Bull Ring Carla_Danger: No liberties or rights were violated with ACA mandates?

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,189
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
I've run into the assumption that no rights or liberties were violated with ACA mandates.
I've run into attitudes with C_Clayton_Jones Carla_Danger who seem to take this issue lightly, even mocking it,
and indirectly with Dante and JakeStarkey who believe the mandates are
constitutional because they passed through the proper channels of Congress and Courts.
[I think with CCJones or others, the assumption was that taxpayers have to pay for medical costs anyway, and need to buy insurance anyway, so this is not violating any rights by making people do this to save money? I'm not sure, but that seems to be a more common argument or assumption.]

I argue that people who believe in other choices for paying for health care, such as charity
or setting up medical schools and sustainable programs to educate/train service providers in public health,
or who believe in States' rights and options of reforming prisons to provide and pay for health care
would not require "buying insurance as the only approved choice" or else pay tax penalties into
a govt program these people don't believe in WITHOUT a constitutional amendment, or vote on state levels.

So either the liberty of law abiding citizens was deprived without due process,
or their BELIEFS in States' rights and other means of health care were discriminated against
and fined while people who believe in health care rights through govt, federal authority and systems
are exempted or "treated differently."

As a result, the people who believe in the ACA system have their beliefs endorsed and publicly funded by govt, where even people who don't share their beliefs are required by law to pay into a system that VIOLATES their beliefs, while these dissenter are now required to pay for legal expenses or legislative lobbying to defend their rights from infringement.

This could have been avoided by making the ACA optional, where taxpayers have a free choice to invest and follow the mandates in order to participate or not. Instead it went too far by mandating regulations and fines on other choices of paying and providing for health care.

So my argument is that it either directly deprived law abiding citizens of liberty and free choice
in a matter that INHERENTLY involves personal, political, religious, moral or ethical beliefs,
and/or DISCRIMINATED BY CREED by govt endorsing and funding one belief while penalizing others.
 
Last edited:

Carla_Danger

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
17,913
Reaction score
5,403
Points
390
Location
A Red Welfare State
It's odd that you put my name in the title, and in your second sentence you say you've had this argument with me before, however, I have never, not once, debated you concerning the ACA. How do I know this? I know this because I almost never read your long winded postings.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,189
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
It's odd that you put my name in the title, and in your second sentence you say you've had this argument with me before, however, I have never, not once, debated you concerning the ACA. How do I know this? I know this because I almost never read your long winded postings.
Carla_Danger you mocked my argument that rights were violated by the ACA.
When I told you I would start a thread for that separately, you agreed.
I can change the wording if you don't consider that a debate.

What I find is whatever prevents you from seeing the point or connection with these issues,
causes the same problem with EVERY debate.

the same separation, denial and projection comes up in different forms.
So I'm trying to address it in the context of your making light of issues with the ACA.

If you did see the issues, as a threat to the defense of prochoice, you would be fighting them, too, as a threat to your own liberty and beliefs that should be guarded from federal mandates.

So the fact you don't see a connection going on, that is an issue
not just with ACA but all issues where the liberals are pushing a biased agenda
yet striking down others for pushing their agenda. There is discrimination going on.

I thought the point you were making about the ACA in that other thread
was that no rights were being violated so it is a nonissue. That is what I thought you meant.
Sorry if this wasn't correct, and I will reword the OP if it's not too late to revise that. Thanks!

Please reply anyway. I would like to understand how to address and resolve
this issue; otherwise related problem come up over and over in other contexts as well!
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,189
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
The mocking was due to you bringing up the ACA, when the topic was frat boys at OU.
Oklahoma banned students could sue the college and win big Page 51 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

^ Dear Carla_Danger ^ here is the message where I thought YOU brought up ACA
in the context of mocking fear that rights were violated.

I checked my previous posts in the thread
444 455 465 462 (467 468 bumping g5000 and rightwinger) 473 480 484 487 490 501
and didn't find references to ACA, only laying out proposed solutions or possible community service alternatives which one person thanked though you and Nutz didn't see any connection or value in. That's fine if you don't.

Where did I make references to ACA?
I thought I was responding to YOU bringing this up.

And the impression I got from you is you don't take that seriously, but think it doesn't matter
that federal mandates were passed that half the nation is contesting as against states' rights.
And even my Singlepayer friends are against it, but are letting the Republicans use their resources to fight it.

So the Democrats are taking advantage and using that to exhaust and waste resources
on a program the Democrats should fund if they passed it.

Can you please show me which post I went off topic on and may have slipped in a reference to ACA I didn't catch.

Judicial review made an off remark against liberals who don't get Constitutional principles so I did answer that one, reminded him I am a prochoice progressive liberal and believe in Constitutional education, ethics and consensus based solutions.

Which post did you find, because I couldn't. Thanks! I'm happy to correct it if you find it.

PS Carla right under your post, where I thought YOU were bringing up ACA on that thread,
I found this direct explanation of why I was offering Freedmen's Town as a community service project for the students and the connection with the proposal for Earned Amnesty. Nutz was questioning my ideas as having any value or sense to them, so I was trying to explain:

Oklahoma banned students could sue the college and win big Page 51 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Oklahoma banned students could sue the college and win big Page 46 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Oklahoma banned students could sue the college and win big Page 47 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Sorry if these were spread out because other people posting in between.
I noticed Paulitician brought up 9/11, which Jillian pointed out was unrelated.
then she asked why should bigots be allowed to lead anything and I answered
that everyone needs access to Constitutional education and conflict resolution
to stop problems of bigotry.

Carla you jumped on me for your inability to follow my messages that got separated
because of other people posting things that weren't all on topic either. Why
blame me for that, and mock my ideas and defenses because YOU don't understand them.

Isn't that YOUR issue, not mine? I went back and showed you where I try to explain my ideas.
So I WAS trying to take responsibility for clearing up any such misunderstanding.

I see no reason to insult or mock my views when I am trying to present serious solutions
to the problems raised on that thread. Just because YOU didn't understand them?
 
Last edited:
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,189
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
The mocking was due to you bringing up the ACA, when the topic was frat boys at OU.
Dear Carla_Danger and rightwinger
Oklahoma banned students could sue the college and win big Page 51 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

^ is Carla's post the first mention of the ACA in that thread ^

rightwinger since you think this is funny is that what you are laughing at?

I'm not getting it, can you please explain?
I offered to correct any off topic mention of ACA that triggered her mocking remark about it
but couldn't find one. Was she referencing a different thread?
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,189
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
"I've run into the assumption that no rights or liberties were violated with ACA mandates."

It's not an 'assumption' but a fact.

We know it's a fact because you can't cite any Supreme Court ruling which has determine any civil right was 'violated' by any provision of the ACA.

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby the Court concerned itself solely with the issue of whether the contraception provision violated the RFRA, not the First Amendment:

“The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns.”

And King v Burwell addresses only the issue of Federalism, the relationship between the Federal government and the states; however the Supreme Court rules in this case it will be making no determination on whether or not a individual right or liberty has been 'violated.'

Consequently, no one is being 'forced' to have health insurance, citizens are at liberty to have no health insurance if they so desire, where no rights or liberties were 'violated' by any provision of the ACA.
Hi C_Clayton_Jones
What do you call the step BEFORE people get a Court ruling or BEFORE pushing
a revision through the Legislature.

For example, BEFORE Roe V. Wade was officially "on the books" as striking down the abortion
laws as unconstitutional,
what do you call the argument ARGUING that it is unconstitutional?

Do people just wait around until a Gavel or ruling magically drops from above
declaring something unconstitutional and then "that is proof."

If so, then nothing would ever change.
Because BEFORE Roe V. Wade there was no ruling on the books that those laws were unconstitutional!

This is silly!

So you'd be saying NOBODY could argue that slavery is wrong,
because there were "no laws on the books banning slavery"
so there is NO PROOF slavery is wrong?

So if nobody can prove that argument UNTIL AFTER the law is changed,
it can never be argued in order to change it?

What?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top