer free education, training and assistance/services in SPIRITUAL HEALING

which has been medically PROVEN to cure/prevent
Cancer, Diabetes, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and other diseases including some without medical cure (thus cutting costs of lifelong medications that placate symptoms instead of curing the cause)
Mental illness including addictions and schizophrenia, manic depression, suicide etc.
Criminal illness including pedophilia

So this could prevent crime, save lives, save health care costs and
save billions wasted on imprisonment which DOESN'T PREVENT CAUSES OF CRIMINAL ILLNESS AND ABUSE
all these costs occur AFTER THE FACT

This cannot be addressed by federal govt

The groups such as Christian Science who even brought this up, that they used and relied
on trained spiritual healers for their practice were not allowed recognition or exemption as the Amish
or "members of groups in existence before 1999 who pay their own medical expenses"

so this is NOT an area that federal govt can BEGIN to legislate or regulate

BUT IT HAS

the bill already spells out exemptions that discriminate on the basis of what GOVT deemed to be
religious exceptions

Everyone else is expected to PROVE they fit exemptions
or be part of a special corporate or political class that got exemptions by political favor

WHY NOT open the door for ALL GROUPS and ALL people to be exempt?

Why are SUPPORTERS allowed to push this bill without proving it works first?

When Spiritual Healing has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN TO be free and cost-effective
and yet it cannot be pushed as a choice on people because of Constitutional limits?

This makes no sense.

If anything, people who practice spiritual healing should have equal right
to set up hospitals and training to provide low cost permanent treatment
as an alternative to paying for insurance or being penalized?

So unless there is an option to opt out or in, and to invest taxes DIRECTLY
into vet housing and health care, and campuses to provide services on
a low cost basis by integrating with educational credits for interns to afford school,
and/or using spiritual healing to cut the costs of crime, disease and abuse,
then this is not CONSTITUTIONALLY inclusive but discriminates on the basis of religion.

You can choose to support or fund it
but it cannot be forced on people without free choice
without violating a number of Constitutional principles and ethics.

Sorry.

You can have it if you want it, but please take responsibility for paying for it!
Don't expect other people to pay for it and then complain if there are better options they'd rather invest taxes in.

I have found a lot of solutions that I would recommend
and they are all based on FREE CHOICE.

This ^^^ is a lot to respond to, and I won't go into point by point detail. That said, the general theme above is that it's not fair to force people to buy health care. Is that correct?

Consider, everyone will need health care at some time, and those who do not have health insurance will generally wait to get treatment which they will get free at a public or private hospital ER.

Generally early treatment for most disease or injury is less expense and, of course, the patient will be billed with the cost determined not by actual treatment expenses, but by Chargemaster. Most will never pay, hence you and I pay their bill via taxes.

So, who is treated most unfairly? The freeloader or the taxpayer?

What about people who do not seek medical treatment ?

Also people who turn to alternative medicine instead of mainstream.

Where is the opt-out option?

Opt-out, I suppose just say no. Opt- out and nobody will come knocking down your door, demanding that you purchase a health plan. But if you decide not to purchase coverage, you will have to pay a $95 tax penalty. This would be deducted from your 2015 tax return.

See: Everything you need to know about life under Obamacare

 

[Michelle420]

This ^^^ is a lot to respond to, and I won't go into point by point detail. That said, the general theme above is that it's not fair to force people to buy health care. Is that correct?

Consider, everyone will need health care at some time, and those who do not have health insurance will generally wait to get treatment which they will get free at a public or private hospital ER.

Generally early treatment for most disease or injury is less expense and, of course, the patient will be billed with the cost determined not by actual treatment expenses, but by Chargemaster. Most will never pay, hence you and I pay their bill via taxes.

So, who is treated most unfairly? The freeloader or the taxpayer?

What about people who do not seek medical treatment ?

Also people who turn to alternative medicine instead of mainstream.

Where is the opt-out option?

Opt-out, I suppose just say no. Opt- out and nobody will come knocking down your door, demanding that you purchase a health plan. But if you decide not to purchase coverage, you will have to pay a $95 tax penalty. This would be deducted from your 2015 tax return.

See: Everything you need to know about life under Obamacare

Thanks Wry.

Still, under religious grounds I think some should not have to pay the tax or be required to purchase health insurance.

Is the opt-out always just $95.00 a year or can it be a lot more depending on a person's income?

 

[Flanders]

What a ridiculous idea. First and most importantly, the vast majority of the People haven't read the act; nor do the vast majority understand how the ACA will impact them and their family.

To Wry Catcher: As Pelosi famously said:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hV-05TLiiLU]Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It" - YouTube[/ame]​

Members of Congress did not read it. Nor will they read the regs:

Waxman on 10,535 Pages of Obamacare Regs: ‘Is It Important That I Read It?’
October 2, 2013 - 4:08 PM
By Penny Starr

Waxman on 10,535 Pages of Obamacare Regs: ?Is It Important That I Read It?? | CNS News

Contracts, warranties, etc., are notoriously famous for the “fine print.” There is no fine print in a law; so Democrats shafted private sector Americans real good by burying them under a 2,700 page bill, and 10,535 pages of regulations.

Those who have been influenced by the distractors of the ACA and haven't done some research are doing themselves and many others a disservice. "Time Magazine" published a Special Edition earlier this year giving its readers an exposé of the system the ACA will reform.

To Wry Catcher: You’re putting the cart before the horse.

The ACA forces Americans to purchase a service. Irrespective of what 5 liars on the SCOTUS said, the bill is unconstitutional in the minds of most Americans, and unconstitutional according to many pundits and scholars.

Also, did Time Magazine mention those items in the ACA that have nothing to do with healthcare? Example: Barack Taqiyya’s personal Brown Shirts are funded in the ACA:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3xB1IBQ9Ce8]Michael Savage - Barack Obama's National Civilian Security Force is now LAW and is Funded - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[emilynghiem]

Wow. 3 sigs in 24 hours.

This "petition's on fire!"

Hi Alfalfa:
I'd rather have 3 people agree on solutions based on common unifying principles,
than 3 million people agreeing to attack each other based on one point or another
where they can't unify across the board.

How many people did Hitler have in agreement to follow him vs. the few who stood for principle? How many people agreed with and followed Einstein next to vast numbers who didn't even understand his points? Or the first doctor who theorized that microscopic germs were causing infection after surgeries, who was ostracized by the medical community?

[in Biblical terms:
a. wherever 2 or 3 agree in Christ or by conscience on anything touching the earth
it is done on a heavenly/collective scale, or think globally act locally.
b. the path of righteousness is narrow and very few shall find it
while the path of destruction is broad and most people go through that gate.
Most people can easily take the path of "we're right/you're wrong" and destroy relations.
Most of the world has suffered war because of political sidetaking to bully by majority!
How few people can find the central points of agreement where everyone can agree
and make things right? That is much more meaningful and effective, but much more rare!]

Also, the petition can be revised.
I am getting a lot of good feedback and corrections from different people.

I'd rather establish an agreed understanding that is CONSTITUTIONAL
and build from that.

If we agree FIRST on Constitutional principles, we can solve all other problems
whether we agree or not on all the details.

"Many are called, few are chosen; many will hear, few will listen and understand"

If people including Obama and Roberts don't see how the ACA is unconstitutional,
then this is more an EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGN to teach people the difference,
including officials in govt positions. So that level of MASS EDUCATION requires
a LOT MORE THAN ONE PETITION. We'd have to resolve conflicts by individual and by group interactions to untangle this mess, and the political deadlocks over every issue!

Thanks for your comment
I hope this explain there is a larger process going on than just a petition can address....
========================================

 

[Redfish]

http://chn.ge/16DgapU

Petitioning U.S. Congress, House and Senate c/o Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee and Ted Cruz

Delay contested Health Care policies for one year to prevent Government shutdown

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"More cost-effective, Constitutional options for providing Health Care should be developed and offered first, before enforcing contested mandates that don't offer freedom of choice. Delaying enforcement for one year will allow the rest of the federal budget to pass to avoid a government shutdown. Opponents already compromised by allowing this bill to move forward without support of over half the nation. [Constituents] who support it should "meet in the middle" by allowing citizens the same freedom as special interests to "opt in or out" of these contested mandates and to pursue alternatives in keeping with free choice for all citizens."

Petition by
EMILY NGHIEM, Dem. Precinct 30,
Freedmen's Town National Historic District, TX*

*NOTE: This is Rep. SJL's District, where our Congresswoman signed onto HUD reforms to restore landmark sites in this National Historic District as a sustainable community campus.

Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
http://www.houstonprogressive.org

These Plans passed into federal law 20 years ago would have provided sustainable health care services, jobs and education through student internships embedded into public housing to stop the drain on federal taxpayers.

Instead these restoration plans were demolished under Democrat Administrations while funneling millions in taxes to developers to destroy this national African American landmark to Freed Slave churches as the only settlement of its kind left in the country.

================
Reasons for signing:

EMILY NGHIEM DEM. PRECINCT 30,
FREEDMEN'S TOWN NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, TX

"Fellow Democrats and Leaders should unite to enforce Constitutional principles and ethics; resolve conflicts instead of blaming each other; and include differences in political beliefs for equal representation, religious freedom of choice, and equal protections of the laws for all citizens and groups, especially taxpayers." ethics-commission.net

No, because it wouldn't solve anything. It would just be delaying something that we must inevitably deal with.

It would give congress and the people time to fix whats wrong with the bill and improve what right with it. Obama gave big business a 1 year extension, why not give the same thing to average americans?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Wry Catcher:
Does it offend/bother you at all that govt officials who have better health services
paid for by taxpayers get to "opt out" WITHOUT paying a fine/tax because their
"better quality tax paid" options count as an alternative exemption?

Wouldn't you want equal right to avoid paying a tax/fine because (a) you have other ways you'd rather use instead of "either insurance/paying govt" under ACA or
(b) you can have YOUR insurance and benefits paid for by tax dollars too at the same level as govt officials with better service than ACA?

So instead of paying a fine (starting at 95 to give incentive to people to fund govt health care but this could go up once everyone depends on govt to regulate it) you would get better health care coverage for FREE just like the govt officials who signed onto this bill.

Doesn't that bother you at all?

This ^^^ is a lot to respond to, and I won't go into point by point detail. That said, the general theme above is that it's not fair to force people to buy health care. Is that correct?

Consider, everyone will need health care at some time, and those who do not have health insurance will generally wait to get treatment which they will get free at a public or private hospital ER.

Generally early treatment for most disease or injury is less expense and, of course, the patient will be billed with the cost determined not by actual treatment expenses, but by Chargemaster. Most will never pay, hence you and I pay their bill via taxes.

So, who is treated most unfairly? The freeloader or the taxpayer?

What about people who do not seek medical treatment ?

Also people who turn to alternative medicine instead of mainstream.

Where is the opt-out option?

Opt-out, I suppose just say no. Opt- out and nobody will come knocking down your door, demanding that you purchase a health plan. But if you decide not to purchase coverage, you will have to pay a $95 tax penalty. This would be deducted from your 2015 tax return.

See: Everything you need to know about life under Obamacare

1. I agree with Drifter, that there are other options that could be argued as equally valid (I have friends who share spiritual healing for free, so why can't that be credited? Or friends who would rather BUILD CHARITY HOSPITALS and I would rather build MEDICAL SCHOOLS with paid internships in exchange for providing public services.)

so the Govt restricting exemptions to just
a. religious groups in existence since 1999 that pay their own health care costs
b. state exchanges that have to prove they meet certain requirements by given dates
when the Federal Govt has not proven it can or has met any such requirements

Are punishing people and discriminating/regulating on the basis of religion
a. whether your religion fits the restrictions stated in this law by govt
b. whether you "believe or not" that people are better off, or you support these choices
when there has been no proof either way
c. and discriminating against people who interpret the Constitution differently, do not
consent to these choices under which a tax/penalty is applied,
and are thus being taxed without being represented when members of one party
are pushing a policy without the consent of members of other parties, similar to religions