To be honest, I'm still not getting your argument. Not that I haven't tried to understand it either.
It seems to me that there are those that are just fundamentally opposed to the government being involved in any aspect of health care insurance.
And to me, that is radical.
Let's separate these two issues here:
1. One is the issue itself of the role of government in relation to health care
and now to health care insurance
2. the other is biases toward or against views on health care and govt, which should be addressed separately. Just because your or I agree or disagree with a view, should not affect the validity of the belief, or legal defenses which depend on whether the belief is in conflict with law such as causing harm by promoting killing or something else illegal or threatening danger or damage.
For 1: Since health care is not necessary for govt to manage as the military is in comparison (except for safety regulations regarding malpractice, fraud, licensing to ensure professional competence etc that people generally agree on govt regulating), but health care has been successfully and effectively provided by free market businesses, schools, charities, etc.
then we have two schools of thought
a. those who believe in minimal federal govt, and sticking to what is specifically prescribed in the Constitution, while maximizing as many other functions and rights reserved to the States and people
b. those who believe in public access and equality being established and guaranteed by federal govt, and being more liberal in making changes instead of stricter adherence
which the other approach requires a formal Constitutional Amendment to change.
One is only sticking to what is SPECIFICALLY granted to federal govt
One is being open to anything not SPECIFICALLY DENIED to federal govt
(whether or not people believe or agree in interpreting general welfare as including health care, or if the ACA is or is not a tax as it was set up, the fact that it mixes private industry with govt and compels taxpayers to buy a PRIVATE SERVICE OF INSURANCE instead of paying for health care directly is unprecedented as a "hybrid" and not mentioned in the Constitution, so this has divided people in groups a or b if they believe this is valid or not, or requires an Amendment to be valid. Even when the Federal Reserve was set up which is a hybrid of private investors with federal govt, people are not fined if they do not use it; it is legal to use independent local currency, so people are not forced or fined as with ACA.)
Since there was already health care provided through the free market approach,
and since reforms to insurance and trying to cover more people DO NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE federal govt forcing all citizens to buy insurance (which is a separate issue)
but COULD BE DONE OTHER WAYS, then the argument is this is not compelling to lose liberties when there were OTHER WAYS that do not require losing those liberties.
In fact, not only do these OTHER WAYS of providing health care exist (besides buying insurance), but they ARE STILL NEEDED ANYWAY because the reforms still do not cover all the people nor all the costs of the people who are supposedly covered.
So citizens are facing fines for paying for other means of health care (where insurance is the only option not fined) when these other means are still needed anyway.
I won't get in to all the other ways health reforms or coverage could be paid for WITHOUT
losing liberties, but they mainly involve govt responsibility for going after the people who DO incur these costs to taxpayers ALREADY ESTABLISHED, instead of charging taxpayers IN ADVANCE for costs or needs they haven't incurred yet and cannot be proven to owe yet.
As for health insurance which is separate from health care, this is a specific issue where people are not paying for actual health care services they are using, or providers or facilities to be developed but compelled by law to pay private insurance companies that do not provide this.
If the argument is to reduce costs, again, there are OTHER WAYS to reduce costs that do not require losing liberties without due process nor require purchasing private insurance.
So there is no COMPELLING govt reason for ACA mandates, except that is what the politicians came up with, purely arbitrary and as above, biased by political beliefs that unconstitutionally exclude half of the citizenry who believe procedures were violated.
2. as for personal and political biases for or against the above two positions and any variations thereof,
this should NOT affect legal arguments for whether someone's beliefs are VALID.
The most anyone could explain is that people have agreed to treat political differences as subject to majority rule, and not established these are protected as religious beliefs;
thus, it is a stretch for people to recognize "political beliefs" as included equally with religious beliefs or creeds protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
the same way people are making a leap in allowing federal govt to expand its interpretations or powers beyond what opponents say is authorized without requiring written laws amending this.
So again I ask for consistency.
If people are making a leap and interpreting the Constitution as "loosely" as possible, where it is not specifically banned from federal govt to create this hybrid mandate/exchange system, then I ask the interpretation of religious freedom and creed (and especially prochoice) to be interpreted "loosely" to include the Constitutional beliefs in limited fed govt.
And if people are going to be "strict to the letter"
and say Constitutional beliefs and arguments do not count as protected
unless the law is changed FIRST to count political beliefs as creed or religion, or these are argued in Court first as included by law and protected from discrimination,
then the law should be interpreted "strictly" where an Amendment is also needed FIRST before granting federal govt specific authority to manage health care.
So whichever way people believe, I ask to be consistent.
We don't have to agree with each other's approach or beliefs,
but should be respectful and as consistent as possible,
and be open to mutual correction where this isn't happening.
Thanks Marc
I hope we can make a difference in how these conflicts are resolved globally.
