Are political beliefs equal: Can health care be mandated without imposing involuntary servitude?

[dblack]

adequate healthcare is necessary to sustain your very life, it's hardly a choice.

if you break your leg and the bone comes out, you gunna bleed out, bro?

tell us more.

to call whether or not you need healthcare a "choice" is remarkable, to me.

You're conflating health care with health insurance. I'm not.

 

[G.T.]

You want a Country run on free market principles?
You want to turn away 23 year old kids who thought they were invincible from care, to save his / her life?

No? Yes? Maybe?

Capitalism and Healthcare do not work together, at all. What Capitalism mixed with healthcare does, is it correlates your "right to life" with your "ability to pay," which is rather in*humane and disgusting.

 

[G.T.]

adequate healthcare is necessary to sustain your very life, it's hardly a choice.

if you break your leg and the bone comes out, you gunna bleed out, bro?

tell us more.

to call whether or not you need healthcare a "choice" is remarkable, to me.

You're conflating health care with health insurance. I'm not.

The insurance is there to protect the consumers from catastrophic occurrences.

If they protected THEMSELVES, we wouldn't have three day stays in the hospital costing upwards of $15, 000 and healthcare costs wouldn't be THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE of bankruptcy in the Country.

Capitalism and Healthcare do not mix on any level we'd call humane.

I'm humane

Life is more important than business.

 

[dblack]

adequate healthcare is necessary to sustain your very life, it's hardly a choice.

if you break your leg and the bone comes out, you gunna bleed out, bro?

tell us more.

to call whether or not you need healthcare a "choice" is remarkable, to me.

You're conflating health care with health insurance. I'm not.

The insurance is there to protect the consumers from catastrophic occurrences.

If they protected THEMSELVES, we wouldn't have three day stays in the hospital costing upwards of $15, 000 and healthcare costs wouldn't be THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE of bankruptcy in the Country.

Capitalism and Healthcare do not mix on any level we'd call humane.

I'm humane

Life is more important than business.

Yep.

Taking a narrative view, here's how I see it. A critical mass of consumers got suckered by the insurance industry's sales pitch and now they want to force everyone to board the same sinking ship that they're too stupid to abandon.

 

[G.T.]

adequate healthcare is necessary to sustain your very life, it's hardly a choice.

if you break your leg and the bone comes out, you gunna bleed out, bro?

tell us more.

to call whether or not you need healthcare a "choice" is remarkable, to me.

You're conflating health care with health insurance. I'm not.

The insurance is there to protect the consumers from catastrophic occurrences.

If they protected THEMSELVES, we wouldn't have three day stays in the hospital costing upwards of $15, 000 and healthcare costs wouldn't be THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE of bankruptcy in the Country.

Capitalism and Healthcare do not mix on any level we'd call humane.

I'm humane

Life is more important than business.

Yep.

Taking a narrative view, here's how I see it. A critical mass of consumers got suckered by the insurance industry's sales pitch and now they want to force everyone to board the same sinking ship that they're too stupid to abandon.

They would all love a fix to the system that is more affordable for everyone and limits loss of liberty.

Unfortunately, Capitalism cannot provide that. This is proven.

 

[dblack]

Taking a narrative view, here's how I see it. A critical mass of consumers got suckered by the insurance industry's sales pitch and now they want to force everyone to board the same sinking ship that they're too stupid to abandon.

They would all love a fix to the system that is more affordable for everyone and limits loss of liberty.

Unfortunately, Capitalism cannot provide that. This is proven.

Nor should it. Capitalism - assuming you're referring to free markets, and free society in general - doesn't provide us with anything other than the freedom to provide for ourselves.

 

[G.T.]

Its 2015. This is literally maybe as easy as microsoft excel.

How much do Americans spend on Cancer care / year when adjusted down for no middle man (insurance) and no non-pays?

Colonoscipies?

Amputations?

Research and development?

Etc.

Divided by the #of taxpayers.

Thats it. Doctor pay determined by the demand in his field and thats factored into the above procedural costs.




"But but but the lines!!"

If the lines are that long, Doctor pay will go up because demand will go up, there will be more Doctors.

Long lines isnt something you fix by caring for less people. Thats backward thinking.

 

[dblack]

Its 2015. This is literally maybe as easy as microsoft excel.

How much do Americans spend on Cancer care / year when adjusted down for no middle man (insurance) and no non-pays?

Colonoscipies?

Amputations?

Research and development?

Etc.

Divided by the #of taxpayers.

Thats it. Doctor pay determined by the demand in his field and thats factored into the above procedural costs.




"But but but the lines!!"

If the lines are that long, Doctor pay will go up because demand will go up, there will be more Doctors.

Long lines isnt something you fix by caring for less people. Thats backward thinking.

It's not the lines that bother me with that scheme. It's what conservatives would do with such a system.

They're already pretty enthusiastic about dictating our personal habits. How much more fuel will be added to that fire when our health care becomes a public expense? When "my tax dollars" are being used to fund unhealthy lifestyles?

 

[G.T.]

Its 2015. This is literally maybe as easy as microsoft excel.

How much do Americans spend on Cancer care / year when adjusted down for no middle man (insurance) and no non-pays?

Colonoscipies?

Amputations?

Research and development?

Etc.

Divided by the #of taxpayers.

Thats it. Doctor pay determined by the demand in his field and thats factored into the above procedural costs.




"But but but the lines!!"

If the lines are that long, Doctor pay will go up because demand will go up, there will be more Doctors.

Long lines isnt something you fix by caring for less people. Thats backward thinking.

It's not the lines that bother me with that scheme. It's what conservatives would do with such a system.

They're already pretty enthusiastic about dictating our personal habits. How much more fuel will be added to that fire when our health care becomes a public expense? When "my tax dollars" are being used to fund unhealthy lifestyles?

The only way that is mitigated in ANY system is placing more funding on preventative care.

That's not a knock on this system, it's a knock on ANY shared system where the woes of another determine the costs for YOU.

THAT CAN ONLY BE AVOIDED IF EACH MAN WAS AN ISLAND, HIS OWN DOCTOR, HIS OWN SURGEON.

 

[dblack]

Its 2015. This is literally maybe as easy as microsoft excel.

How much do Americans spend on Cancer care / year when adjusted down for no middle man (insurance) and no non-pays?

Colonoscipies?

Amputations?

Research and development?

Etc.

Divided by the #of taxpayers.

Thats it. Doctor pay determined by the demand in his field and thats factored into the above procedural costs.




"But but but the lines!!"

If the lines are that long, Doctor pay will go up because demand will go up, there will be more Doctors.

Long lines isnt something you fix by caring for less people. Thats backward thinking.

It's not the lines that bother me with that scheme. It's what conservatives would do with such a system.

They're already pretty enthusiastic about dictating our personal habits. How much more fuel will be added to that fire when our health care becomes a public expense? When "my tax dollars" are being used to fund unhealthy lifestyles?

The only way that is mitigated in ANY system is placing more funding on preventative care.

That's not a knock on this system, it's a knock on ANY shared system where the woes of another determine the costs for YOU.

THAT CAN ONLY BE AVOIDED IF EACH MAN WAS AN ISLAND, HIS OWN DOCTOR, HIS OWN SURGEON.

Right. And conservatives will take the "preventative" rationale and run with it - using it as an excuse to dictate all kinds of personal behavior. Drug abuse, poor diets, promiscuous sex -- all of these (and much more) will be targeted with laws justified by saving taxpayer money. This is a dangerous intersection between liberal caretakers and conservative authoritarians.

 

[G.T.]

Its 2015. This is literally maybe as easy as microsoft excel.

How much do Americans spend on Cancer care / year when adjusted down for no middle man (insurance) and no non-pays?

Colonoscipies?

Amputations?

Research and development?

Etc.

Divided by the #of taxpayers.

Thats it. Doctor pay determined by the demand in his field and thats factored into the above procedural costs.




"But but but the lines!!"

If the lines are that long, Doctor pay will go up because demand will go up, there will be more Doctors.

Long lines isnt something you fix by caring for less people. Thats backward thinking.

It's not the lines that bother me with that scheme. It's what conservatives would do with such a system.

They're already pretty enthusiastic about dictating our personal habits. How much more fuel will be added to that fire when our health care becomes a public expense? When "my tax dollars" are being used to fund unhealthy lifestyles?

The only way that is mitigated in ANY system is placing more funding on preventative care.

That's not a knock on this system, it's a knock on ANY shared system where the woes of another determine the costs for YOU.

THAT CAN ONLY BE AVOIDED IF EACH MAN WAS AN ISLAND, HIS OWN DOCTOR, HIS OWN SURGEON.

Right. And conservatives will take the "preventative" rationale and run with it - using it as an excuse to dictate all kinds of personal behavior. Drug abuse, poor diets, promiscuous sex -- all of these (and much more) will be targeted with laws justified by saving taxpayer money. This is a dangerous intersection between liberal caretakers and conservative authoritarians.

The numbers would flesh out the arguments in any debate, more precise preventative care will cause illness borne of bad lifestyle to go down from what it is today, over time, quite dramatically.

I'd rather let them kick and scream against facts and data while everyone else laughs at them, than throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[dblack]

Its 2015. This is literally maybe as easy as microsoft excel.

How much do Americans spend on Cancer care / year when adjusted down for no middle man (insurance) and no non-pays?

Colonoscipies?

Amputations?

Research and development?

Etc.

Divided by the #of taxpayers.

Thats it. Doctor pay determined by the demand in his field and thats factored into the above procedural costs.




"But but but the lines!!"

If the lines are that long, Doctor pay will go up because demand will go up, there will be more Doctors.

Long lines isnt something you fix by caring for less people. Thats backward thinking.

It's not the lines that bother me with that scheme. It's what conservatives would do with such a system.

They're already pretty enthusiastic about dictating our personal habits. How much more fuel will be added to that fire when our health care becomes a public expense? When "my tax dollars" are being used to fund unhealthy lifestyles?

The only way that is mitigated in ANY system is placing more funding on preventative care.

That's not a knock on this system, it's a knock on ANY shared system where the woes of another determine the costs for YOU.

THAT CAN ONLY BE AVOIDED IF EACH MAN WAS AN ISLAND, HIS OWN DOCTOR, HIS OWN SURGEON.

Right. And conservatives will take the "preventative" rationale and run with it - using it as an excuse to dictate all kinds of personal behavior. Drug abuse, poor diets, promiscuous sex -- all of these (and much more) will be targeted with laws justified by saving taxpayer money. This is a dangerous intersection between liberal caretakers and conservative authoritarians.

The numbers would flesh out the arguments in any debate, more precise preventative care will cause illness borne of bad lifestyle to go down from what it is today, over time, quite dramatically.

I'd rather let them kick and scream against facts and data while everyone else laughs at them, than throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm not sure what this means. But the structure of our political system pretty much ensures that conservatives will be back on power someday. Who'll be kicking and screaming then?

 

[G.T.]

Its 2015. This is literally maybe as easy as microsoft excel.

How much do Americans spend on Cancer care / year when adjusted down for no middle man (insurance) and no non-pays?

Colonoscipies?

Amputations?

Research and development?

Etc.

Divided by the #of taxpayers.

Thats it. Doctor pay determined by the demand in his field and thats factored into the above procedural costs.




"But but but the lines!!"

If the lines are that long, Doctor pay will go up because demand will go up, there will be more Doctors.

Long lines isnt something you fix by caring for less people. Thats backward thinking.

It's not the lines that bother me with that scheme. It's what conservatives would do with such a system.

They're already pretty enthusiastic about dictating our personal habits. How much more fuel will be added to that fire when our health care becomes a public expense? When "my tax dollars" are being used to fund unhealthy lifestyles?

The only way that is mitigated in ANY system is placing more funding on preventative care.

That's not a knock on this system, it's a knock on ANY shared system where the woes of another determine the costs for YOU.

THAT CAN ONLY BE AVOIDED IF EACH MAN WAS AN ISLAND, HIS OWN DOCTOR, HIS OWN SURGEON.

Right. And conservatives will take the "preventative" rationale and run with it - using it as an excuse to dictate all kinds of personal behavior. Drug abuse, poor diets, promiscuous sex -- all of these (and much more) will be targeted with laws justified by saving taxpayer money. This is a dangerous intersection between liberal caretakers and conservative authoritarians.

The numbers would flesh out the arguments in any debate, more precise preventative care will cause illness borne of bad lifestyle to go down from what it is today, over time, quite dramatically.

I'd rather let them kick and scream against facts and data while everyone else laughs at them, than throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm not sure what this means. But the structure of our political system pretty much ensures that conservatives will be back on power someday. Who'll be kicking and screaming then?

they def wouldnt get elected on this issue.

 

[dblack]

It's not the lines that bother me with that scheme. It's what conservatives would do with such a system.

They're already pretty enthusiastic about dictating our personal habits. How much more fuel will be added to that fire when our health care becomes a public expense? When "my tax dollars" are being used to fund unhealthy lifestyles?

The only way that is mitigated in ANY system is placing more funding on preventative care.

That's not a knock on this system, it's a knock on ANY shared system where the woes of another determine the costs for YOU.

THAT CAN ONLY BE AVOIDED IF EACH MAN WAS AN ISLAND, HIS OWN DOCTOR, HIS OWN SURGEON.

Right. And conservatives will take the "preventative" rationale and run with it - using it as an excuse to dictate all kinds of personal behavior. Drug abuse, poor diets, promiscuous sex -- all of these (and much more) will be targeted with laws justified by saving taxpayer money. This is a dangerous intersection between liberal caretakers and conservative authoritarians.

The numbers would flesh out the arguments in any debate, more precise preventative care will cause illness borne of bad lifestyle to go down from what it is today, over time, quite dramatically.

I'd rather let them kick and scream against facts and data while everyone else laughs at them, than throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm not sure what this means. But the structure of our political system pretty much ensures that conservatives will be back on power someday. Who'll be kicking and screaming then?

they def wouldnt get elected on this issue.

It doesn't really matter how they get elected.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dingell said it, it's about controlling the sheeple

 

[CrusaderFrank]

With francoHFW I ran into this same "clash of beliefs" again:
A. Leftwing views pushing the BELIEF that "health care is a right" to the extreme of
automatically seeing it as an inherent right through govt, and overriding any choices or beliefs otherwise.
B. Rightwing views that medical equipment, resources, materials and services are NOT free but require SOMEONE'S labor (either directly, or paid for using money they earned by their own labor); so that this remains a free choice to voluntarily donate or serve others, but cannot be mandated. So if the left wants this to be free, they can volunteer their own labor and money, but have no right to impose this BELIEF through govt that mandates EVERYONE be forced under a public system when people naturally have free choice to provide health care in other ways as they VOLUNTEER to serve others.

I've never in my life heard of a health care proposal, no matter how far left, in which providers are not compensated for medical equipment, resources, materials, and services.

The quintessential leftwing health care idea is single payer, in which there's only one insurer. But that entity is still a payer--its purpose and function is to reimburse/pay health care providers for services rendered.

The "health care is a right!" argument is that people are entitled to having some payer (whether it be a single payer or one of many) paying health care providers for the services those people utilize. It's not an argument that we should stop paying doctors and enslave them.

This is such a bizarre and absurd characterization, I'm wondering if perhaps you're joking.

So why are the BELIEFS of the A group allowed to dominate the narrative?

Why isn't there equal respect, inclusion, protection and representation of the BELIEFS of the B group?

Literally trillions of dollars flow to the nation's health care providers each year. How exactly is the argument (which no one is making) that those folks shouldn't be paid "dominating the narrative"?

Welcome back! How's Cass and the gang?

 

[Flopper]

The question being raised by the thread was Can health care be mandated without imposing involuntary servitude?

Since mandating the purchase of healthcare insurance does not meet the legal definition of involuntary servitude, it can't be argued that it's involuntary servitude and it must be argued on different basis. Holding that paying a penalty to the government is involuntary servitude is really grasping at straws.

Not if you actually listen to the argument. The point isn't to match a legal definition or find some constitutional loophole to undermine the law. The point is to question the premise that government should have that kind of authority over our personal decisions.

Arguing that one should be free to choose to carry health insurance or not is rather silly. In this day and age an illness or accident can created millions of dollars in medical bills that you would have no hope of paying forcing the care providers or government to absorb those costs. Now that is wrong. Without the mandate, irresponsible people would continue to refuse to carry insurance and leave the bills to the rest of us to pay.

The argument isn't silly at all. I take it very seriously. The question touches on fundamental issues of individual rights. The fact that millions of Americans have indulged a "solution" for financing their healthcare that isn't viable shouldn't force the rest of us to follow their lead.

Yes, individual rights are a major issue when discussing the mandate. However, I think you will agree that with rights comes responsibilities. In this case it's the individual's responsibility to see that their healthcare providers gets paid for their services. Without insurance that's impossible for most families. Before healthcare reform 50 million people didn't carry health insurance and most of them had no way to pay for treatments of serious healthcare problems. Many of those that carried insurance, had insufficient coverage to pay for major healthcare expenses.

 

[emilynghiem]

The question being raised by the thread was Can health care be mandated without imposing involuntary servitude?

Since mandating the purchase of healthcare insurance does not meet the legal definition of involuntary servitude, it can't be argued that it's involuntary servitude and it must be argued on different basis. Holding that paying a penalty to the government is involuntary servitude is really grasping at straws.

Not if you actually listen to the argument. The point isn't to match a legal definition or find some constitutional loophole to undermine the law. The point is to question the premise that government should have that kind of authority over our personal decisions.

Arguing that one should be free to choose to carry health insurance or not is rather silly. In this day and age an illness or accident can created millions of dollars in medical bills that you would have no hope of paying forcing the care providers or government to absorb those costs. Now that is wrong. Without the mandate, irresponsible people would continue to refuse to carry insurance and leave the bills to the rest of us to pay.

The argument isn't silly at all. I take it very seriously. The question touches on fundamental issues of individual rights. The fact that millions of Americans have indulged a "solution" for financing their healthcare that isn't viable shouldn't force the rest of us to follow their lead.

Yes, individual rights are a major issue when discussing the mandate. However, I think you will agree that with rights comes responsibilities. In this case it's the individual's responsibility to see that their healthcare providers gets paid for their services. Without insurance that's impossible for most families. Before healthcare reform 50 million people didn't carry health insurance and most of them had no way to pay for treatments of serious healthcare problems. Many of those that carried insurance, had insufficient coverage to pay for major healthcare expenses.

Well Flopper that's where I'd say mandating insurance through the FEDERAL level is NOT the only way to regulate if someone counts as responsible to get an exemption.

It's actually discriminating against people who exercise their responsibility in other ways; it's the federal govt "regulating on the basis of RELIGION" by regulating WHICH religious groups count or don't count as exemptions or as "responsible."

This is all FAITH based, remember, nobody has proven WHICH of these methods is "BEST" which will never be proven because people's values and beliefs are different.

By your arguments Flopper what's to stop prolife people from passing mandates banning abortion as "the only way to guarantee responsibility"
or mandating Spiritual Healing as the "only way to guarantee" that taxpayers aren't forced to carry the costs of drug addicts and sex abusers who would be screened out and cured (if spiritual healing were mandated as a way to "cut costs and ensure responsibility for health costs".)

Isn't it arbitrary what are the CONDITIONS by which some taxpayers are getting exempted and some are getting PENALIZED? What is so magical about insurance, when it doesn't even cover all the costs or all the population? What about all the other measures and provisions needed to cover the rest of those costs and population -- why don't investments in THOSE venues count as responsibility and exemptions?

And now that it has come out that people have conflicting political BELIEFS, where some believe RELIGIOUSLY in govt health care as a right while others BELIEVE in free market as their philosophy and way of life, isn't it "discriminating by creed" for govt to EXEMPT people for complying with beliefs in govt health care, and to PENALIZE people who believe in free market and that govt does not have authority to mandate insurance.

Those choices are even biased by CREED. The Congress members who voted for this were split along those very lines of BELIEF, where the ones who Support these beliefs passed this bill that exempts people who agree with those beliefs (and the ones who oppose these beliefs in health care are PENALIZED). Isn't that a sign of passing a law that favors and REWARDS followers of one belief while punishing opponents of other beliefs?

How obvious is THAT, that the govt is being abused to establish one set of beliefs over others,
when the vote was split by Party, based on the "BELIEF" that "health care is a right" proclaimed as A BELIEF in the Democrats' own party platform. Isn't that obviously a political religion then?

And what is even criminal about wanting free choice to pay for health care other ways?

Why should liberals seek to penalize that free choice, while fighting to defend the free choice of abortion, to take drugs, etc. Clearly there is a political bias going on, and in this case, the discrimination is mandated in the form of penalizing people of opposing political beliefs.

Are there any honest politicians on the left even willing to acknowledge this at all?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

EMILYNGHIEM SAID:

“Why should liberals seek to penalize that free choice, while fighting to defend the free choice of abortion, to take drugs, etc. Clearly there is a political bias going on, and in this case, the discrimination is mandated in the form of penalizing people of opposing political beliefs.

Are there any honest politicians on the left even willing to acknowledge this at all?”

The only thing that is clear is you have no idea what you're talking about, as this makes no sense whatsoever.

For the 1547th time: the ACA does not 'force' anyone to do anything, there is no 'mandate' to purchase health insurance, those who wish to have no health insurance are at liberty to do so, as the Supreme Court has held that the ACA is Constitutional; indeed, nowhere in the text of the Act will you find a provision authorizing criminal or civil penalties for not purchasing health insurance.

Liberals are not seeking to 'penalize' free choice, that's a lie – and your attempt to compare the ACA with privacy rights fails because the courts have consistently held that to 'ban' abortion violates a woman's protected liberty of choice, where the ACA in no way 'violates' any civil liberty, including that of choice.

Consequently it is wrong for you to question the honestly of politicians 'on the left' since their advocacy of free choice is being consistently applied, where their position on the issue is consistent with the Constitution and its case law.

 

[emilynghiem]

1.
For the 1547th time: the ACA does not 'force' anyone to do anything, there is no 'mandate' to purchase health insurance, those who wish to have no health insurance are at liberty to do so, as the Supreme Court has held that the ACA is Constitutional; indeed, nowhere in the text of the Act will you find a provision authorizing criminal or civil penalties for not purchasing health insurance.

2.
Liberals are not seeking to 'penalize' free choice, that's a lie – and your attempt to compare the ACA with privacy rights fails because the courts have consistently held that to 'ban' abortion violates a woman's protected liberty of choice, where the ACA in no way 'violates' any civil liberty, including that of choice.

3.
Consequently it is wrong for you to question the honestly of politicians 'on the left' since their advocacy of free choice is being consistently applied, where their position on the issue is consistent with the Constitution and its case law.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
1. let's compare BEFORE and AFTER the ACA was passed and you tell me what is penalizing or forcing citizens to pay for something that USED TO BE FREE CHOICE.

BEFORE ACA there was NO tax penalty for not buying insurance.
AFTER ACA, if you do not buy insurance, then you are fined out of your salary.

How is that NOT forcing someone?
Like if you do NOT hand over X dollars out of your wallet,
I am going to take Y dollars out of your pocket.

If this "forcing" term is too strong for you,
what term do you call it then?

Maybe we are talking about two different points of the same process.

The ONLY thing I can POSSIBLY think you mean,
is you are ASSUMING people "have to pay XYZ amount anyway for either health care
or insurance" so you are ASSUMING that requiring this up front is not forcing someone?

What if someone has enough money to pay for ALL their expenses and ALL their neighbors in their entire city. But they wait until AFTER the expenses are incurred to pay for those costs. So they are not irresponsible but have a different way to pay.

Just because they 'didn't buy insurance as the only way to prove their willingness to pay" then this person is going to get FINED 1, 2 3% and up of their salary because they didn't pay IN ADVANCE.

How is adding this mandate NOT FORCING someone to do something
they DIDN'T HAVE TO DO BEFORE.

They didn't HAVE to buy insurance before they needed it.

Now if they do NOT buy insurance, they are required to pay a FINE.

Can you explain that in your own language, if "forcing someone to buy insurance"
is not how you would say it? Thanks.

2. RE: Penalize free choice

Similar to #1, what do YOU call paying a 1, 2, 3% fine and up
because someone chooses to pay for health care in other ways
besides buying insurance?

The only choices that are exempted
A. either buying insurance under the govt regulations
B. or being a member of a RELIGIOUS group in existence by 1999
where the members share medical expenses as part of their religious practice.

So that is limited the choices, regulating them by govt, and even regulating WHICH religious affiliations and practices count as EXEMPTIONS.

Again C_Clayton_Jones
Let's compare BEFORE and AFTER

BEFORE ACA you DIDN'T have to be a paid member of a religious organization that shared medical expenses and you didn't have to buy insurance under govt requirements. And you didn't have an added penalty. You had FREE CHOICE to join or pay or not join and not pay, and NOT FACE ANY GOVT FINES.

AFTER ACA you get FINED if you didn't pay for one of those choices!

So C_Clayton_Jones
You and I would have NO ARGUMENT if the mandates were optional.

If you have FREE CHOICE whether to buy insurance or NOT, whether to join a religious organization that meets the govt regulations for exemption or not, etc.
and NOT worry about being FINED 1, 2, 3 % of your salary per year.

Then there would be no argument about the mandates!

THAT'S THE WHOLE ISSUE C_Clayton_Jones
Why do you think half the nation has been screaming about this?

Why do you think the Singlepayer advocates and Universal care activists
dismiss the ACA as a corporate sham to FORCE taxpayers to pay insurance companies as a middle man?

The most I can understand, C_Clayton_Jones is the language is too strong.

You don't see it as "penalizing" because you ASSUME people need to pay anyway,
and you don't think it makes a difference if this is paid through insurance this way.

But people do not AGREE to 'give up their liberty' to govt without voting or consenting to the terms.

YOU may agree to these terms, but how can YOU write a business contract
and force other people to follow the same terms YOU agree to pay for?

So do you see why people feel their LIBERTY was deprived.
They had NO CHOICE and NO SAY in this bill getting passed that
now REQUIRES them to do something they could have waited or skipped previously.

They now face MANDATED tax penalties if they DON'T do X.

So it is no longer a FREE CHOICE but under PENALTY OF LAW.

3. As for the last question, about honest politicians.

How about we make a bet?

That if people have the same freedom to do what they did before, and either choose to buy insurance or not, or choose to join a religious medical sharing program or not,
then YOU AGREE TO PAY ANY FINES that result from people exercising the same free choice they had before!

So if there is really no forced penalty for choosing not to buy insurance,
then you shouldn't worry about paying any penalties, right?

Are you willing to do that?

I am happy to set up website, and ask lawyers to write up an agreement that you are sure that nobody has lost any freedom or choice, so that if they continue exercising their freedom they had before, then you AGREE to be financially responsible for any fines or penalties that you claim don't exist.

Are you willing to sign and pay for that?

Lastly C_Clayton_Jones
Maybe I can ask you this way, and it's just the wording that is getting lost in communicating.

WHAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ACA MANDATES
if it doesn't CHANGE requirements?

If it didn't FORCE anyone to do anything, then what did it change?

Because I might AGREE with you, if the ACA ONLY CHANGED the requirements of insurance companies to absorb all the costs of changes in coverage.

I would AGREE with you if the mandates are OPTIONAL and nobody is required to buy insurance under PENALTY of LAW.

I AGREE that any public option should be VOLUNTARY,
so if you are saying this is all VOLUNTARY to participate in, yes, I would AGREE.

So if you are saying that, are you willing to pay any MANDATORY FINES
that occur from people treating this as VOLUNTARY AND FREE CHOICE
to either buy insurance and/or pay in under the govt approved options.

If you are SO SURE There are NO FINES if people choose freely not to buy or participate, are you willing to sign for financially responsibility if you are wrong?

Thanks!