Christ on a cracker, Emily, there's no insurance plan in North America called Obamacare, so opting out is not an issue.
If you're talking about the ACA, then it too is not a single plan. It is instead an Act of Congress that forces health insurance companies to actually insure their customers.
Why would anyone not want their insurance company to insure them????
Correct.
The ACA is not 'health insurance,' there is nothing to 'opt out' from.
The Act is Federal legislation authorizing a health exchange where private companies are allowed to participate in a marketplace for those seeking health insurance; it affords those eligible subsidies to pay for part of their insurance premium, it allows the states to expand their Medicaid programs to insure low income residents who can't afford insurance in the exchange, and it creates regulatory policy to address the costs of healthcare and provisions of coverage, such as applicants with preexisting conditions.
The ACA does not 'force' anyone to have health insurance; those who wish to have no health insurance are at liberty to do so, they pay a tax to help fund the program, just as Constitutional as any other tax, and they remain eligible to purchase insurance at a future date should they decide to have insurance.
And those who refuse to pay the tax are not subject to any punitive measures, where any tax refund is subject to garnishment if available.
Opposition to the ACA is predicated solely on partisan politics, ignorance, lies, and myths, and an unwarranted hostility toward the president, not the merits of the Act.
OK
C_Clayton_Jones and
Grandma
I am going to try to write this correction out more LITERALLY:
1. I see where my poor wording you are taking EXACTLY LITERALLY
so I agree that is the WRONG wording and NOT WHAT I MEAN
SORRY
C_Clayton_Jones and
Grandma BULLDOG and others
who need a LITERALLY CORRECT SPELLED OUT TRANSCRIPTION.
2. The CONCEPT I mean is correct, the WORDING IS NOT, SO
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THIS CORRECT BELOW IN BOLD WORKS FOR YOU:
What I MEAN and thought it was clear was MEMBERSHIP in these
health share programs that qualify as RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS UNDER ACA
means that members are not fined or penalized for not buying insurance as required by ACA
3. these health share programs qualify as RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS so they are a valid option
for citizens to be members in good standing of these health share programs and
a. not be required to buy "health insurance that meets the ACA regulations to avoid fine/tax penalty"
because these health share programs qualify as RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS under ACA
b. not be required to be ENROLLED or purchase from the ACA exchanges
because these health share programs qualify as RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS under ACA
c. not be required to pay tax penalty fines to federal govt
because these health share programs qualify as RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS under ACA
Liberty HealthShare
Excerpt from 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(d)(2)(B): US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Liberty HealthShareSM
(a healthcare sharing ministry of the Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan, Inc.)
‘‘(2) RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS.
‘‘(B) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY.
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL. Such term [Our note: ‘term’ refers to ‘penalty’] shall not include any individual for any month if such individual is a member of a health care sharing ministry for the month.
‘‘(ii) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY. The term ‘health care sharing ministry’ means an organization:
‘‘(I) which is described in section 501(c)(3) and is exempt from taxation under section 501(a),
‘‘(II) members of which share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs and without regard to the State in which a member resides or is employed,
‘‘(III) members of which retain membership even after they develop a medical condition,
‘‘(IV) which (or a predecessor of which) has been in existence at all times since December 31, 1999, and medical expenses of its members have been shared continuously and without interruption since at least December 31, 1999, and
‘‘(V) which conducts an annual audit which is performed by an independent certified public accounting firm in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and which is made available to the public upon request.
---------------------------------------------
NOTE to BULLDOG I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOU THAT GOVT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE
BUSINESS OF REGULATING WHICH RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS OR PAID MEMBERSHIPS
QUALIFY FOR TAX EXEMPTIONS OR NOT. ALL PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN MEMBERSHIP AND WAYS OF PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE
WITHOUT BEING FINED FOR NOT CHOOSING THE PROGRAMS ENDORSED BY GOVERNMENT.
The Difference between you and me, is that we arrive at different conclusions.
* Because you disagree with this, you want to block or remove the religious exemption clause from allowing
citizens to get out of fines/tax penalties for the reasons you cited, through these narrowly defined exemptions.
* Because I ALSO disagree with it, I propose to OPEN UP the regulations to reward ALL citizens and groups for investing in their own sustainable health care programs and not fine anyone for their choices (as long as the standard regulations are met that currently apply to hospitals, medical schools, medical practice, etc.)
Why not make investments in sustainable health care and medical programs tax deductible?
Why not reward people and party members for developing their own programs and funding those by choice?
It's perfectly agreeable to specify and enforce CERTAIN STANDARDS on what constitutes a medical program that meets state medical and health regulations in order to qualify for a tax break --- that is NOT the same as fining citizens for "choosing other options outside what is mandated and required by ACA."
There are better ways to do this: you want to keep pushing the given programs, which should be a choice for you and others who BELIEVE and CHOOSE to fund those voluntarily.
I am say open up the process so all people and parties can create and choose their own affiliations for providing and paying for health care WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING FINED.
The problem with ACA is that the rules for "state alternatives" don't kick in until 2017.
Then those proposed programs have to go through a process of being approved by the govt
by "proving they meet certain standards of coverage"
Well, the current required options under ACA (either buying health insurance that meets regulations, being a member of a health share program that meets regulations, or being a member meeting regulations under the federal exchanges) AREN'T treated equally and never required proof to show they work first BEFORE REQUIRING THIS FOR CITIZENS.
So this is
a. Faith based, requiring unproven programs to be paid for that are against the beliefs of citizens
who still face fines/tax penalties
b. not equal, where the options under ACA are already ESTABLISHED as REQUIRED by GOVT
or else people face fines/tax penalties for not complying; and that any other options besides the ones approved under ACA get PENALIZED.
I argue this is religious and political discrimination by CREED.
AND THAT THE ACA MANDATES SHOULD BE OPTIONAL.
And any costs paid by people or groups to comply with unconstitutional mandates should be either tax deductible and/or paid for by the Democratic Party AS A POLITICAL BELIEF SYSTEM THAT IS OPTIONAL, NOT IMPOSED BY GOVT BY PENALIZING PEOPLE OR GROUPS OF OTHER BELIEFS.
Because of Democratic Party members and leaders, such as Obama Pelosi and the Democratic majority of Congress who voted for ACA as the majority (while the Republican Party and its members voted against it on the grounds it wasn't fully Constitutional), the Democratic Party can and should be held responsible for the full cost, implementation, and managing "voluntary membership" under the given provisions for those supporters.
Before any such bill is passed or enforced for the ENTIRE nation, to be "fully Constituitonal" either an Amendment needed to pass first and/or the citizens needed to vote on any such bill directly affecting their financial and health care choices such as keeping this on a STATE level NOT FEDERAL, in order to fully satisfy CONSTITUTIONAL standards AND/OR BELIEFS.
Even if we don't agree on Constitutional standards, where we differ counts as a POLITICAL BELIEF.
So both sides can still argue to defend BOTH POLITICAL BELIEFS OR SIDES EQUALLY.
Sorry not everyone believes in protecting political beliefs equally, but I do as a Constitutionalist.
So I have the right to defend and practice my Constitutional beliefs without facing discriminatory penalties for those beliefs.
