My cousin being forced to purchase health insurance, advice?

[Synthaholic]

As long as the people who agree to pay the costs don't impose them on people who didn't agree to this.

I never agreed to the Iraq War, or massive tax cuts for billionaires. But the Congress authorized both so I had to live with it.

Congress authorized ACA and you have to live with it.

And if someone rapes you by holding a gun to your head and overpowering you, that's acceptable?
You just have to take it? Just because other people have been raped before and never got restitution,
you have no right to demand compensation for your damages and losses the assault and trauma costs you?

Someone raping you at gunpoint is the same as the elected Congress passing a law?

Wow, you're a Grade A moron, aren't you?

 

[emilynghiem]

As long as the people who agree to pay the costs don't impose them on people who didn't agree to this.

I never agreed to the Iraq War, or massive tax cuts for billionaires. But the Congress authorized both so I had to live with it.

Congress authorized ACA and you have to live with it.

And if someone rapes you by holding a gun to your head and overpowering you, that's acceptable?
You just have to take it? Just because other people have been raped before and never got restitution,
you have no right to demand compensation for your damages and losses the assault and trauma costs you?

Someone raping you at gunpoint is the same as the elected Congress passing a law?

Wow, you're a Grade A moron, aren't you?

??? Synthaholic if you don't see how this law was forced by coercion -- by EXCLUSION of people's objections based on CREED -- that is as unconscionable as you taking a case of forcible RAPE and
"assuming it was consensual because sex occurred." You are ASSUMING that because a law passed "it must have been consensual and represented the consent of the parties to the relations."

WTF???

The issue I was pointing to is CONSENT versus COERCION

Consent : Coercion
: :
Sex : Rape
: :
Law : Tyranny

So NO this isn't "LAW" if it is LAWLESSLY imposing
"taxation without representation" which is "TYRANNY".

Are you intelligent enough to understand ANALOGIES?
If not, you are welcome to learn, as you seem to be lacking in understanding
the difference between Just Govt by "Consent of the Governed and Inclusion"
vs. Political Oppression by "Coercion and Exclusion"

If you only count the YES votes and totally disregard the NO votes, that
isn't representing the people. So yes it is like RAPE as opposed to MUTUALLY CONSENSUAL SEX.

Is that more clear, Synthaholic ?

Do you know any entities that can write out a business contract, and sign YOUR name to it or MINE,
requiring us to BUY products or services under conditions we didn't have a say in or agree to,
and BIND us to that contract?

Why aren't you outraged that federal officials met with Corporate insurance lobbyists and interests
to write out plans to pay them billions if not trillions in advance, using our taxdollars, and then
require us to buy insurance from them as a mandatory tax requirement under federal laws?

I didn't consent to that. just because you do, doesn't give you the right to sign my name to any such contract to buy into this.

The mandates violate my beliefs in Constitutional equality, due process, and consent of the governed in matters of belief and creed regarding health care choices, including spiritual healing which cannot be regulated by govt.

So I never approved of this bill passed so that it affects taxpayers who aren't represented by it.

Do you understand the concept of political coercion?
Like if prolife groups pass a law banning abortion which overrides and excludes dissent of prochoice beliefs?
Or if the anti-gay marriage groups pass a law banning gay marriage which excludes beliefs in pro gay marriage equality?

????

P.S. how this is "holding a gun to people's heads"
because of citizens/groups whose beliefs are violated by the bill,
they are put under pressure to change it. But can't change it without agreeing what to change it to! In the meantime, the bill as passed is still being pushed to be enforced.

This pressure to change it before anything else is forced against our will and beliefs
is not something we asked to be forced under. It was forced on us.

It is used as a political strategy to "force change" by first passing something
that NEITHER side agrees to. So the pressure is on to force it to be replaced, or else suffer
consequences in the meantime. But as long as the sides stay divided over what to change it to,
it remains although NEITHER side agrees to pay for it.

Nobody is going after the gunman, holding the people's freedom hostage with these mandates, but they are too busy fighting each other while the gun remains poised, forcing people by tax laws to fork over 1%, 2%, of their salary and counting, adding 1% per year that they don't agree to replace this law or unite in declaring it OPTIONAL instead of mandatory participation.

 

[HenryBHough]

Point out that your relative can not only get FREE insurance but also small cash payments each month if agreeing to wear Jammie-Jake style Dr. Dentons to all classes.

See, they don't look so bad once you get used to them:

 

[emilynghiem]

Point out that your relative can not only get FREE insurance but also small cash payments each month if agreeing to wear Jammie-Jake style Dr. Dentons to all classes.

See, they don't look so bad once you get used to them:

View attachment 39319​

Hey now THAT'S an idea! Offer to advertise whatever business sponsor will fund the costs.
And wear that logo and make a thank you video to go viral so that sponsor gets advertising out of the deal.

If corporate insurance got paid to pass this bill, maybe all citizens should follow the corporate route.
And ask corporate sponsorship to pay for it.

 

[Synthaholic]

if you don't see how this law was forced by coercion

That's ridiculous. The law was passed by a majority of votes in the House and Senate, just like every single law that has ever been passed.

Sounds like you hate democracy.

 

[xdangerousxdavex]

 

[emilynghiem]

if you don't see how this law was forced by coercion

That's ridiculous. The law was passed by a majority of votes in the House and Senate, just like every single law that has ever been passed.

Sounds like you hate democracy.

Hi Synthaholic
No, the opposite, I take democracy to almost a direct democracy extreme.
And then respect people's choice to opt for representative democracy when it works without violating their rights. If you have direct democracy and consensus, you can always include representative democracy and voting in there; but not vice verse -- solely depending on representative democracy and on majority rule does not necessarily accommodate where people need to practice consensus or direct representation to defend their beliefs from infringement.

I am not opposing or excluding any part of the democratic process, I am including BOTH and ALL ways as needed within the given system.

What you, Synthaholic and JakeStarkey are missing, is that the health care legislation and these issues of marriage laws INVOLVE BELIEFS.

So these are not like other laws on freeways, taxes for military service that people generally agree on (some conscientious objectors are allowed not to serve, but they must prove it so this isn't abused).

These are more like laws on COMMUNION that should be a private church policy.

if Catholics and Lutherans started SUING each other for either not allowing nonCatholics
to take Catholic communion, people would argue that this is a PRIVATE matter and does not belong in state laws.

The problem with marriage laws is they were already embedded in state laws.
So when the issue of including gays was brought up, this affects laws already in the state.

Had it been like Church Communion, that isn't in state laws,
then the conflict would have stayed private.

both you and Jake keep missing my point.

I'm not against the democratic process at all; what I'm saying is the government does NOT apply to religious matters.

That's what went wrong with the Terri Schaivo case.
That's why abortion issues still aren't resolved because FAITH is involved.

And that's why people aren't going to roll over and let govt decide their beliefs
about MARRIAGE. Because it involves a personal, spiritual and religious issues.

Please see msgs by other people, not just me, both on LEFT and RIGHT
who agree that if marriage was kept in private, and only have civil unions or contracts
through the state, there would be no discrimination, nobody would be excluded unequally,
and nobody would have to agree or be forced. the laws can be the same for all people,
and keep the parts in conflict in PRIVATE so everyone can have their BELIEFS treated EQUALLY.

I will find the links where at least 3-4 people AGREED.
So we don't have to change any beliefs to AGREE where to draw the line
and keep separate beliefs OUT OF GOVT to avoid violating anyone's equal religious freedom
and protection from discrimination.

 

[emilynghiem]

if you don't see how this law was forced by coercion

That's ridiculous. The law was passed by a majority of votes in the House and Senate, just like every single law that has ever been passed.

Sounds like you hate democracy.

Hi Synthaholic
No, the opposite, I take democracy to almost a direct democracy extreme.
And then respect people's choice to opt for representative democracy when it works without violating their rights. If you have direct democracy and consensus, you can always include representative democracy and voting in there; but not vice verse -- solely depending on representative democracy and on majority rule does not necessarily accommodate where people need to practice consensus or direct representation to defend their beliefs from infringement.

I am not opposing or excluding any part of the democratic process, I am including BOTH and ALL ways as needed within the given system.

What you, Synthaholic and JakeStarkey are missing, is that the health care legislation and these issues of marriage laws INVOLVE BELIEFS.

So these are not like other laws on freeways, taxes for military service that people generally agree on (some conscientious objectors are allowed not to serve, but they must prove it so this isn't abused).

These are more like laws on COMMUNION that should be a private church policy.

if Catholics and Lutherans started SUING each other for either not allowing nonCatholics
to take Catholic communion, people would argue that this is a PRIVATE matter and does not belong in state laws.

The problem with marriage laws is they were already embedded in state laws.
So when the issue of including gays was brought up, this affects laws already in the state.

Had it been like Church Communion, that isn't in state laws,
then the conflict would have stayed private.

both you and Jake keep missing my point.

I'm not against the democratic process at all; what I'm saying is the government does NOT apply to religious matters.

That's what went wrong with the Terri Schaivo case.
That's why abortion issues still aren't resolved because FAITH is involved.

And that's why people aren't going to roll over and let govt decide their beliefs
about MARRIAGE. Because it involves a personal, spiritual and religious issues.

Please see msgs by other people, not just me, both on LEFT and RIGHT
who agree that if marriage was kept in private, and only have civil unions or contracts
through the state, there would be no discrimination, nobody would be excluded unequally,
and nobody would have to agree or be forced. the laws can be the same for all people,
and keep the parts in conflict in PRIVATE so everyone can have their BELIEFS treated EQUALLY.

I will find the links where at least 3-4 people AGREED.
So we don't have to change any beliefs to AGREE where to draw the line
and keep separate beliefs OUT OF GOVT to avoid violating anyone's equal religious freedom
and protection from discrimination.

Here Synthaholic I'm still looking for the messages where RKMBrown also agreed that one solution would be to keep marriage out of government and make secular civil laws on unions for everyone, something like that.

But here are msgs from PratchettFan and BluePhantom where we all agreed.


Jesus tells us to give to Caesar what is Caesar s and to God what is God s Page 10 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

If you want to say all marriage is now called civil unions, I am fine with that. The key here is that it must apply to everyone, not just one segment. If you want to get the government out of the marriage business entirely, that is fine as well. But so long as the government is in the marriage business, then it should not be deciding who is entitled and who is not. So long as it involves competent adults, the decision should be theirs alone.

T H A N K Y O U !
PratchettFan
A G R E E D

This is what I'm saying is being left out of the arguments.
This where I believe all people can agree.

The rest can be debated in private but NOT in public courts and legislatures on public tax dollars. Why should taxpayers be punished because of people dragging their personal political and religious beliefs into courts trying to make public laws against the beliefs of others?

Solution to govt policies on Gay Marriage US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Jesus tells us to give to Caesar what is Caesar s and to God what is God s Page 10 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

BluePhantom why can't marriage be allowed in private
and keep civil unions and contracts with the govt. So this keeps govt out of the terms of marriage.
it only applies to civil contracts of custody, property, estates, etc.and has nothing to do with the social relationships.

I agree completely. Amen. Hallelujah! Let me give you the flip side though. My wife (TrinityPower) and I are not legally married. We both came from very bad first marriages that were completely ugly in how they split up. Neither of us want to go through that again. As people of faith we held our own ceremony where we held hands, looked into each others eyes, and each declared to God that we are husband and wife. The state doesn't recognize it but we don't care. It's between us and our God. We have both signed statements giving the other the right to make medical decisions according to our wills in the case of a medical emergency. We have covered our bases. For us, that is enough, but that is an arrangement we both freely entered into. To us, it is not important whether the government recognizes our union or not. Maybe someday we will change our minds..who knows.

But the thing is we have the right to make it "official" with the government whenever we want. We choose a spiritual union before God as our authority, but we have the freedom and right to make it civic as well. Homosexuals do not have that right. I agree with you completely that the government should recognize any civil union or marriage contract where all involved participants are willing and give consent. It's none of the government's business who we marry or bind ourselves to. In regards to a religious union before God, that's up to the church.

I'll look for RKMBrown's posts also. He is generally sympathetic about the gay marriage issue, and does not approve in any way of abusing govt to push anti-gay agenda, especially by denying gay marriage which he and I agree is unconstitutional and should be struck down since it never should have passed.

But he also posted something about keeping the religious issues out of govt, and keeping "civil unions" secular.

 

[Antares]

He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).

Is it possible to get insurance at a lower cost than this? He really can't afford it since Iheonly earn $7,000 annually. How would I go about "shopping" for health insurance? Any piece of advice.

He can get it for himself with a subsidy.

None issue, Teddy. Nice try!

\
Depends on where he lives and how much he makes Jake, you'd best stay out of these discussions as you don't know shit about it.

 

[Antares]

if you don't see how this law was forced by coercion

That's ridiculous. The law was passed by a majority of votes in the House and Senate, just like every single law that has ever been passed.

Sounds like you hate democracy.

You are an idiot.

Reconciliation is not "normal".

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily. Read carefully. No, they don't. Your feelings mean nothing in terms of the Constitution and case law.

Dear JakeStarkey BELIEFS count under the Constitution.
Otherwise, the BELIEFS about gay marriage versus civil unions,
would only count as "hurting people's feelings" and not count as DISCRIMINATION.

On the level of CREEDS we are equal, regardless of the content of our creeds.

You are being unfairly subjective if you count one person's creeds as "their feelings"
and not treating all people's beliefs the same way. I trust you to be more objective than that!

I will send you, Rightwinger, C_Clayton_Jones and now francoHFW
a PM about which of you would be willing to be the target of a hunger strike,
along with Obama, Pelosi and Judge Roberts over the Constitutionality of the ACA mandates.

I thought Rightwinger would be willing to go public, but maybe RW is just a paid front and not really
committed to these views. I think you, CCJones and franco are sincere in your beliefs.
I believe you have the right to your beliefs, but not to impose them by law or federal penalty on those of other creeds
which I respect equally.

So if you three are willing to stand for your beliefs publicly, using your real names as I back my positions with my real name as my real beliefs under the Constitution, then I will believe that is really the best representation of that viewpoint.

I don't need fake propaganda as I was warned RW is posting.
I need people who REALLY believe their positions are right, so I think you CCJones and franco are for real.

I would like to propose a public debate to convince you three, plus Obama Pelosi and Judge Roberts
that the ACA mandates are indeed unconstitutional, on several different grounds. Thank you.

I set a deadline of June for the Court to make this ruling on their own.
But if not, I am prepared to go on a hunger strike to make this point, because the Constitution is more important.

All the things that can be established to reform health care can be done other ways
without violating Constitutional principles. Not everyone agrees on every argument, so I will try to list them all,
and form teams around the different points to show these really are people's beliefs that are being violated by federal govt.

We don't have to agree on all the points. Just show that people really have these beliefs,
so that they deserve protection from discrimination by their creeds, and certainly don't deserve to be
punished by losing liberties where these people did not commit any crimes by having these beliefs, deserving of equal protection under law.

 

[emilynghiem]

if you don't see how this law was forced by coercion

That's ridiculous. The law was passed by a majority of votes in the House and Senate, just like every single law that has ever been passed.

Sounds like you hate democracy.

Hi Synthaholic
A. if you notice, the vote in Congress was divided along PARTY lines.
what does that tell you?

If Hindus and Muslims voted on a proHindu bill, and it passed by majority of Hindus voting in favor
while all the Muslims opposed, wouldn't that tell you it was biased by BELIEF of one group over another?

How is this any different except it is POLITICAL BELIEFS vs. religious beliefs.
Aren't they still BELIEFS in conflict?

So you are saying that people who HAPPEN to have SECULAR beliefs
have an ADVANTANGE because govt can pass a bill based on SECULAR beliefs but not religious beliefs?

how is this protecting all people's beliefs equally?
If those with SECULAR beliefs such as right to health care can establish that by federal law,
while political beliefs such as right to life are deemed "religious" and not allowed the same treatment.
Really? So it's okay to block one but not the other on the basis of BELIEFS being imposed by govt?

B. CONSENSUS includes Democracy; it does not go against it.
But majority rule can exclude consensus, and can go against it.

If people AGREE to majority rule, then such a vote can be WITHIN consensus.
But here, from the unwavering objections, clearly people do NOT consent to
have BELIEFS about govt health care IMPOSED on them by law and under penalty.

So this is AGAINST democracy but is abusing the system for TYRANNY.

Synthaholic
What if the shoe were on the other foot?
If "majority rule" in Congress passed a PROLIFE bill, and you objected
because the yes votes were all PROLIFE conservatives and Republicans
and the NO votes were all PROCHOICE liberals and democrats.

Would you still consider that fair to impose PROLIFE by majority rule?
Or would you argue that Constitutionally that bill cannot be passed
because it is FAITH BASED and is pushing BELIEFS instead of protecting FREE CHOICE?

Wouldn't YOU argue that such a bill was Unconstitutional
because it imposed a BELIEF against your beliefs? And federal
govt cannot do that by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

 

[dblack]

He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).

Is it possible to get insurance at a lower cost than this? He really can't afford it since Iheonly earn $7,000 annually. How would I go about "shopping" for health insurance? Any piece of advice.

Advice? Game the fucked up system.

 

[Rozman]

He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).

Is it possible to get insurance at a lower cost than this? He really can't afford it since Iheonly earn $7,000 annually. How would I go about "shopping" for health insurance? Any piece of advice.

He should be able to stay on his parents insurance.

That's the ticket....
He can stay on his parents insurance as a child until his late 30's or something like that.

 

[Granny]

Why don't his parents add him to their existing insurance? Isn't one of the new rules that parents can have children on their insurance until 26? We can't raise our children without every social services agency, teacher, doctor, etc. on the planet telling us what we can't do but compel parents to keep them insured until well into adult years.

 

[Pop23]

Why don't his parents add him to their existing insurance? Isn't one of the new rules that parents can have children on their insurance until 26? We can't raise our children without every social services agency, teacher, doctor, etc. on the planet telling us what we can't do but compel parents to keep them insured until well into adult years.

Or just find a same sex friend with a good job and spousal benefits. Marry and take the lower cost insurance.

Heck, it's only a sham, but bank while you can.