Penalty for not buying insurance.

[dblack]

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Nope. That is a fee to drive your car on the street without insurance. It provides no insurance.

So you're saying it's exactly the choice some people make regarding paying a penalty and getting no health insurance.

The government didn't force you to buy the car in the first place. You have no right to have it on public streets.

I don't agree. Government has a responsibility to protect equal access to the commons. That's the fucking point of having a commons.

So take off your license plates.

Are you just joking? Or do you not understand the point I was making?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Nope. That is a fee to drive your car on the street without insurance. It provides no insurance.

So you're saying it's exactly the choice some people make regarding paying a penalty and getting no health insurance.

The government didn't force you to buy the car in the first place. You have no right to have it on public streets.

I don't agree. Government has a responsibility to protect equal access to the commons. That's the fucking point of having a commons.

So take off your license plates.

Are you just joking? Or do you not understand the point I was making?

You kinda lost me too.

 

[emilynghiem]

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Why is healthcare different?

Dear IsaacNewton

A. If people VOTE on the policy by state law, they have REPRESENTATION.
it's called CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED and NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

CONSENT makes all the difference if a contract is legally binding.

If someone else signs your name to a business contract that you didn't agree to pay for,
wouldn't you object??

B. This is like the difference between people CHOOSING to follow a religion such as Christianity or Islam and be under the requirements because they CONSENT to them
vs.
Govt authority FORCING people to be under mandates whether they agreed to them or not.

Here FEDERAL GOVT is mandating a policy and forcing people to pay penalties if they don't comply

You may not see any big deal with this.

Just like Christians who are already paying members of churches may not react
if federal govt "suddenly mandated" that everyone was REQUIRED to join Christian ProLife programs
and pay 100's a month into "PROGRAMS THAT SAVE LIVES"
or else pay a fine, because it doesn't change what they would do anyway.

But the PRINCIPLE is horrifying.

The health care policies being contested involve CONFLICTING BELIEFS.
So Govt mandating one sides' beliefs while penalizing people of other beliefs
constitutes DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

This is frightening that people would act like this is okay.

If Prolife Christians had passed mandates like this, forcing the ENTIRE PUBLIC to fund THEIR AGENDA the liberals would be screaming for SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
but the Christians who already believe abortion is murder and "not a choice"
would argue that requiring people to comply "isn't taking away choices because those
choices weren't valid to begin with" This is similar to the liberal thinking that
"people need to buy insurance anyway" so "requiring it isn't taking away any liberties"

But it is a BIG DEAL to let federal govt regulate who does and doesn't qualify for exemptions
based on religious affiliation and creed.

A major point that has been overlooked involves NOT HANDING OVER authority to federal govt instantly through a bill, but to respect the formal process of passing a Constitutional Amendment first
where the public and states CONSENT to give up health care choices and liberties (that belong to people and the states) to federal govt BEFORE putting such a bill up for a vote.

The people I know would not consent to that.
The whole process was flawed to begin with because this major step was skipped before presenting (much less passing and enforcing) such a far reaching reform to the current powers and structures of govt.

Federal govt issuing these mandates is like the difference between Christians or Muslims who
AGREE to follow religious requirements, vs. govt imposing mandates that we didn't agree to
AND DIDN'T HAVE ANY SAY IN BEFORE THESE REQUIREMENTS WERE PASSED AND ENFORCED.

To non-Muslims it may not affect us if the govt suddenly passed a bill requiring everyone to eat pork.
But to a Muslim where this causes a conflict with their beliefs, it is oppression and tyranny
for FEDERAL GOVT to ESTABLISH such a policy against their beliefs and without their consent.

Passing these mandates that suddently gives federal govt authority over health care decisions that normally belong to people and states is just as IN VIOLATION of the fundamental beliefs of Constitutionalists,
and is just as horrifying.

 

[emilynghiem]

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Why is healthcare different?

Great point, but since so many drive without it, we now have to pay to cover the uninsured and underinsured.

I swear I think people hate the ACA because they want to be loafers and let everyone else pay for them. Shame.

Dear Penelope Look at the man who was suing because he wanted the freedom to pay for his own health care WITHOUT govt dictating that he has to do this through insurance!

People want to protect their natural FREE CHOICE and LIBERTY we have by default.

you are like arguing that "people who don't want govt banning abortion want to be irresponsibility and get pregnant and have abortions without recourse." NOT TRUE --> people want the FREEDOM NOT TO BE UNDER GOVT MANDATES when it comes to private personal decisions we should make on our own WITHOUT govt telling us to do it through insurance!

if you can understand this for the "right to choose" where it doesn't mean people "want to push abortions"
then maybe you can understand how wanting FREEDOM and not FEDERAL GOVT dictating our choices
does NOT MEAN WE DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE.
it means we DON'T WANT FEDERAL GOVT DICTATING OUR CHOICES AND PENALIZING THEM.

 

[emilynghiem]

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Nope. That is a fee to drive your car on the street without insurance. It provides no insurance.

So you're saying it's exactly the choice some people make regarding paying a penalty and getting no health insurance.

Dear Arianrhod

If this was the FEDERAL GOVT dictating what constituted exempted insurance coverage, to the point people were losing access to affordable insurance and started having to pay more for options they didn't need
AND PAY FOR INSURANCE BEFORE THEY WANT TO BUY AND USE IT

And if this was the FEDERAL GOVT creating a whole bureaucracy for collecting registration information on all citizens in order to manage everything through central govt instead of leaving it to the states,
then YES it would cause similar problems as now with ACA trying to regulate citizens from a federal level
instead of allowing local representation, voting and management of policies and staying out of people's business.

 

[emilynghiem]

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Nope. That is a fee to drive your car on the street without insurance. It provides no insurance.

So you're saying it's exactly the choice some people make regarding paying a penalty and getting no health insurance.

The government didn't force you to buy the car in the first place. You have no right to have it on public streets.

I don't agree. Government has a responsibility to protect equal access to the commons. That's the fucking point of having a commons.

So take off your license plates.

That's really bad if you pass such horrible laws without consent of the taxpayers affected
that you HAVE TO COUNSEL PEOPLE TO BREAK THE LAW
to exercise the freedom they had originally.

 

[emilynghiem]

How long before Americans wake up and sue gov't over this farce?

Dear froggy I think we would have to sue the Democratic Party.
That seems to be the source of this religious imposition on govt.
Nobody seems to take responsibility, so I suggest we organize
and sue the Party as a collective identity and agenda that is pushing this
"belief in the right to health care' and 'depending on federal govt for rights and benefits'

This belief system violates the beliefs that rights are naturally inherent by human nature
and don't depend on govt. So if this political party and its politicians keep using govt
to provide benefits to people, the people lose their authority, standing and leverage to CHECK govt.
They become ENSLAVED to what Govt gives them, so the politicians who get into govt
have the power to change or take away their rights and liberties.

The Constitutionalists don't believe in that kind of relationship between people and govt.
The people who believe the govt is a contract with the people believe in maintaining
the authority to check, change and reform govt because the people retain the upper hand.

This is lost especially when health care becomes dependent on govt.

I think we need to sue the Democratic Party for pushing their beliefs through federal govt
unconstitutionally, and in violation of the Democratic Party's own principles of
"right to choose" remaining free of government intrusion and
"separation of church and state." Not only are the Democrat leadership pushing the ACA
mandates in violation of either the Constitution itself or AT LEAST the Constitutional BELIEFS
of half the nation that are equally protected under law from discrimination by creed,
but in violation of Democratic Party principles against pushing beliefs through govt and abusing govt to take away freedom of choice from the people's ability to make private decisions without penalty of law or other coercion.

I think the right to choice/universal care advocates
and the right to life/free market advocates would be willing to sue to defend their own beliefs from the other.

The problem is finding a lawyer who will take this on, or who can afford to,
and finding people on both sides willing to sue together.

The liberal and progressive Democrats who want single payer can sue the Democratic Party to fund, manage and set it up directly themselves as promised to the constituency.
The conservative Prolife advocates can sue the Democratic party to keep their prochoice and right to health care beliefs out of govt and fund these privately through their own party organizations, similar to how churches fund their own schools, hospitals, charity and prolife programs privately and don't impose these through federal govt.

froggy i am sick of this too, all this inaction, waiting on someone else to make the first move.
If you are ready to change this, would you like to form a team, say on meetup, with the other
Constitutionalist groups and start organizing a lawsuit or constitutional conference on this issue
of political beliefs that are not supposed to be established through federal govt. And either this
needs to be corrected by declaring the mandates OPTIONAL and VOLUNTARY, as an Alternative
that people CAN enroll in, but cannot be forced to comply with or pay into since BELIEFS are involved.

Or there will be a lawsuit if the Democratic leadership is so incompetent they can't recognize
their own political beliefs introduce an unconstitutional BIAS similar to how prolife beliefs
are contested if those get pushed through govt. The right to health care beliefs are the same way.

So either treat them the same, or it's DISCRIMINATION BY CREED and in violation of Constitutional
equal protections, representation, and religious freedom for all persons regardless what are beliefs are.

let me know if you are ready. i have a prolife friend who wants to do something but doesn't agree
with my idea of separating prolife/prochoice by party. can we call a conference to discuss this
proposal to separate health care policies by party in order to respect, protect and represent
people's political BELIEFS equally, whether free market or free choice, right to life or right to health care.

Whatever people believe, we should have full freedom to fund that choice and not be forced to fund
otherwise that violates our beliefs. Both sides could sue for protection by separating systems by party,
similar to keeping Catholic and Protestant programs separate and not imposing either system through govt.

 

[sealybobo]

My bro

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Why is healthcare different?

It's just another step toward socialism. We don't need the government dictating what we should buy.

My bro lived in Switzerland for 4 years. First thing you have to show is that you have insurance. Sorry no freeloaders

 

[emilynghiem]

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Why is healthcare different?

You don't have to spend thousands of Dollars of deductible before they pay .

Dear IsaacNewton and froggy

Also, people AGREE to pay for car insurance as a CHOICE because driving is a privilege, so of course the state can regulate the rules of driving vehicles on the roads.

if people DIDN'T agree to 'federal terms imposed on insurance' then YES we'd end up with the same arguments as here that federal govt is unconstitutionally interfering in decisions that belong to the people and to the states.

NOTE: the insurance requirement is for risk of damage to OTHER PEOPLE.
it is optional how much coverage you want to buy to protect your own costs.

If you don't want to pay for full coverage, then if something goes wrong you could end up paying
ALL THE COSTS YOURSELF.

So why isn't the health insurance handled the same way?
That if you don't want to buy insurance you end up PAYING ALL THE COSTS YOURSELF.

IsaacNewton the equivalent of federal take over of insurance would be like this

* that all expenses of car wrecks are going to be covered by govt shops, no one will be turned away
* but all citizens will be required to buy car insurance or pay fines

Instead of encouraging people to take responsibility for their own car insurance and repairs through private shops, the govt would be pushing everything to be handled under a federal system to try to cover everyone under one policy.

And the people who want to retain the freedom to pay the costs themselves would argue it isn't federal govt's job to micromanage a whole umbrella system and details of what is going to be covered or not. That should remain private with individuals, businesses and states to manage and not overload federal govt with it.

 

[emilynghiem]

My bro

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Why is healthcare different?

It's just another step toward socialism. We don't need the government dictating what we should buy.

My bro lived in Switzerland for 4 years. First thing you have to show is that you have insurance. Sorry no freeloaders

Dear sealybobo
Switzerland is different from the US.

You might compare Switzerland to a single state in the US such as Texas.
So if Texas passes laws requiring ID or X Y Z in order to invoke certain privileges,
that is different from federal govt trying to mandate for all the states to do things the same way.

That is like the EU imposing a policy on all the countries in Europe that the individual
citizens and countries HAD NO SAY IN.

It is one thing for a STATE to pass something that the people of that STATE voted on.
It's another thing for a national Party like the Democrats to pass an agenda through
Congress that the other parties and whole states did not agree to but are forced to
either comply or now have to sue, to pass legislation, or vote other people into office
in order to change it back and restore rights and liberties that were deprived without due process.

sealybobo how would you like it if a Christian prolife proGod lobby passed a biased bill 51-49
through Congress and then got the Supreme Court to let it slide 5-4. And it violated YOUR beliefs
as a secular nontheist, but you had no direct say in this bill.

Yet you were forced to pay fines under it until it is changed.
Wouldn't you be furious? Why should YOU have to pay to either sue, to lobby for elected
officials or legislation, or pay to organize media outreach to change laws that violated
your beliefs and were unconstitutional to begin with?

This is like how DOMA got passed and then had to be struck down as unconstitutional.
In the meantime, that violated people's beliefs, who were forced to strike down an
unconstitutional law that shouldn't have been passed in the first place. it went too far.

 

[sealybobo]

My bro

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Why is healthcare different?

It's just another step toward socialism. We don't need the government dictating what we should buy.

My bro lived in Switzerland for 4 years. First thing you have to show is that you have insurance. Sorry no freeloaders

Dear sealybobo
Switzerland is different from the US.

You might compare Switzerland to a single state in the US such as Texas.
So if Texas passes laws requiring ID or X Y Z in order to invoke certain privileges,
that is different from federal govt trying to mandate for all the states to do things the same way.

That is like the EU imposing a policy on all the countries in Europe that the individual
citizens and countries HAD NO SAY IN.

It is one thing for a STATE to pass something that the people of that STATE voted on.
It's another thing for a national Party like the Democrats to pass an agenda through
Congress that the other parties and whole states did not agree to but are forced to
either comply or now have to sue, to pass legislation, or vote other people into office
in order to change it back and restore rights and liberties that were deprived without due process.

sealybobo how would you like it if a Christian prolife proGod lobby passed a biased bill 51-49
through Congress and then got the Supreme Court to let it slide 5-4. And it violated YOUR beliefs
as a secular nontheist, but you had no direct say in this bill.

Yet you were forced to pay fines under it until it is changed.
Wouldn't you be furious? Why should YOU have to pay to either sue, to lobby for elected
officials or legislation, or pay to organize media outreach to change laws that violated
your beliefs and were unconstitutional to begin with?

This is like how DOMA got passed and then had to be struck down as unconstitutional.
In the meantime, that violated people's beliefs, who were forced to strike down an
unconstitutional law that shouldn't have been passed in the first place. it went too far.

The aca is a tax. Constitutional.

Now I don't like the aca either. It should be $100 a month for catastrophes only. We shouldn't have let the insurance companies write it.w

You just won't get any money back in April if you can't afford insurance but we can't afford to fix you if you break and are uninsured

 

[Geaux4it]

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Why is healthcare different?

Apples and oranges

Because I 'choose' to drive a car, therefore, must abide by the rules

I DO NOT choose Health Insurance, therefore must pay the fine

-Geaux

 

[emilynghiem]

My bro

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Why is healthcare different?

It's just another step toward socialism. We don't need the government dictating what we should buy.

My bro lived in Switzerland for 4 years. First thing you have to show is that you have insurance. Sorry no freeloaders

Dear sealybobo
Switzerland is different from the US.

You might compare Switzerland to a single state in the US such as Texas.
So if Texas passes laws requiring ID or X Y Z in order to invoke certain privileges,
that is different from federal govt trying to mandate for all the states to do things the same way.

That is like the EU imposing a policy on all the countries in Europe that the individual
citizens and countries HAD NO SAY IN.

It is one thing for a STATE to pass something that the people of that STATE voted on.
It's another thing for a national Party like the Democrats to pass an agenda through
Congress that the other parties and whole states did not agree to but are forced to
either comply or now have to sue, to pass legislation, or vote other people into office
in order to change it back and restore rights and liberties that were deprived without due process.

sealybobo how would you like it if a Christian prolife proGod lobby passed a biased bill 51-49
through Congress and then got the Supreme Court to let it slide 5-4. And it violated YOUR beliefs
as a secular nontheist, but you had no direct say in this bill.

Yet you were forced to pay fines under it until it is changed.
Wouldn't you be furious? Why should YOU have to pay to either sue, to lobby for elected
officials or legislation, or pay to organize media outreach to change laws that violated
your beliefs and were unconstitutional to begin with?

This is like how DOMA got passed and then had to be struck down as unconstitutional.
In the meantime, that violated people's beliefs, who were forced to strike down an
unconstitutional law that shouldn't have been passed in the first place. it went too far.

The aca is a tax. Constitutional.

Now I don't like the aca either. It should be $100 a month for catastrophes only. We shouldn't have let the insurance companies write it.w

You just won't get any money back in April if you can't afford insurance but we can't afford to fix you if you break and are uninsured

The terms involve DISCRIMINATION BY CREED

sealybobo would it be constitutional to tax prochoice people but exempt prolife people for paying into prolife programs?

To determine who gets taxed or not based on who joins a religious affiliation or membership that meets govt requirements is unconstitutional regulation of religion in order to avoid a penalty.

If you happen to agree with the program that is being required,
it may not bother you.

But if was some Christian group you were forced to fund or else pay a fine, you would yell it was unconstitutional for govt to endorse a biased agenda that favors one group's beliefs while penalizing free choice of other options.

 

[dblack]

My bro

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Why is healthcare different?

It's just another step toward socialism. We don't need the government dictating what we should buy.

My bro lived in Switzerland for 4 years. First thing you have to show is that you have insurance. Sorry no freeloaders

Dear sealybobo
Switzerland is different from the US.

You might compare Switzerland to a single state in the US such as Texas.
So if Texas passes laws requiring ID or X Y Z in order to invoke certain privileges,
that is different from federal govt trying to mandate for all the states to do things the same way.

That is like the EU imposing a policy on all the countries in Europe that the individual
citizens and countries HAD NO SAY IN.

It is one thing for a STATE to pass something that the people of that STATE voted on.
It's another thing for a national Party like the Democrats to pass an agenda through
Congress that the other parties and whole states did not agree to but are forced to
either comply or now have to sue, to pass legislation, or vote other people into office
in order to change it back and restore rights and liberties that were deprived without due process.

sealybobo how would you like it if a Christian prolife proGod lobby passed a biased bill 51-49
through Congress and then got the Supreme Court to let it slide 5-4. And it violated YOUR beliefs
as a secular nontheist, but you had no direct say in this bill.

Yet you were forced to pay fines under it until it is changed.
Wouldn't you be furious? Why should YOU have to pay to either sue, to lobby for elected
officials or legislation, or pay to organize media outreach to change laws that violated
your beliefs and were unconstitutional to begin with?

This is like how DOMA got passed and then had to be struck down as unconstitutional.
In the meantime, that violated people's beliefs, who were forced to strike down an
unconstitutional law that shouldn't have been passed in the first place. it went too far.

The aca is a tax. Constitutional.

It's discriminatory taxation and an affront to equal protection and rule of law. Roberts betrayed his country.

 

[emilynghiem]

My bro

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Why is healthcare different?

It's just another step toward socialism. We don't need the government dictating what we should buy.

My bro lived in Switzerland for 4 years. First thing you have to show is that you have insurance. Sorry no freeloaders

Dear sealybobo
Switzerland is different from the US.

You might compare Switzerland to a single state in the US such as Texas.
So if Texas passes laws requiring ID or X Y Z in order to invoke certain privileges,
that is different from federal govt trying to mandate for all the states to do things the same way.

That is like the EU imposing a policy on all the countries in Europe that the individual
citizens and countries HAD NO SAY IN.

It is one thing for a STATE to pass something that the people of that STATE voted on.
It's another thing for a national Party like the Democrats to pass an agenda through
Congress that the other parties and whole states did not agree to but are forced to
either comply or now have to sue, to pass legislation, or vote other people into office
in order to change it back and restore rights and liberties that were deprived without due process.

sealybobo how would you like it if a Christian prolife proGod lobby passed a biased bill 51-49
through Congress and then got the Supreme Court to let it slide 5-4. And it violated YOUR beliefs
as a secular nontheist, but you had no direct say in this bill.

Yet you were forced to pay fines under it until it is changed.
Wouldn't you be furious? Why should YOU have to pay to either sue, to lobby for elected
officials or legislation, or pay to organize media outreach to change laws that violated
your beliefs and were unconstitutional to begin with?

This is like how DOMA got passed and then had to be struck down as unconstitutional.
In the meantime, that violated people's beliefs, who were forced to strike down an
unconstitutional law that shouldn't have been passed in the first place. it went too far.

The aca is a tax. Constitutional.

Now I don't like the aca either. It should be $100 a month for catastrophes only. We shouldn't have let the insurance companies write it.w

You just won't get any money back in April if you can't afford insurance but we can't afford to fix you if you break and are uninsured

btw sealybobo if you want to take on this challenge
i believe it can be argued that this tax and penalty discriminates on the basis of CREED and is therefore unconstitutional by discriminating against people whose beliefs are violated but are forced to comply anyway instead of having other options that don't violate such beliefs.

I believe Obama will also back down once confronted with this concept of political beliefs constituting CREEDS that must be protected equally by the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights laws against discriminatory practices.

if you want to make a bet, let's bring it on.

whoever loses has to pay the legal fees and legislative costs to separate the ACA where it is voluntarily funded, participated in and managed by free choice. and only people who OWE money for crimes or abuses convicted or debts incurred through govt could be required to register for a payment plan. But not people who have never committed any crime and want to go through a private program to provide health care instead going through federal govt in violation of Constitutional principles and beliefs.

how about it? sealybobo froggy

 

[emilynghiem]

crickets?
Fifth Amendment?
or 502 bad gateway error?

Am I the only prochoice progressive liberal Democrat on this board
who recognizes that the right to health care through govt
constitutes a Political Belief similar to pushing the right to life through govt?

Or the only one on the PLANET? HELLOOOO??
Anyone else with me? Am I alooooone ;-(

 

[sealybobo]

My bro

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Why is healthcare different?

It's just another step toward socialism. We don't need the government dictating what we should buy.

My bro lived in Switzerland for 4 years. First thing you have to show is that you have insurance. Sorry no freeloaders

Dear sealybobo
Switzerland is different from the US.

You might compare Switzerland to a single state in the US such as Texas.
So if Texas passes laws requiring ID or X Y Z in order to invoke certain privileges,
that is different from federal govt trying to mandate for all the states to do things the same way.

That is like the EU imposing a policy on all the countries in Europe that the individual
citizens and countries HAD NO SAY IN.

It is one thing for a STATE to pass something that the people of that STATE voted on.
It's another thing for a national Party like the Democrats to pass an agenda through
Congress that the other parties and whole states did not agree to but are forced to
either comply or now have to sue, to pass legislation, or vote other people into office
in order to change it back and restore rights and liberties that were deprived without due process.

sealybobo how would you like it if a Christian prolife proGod lobby passed a biased bill 51-49
through Congress and then got the Supreme Court to let it slide 5-4. And it violated YOUR beliefs
as a secular nontheist, but you had no direct say in this bill.

Yet you were forced to pay fines under it until it is changed.
Wouldn't you be furious? Why should YOU have to pay to either sue, to lobby for elected
officials or legislation, or pay to organize media outreach to change laws that violated
your beliefs and were unconstitutional to begin with?

This is like how DOMA got passed and then had to be struck down as unconstitutional.
In the meantime, that violated people's beliefs, who were forced to strike down an
unconstitutional law that shouldn't have been passed in the first place. it went too far.

The aca is a tax. Constitutional.

Now I don't like the aca either. It should be $100 a month for catastrophes only. We shouldn't have let the insurance companies write it.w

You just won't get any money back in April if you can't afford insurance but we can't afford to fix you if you break and are uninsured

The terms involve DISCRIMINATION BY CREED

sealybobo would it be constitutional to tax prochoice people but exempt prolife people for paying into prolife programs?

To determine who gets taxed or not based on who joins a religious affiliation or membership that meets govt requirements is unconstitutional regulation of religion in order to avoid a penalty.

If you happen to agree with the program that is being required,
it may not bother you.

But if was some Christian group you were forced to fund or else pay a fine, you would yell it was unconstitutional for govt to endorse a biased agenda that favors one group's beliefs while penalizing free choice of other options.

I may never step foot into a church but every one of us will end up in a hospital eventually. And too many of us skip out on the bill because we can't afford it. You are asking us to pay for you to be irresponsible.

 

[sealybobo]

My bro

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Why is healthcare different?

It's just another step toward socialism. We don't need the government dictating what we should buy.

My bro lived in Switzerland for 4 years. First thing you have to show is that you have insurance. Sorry no freeloaders

Dear sealybobo
Switzerland is different from the US.

You might compare Switzerland to a single state in the US such as Texas.
So if Texas passes laws requiring ID or X Y Z in order to invoke certain privileges,
that is different from federal govt trying to mandate for all the states to do things the same way.

That is like the EU imposing a policy on all the countries in Europe that the individual
citizens and countries HAD NO SAY IN.

It is one thing for a STATE to pass something that the people of that STATE voted on.
It's another thing for a national Party like the Democrats to pass an agenda through
Congress that the other parties and whole states did not agree to but are forced to
either comply or now have to sue, to pass legislation, or vote other people into office
in order to change it back and restore rights and liberties that were deprived without due process.

sealybobo how would you like it if a Christian prolife proGod lobby passed a biased bill 51-49
through Congress and then got the Supreme Court to let it slide 5-4. And it violated YOUR beliefs
as a secular nontheist, but you had no direct say in this bill.

Yet you were forced to pay fines under it until it is changed.
Wouldn't you be furious? Why should YOU have to pay to either sue, to lobby for elected
officials or legislation, or pay to organize media outreach to change laws that violated
your beliefs and were unconstitutional to begin with?

This is like how DOMA got passed and then had to be struck down as unconstitutional.
In the meantime, that violated people's beliefs, who were forced to strike down an
unconstitutional law that shouldn't have been passed in the first place. it went too far.

The aca is a tax. Constitutional.

It's discriminatory taxation and an affront to equal protection and rule of law. Roberts betrayed his country.

You right wing nut jobs think you know the constitution better than judges and the rest of us. Laughable.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the Obamacare tax was “incidental” to the primary purpose of the Affordable Care Act, so it isn’t a revenue-raising measure as envisioned by the Constitution.



The origination issue had been in doubt after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s surprise decision two years ago saying that while Obamacare’s “individual mandate” wasn’t allowed under Congress’s powers to control interstate commerce, it was valid as an exercise of lawmakers’ taxing power.

 

[Arianrhod]

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Nope. That is a fee to drive your car on the street without insurance. It provides no insurance.

So you're saying it's exactly the choice some people make regarding paying a penalty and getting no health insurance.

Dear Arianrhod

If this was the FEDERAL GOVT dictating what constituted exempted insurance coverage, to the point people were losing access to affordable insurance and started having to pay more for options they didn't need
AND PAY FOR INSURANCE BEFORE THEY WANT TO BUY AND USE IT

And if this was the FEDERAL GOVT creating a whole bureaucracy for collecting registration information on all citizens in order to manage everything through central govt instead of leaving it to the states,
then YES it would cause similar problems as now with ACA trying to regulate citizens from a federal level
instead of allowing local representation, voting and management of policies and staying out of people's business.

So it's okay if the state government dictates terms, but not the federal. Interesting. It's almost as if there were 50 little independent fiefdoms, each doing as they pleased, with no interaction with an overarching entity that provided it with protection from enemy nations, created an interstate infrastructure and, in the case of many of the most recalcitrant states, paid out more than it took in in tax revenue. Hmmm...

 

[dblack]

My bro

It's just another step toward socialism. We don't need the government dictating what we should buy.

My bro lived in Switzerland for 4 years. First thing you have to show is that you have insurance. Sorry no freeloaders

Dear sealybobo
Switzerland is different from the US.

You might compare Switzerland to a single state in the US such as Texas.
So if Texas passes laws requiring ID or X Y Z in order to invoke certain privileges,
that is different from federal govt trying to mandate for all the states to do things the same way.

That is like the EU imposing a policy on all the countries in Europe that the individual
citizens and countries HAD NO SAY IN.

It is one thing for a STATE to pass something that the people of that STATE voted on.
It's another thing for a national Party like the Democrats to pass an agenda through
Congress that the other parties and whole states did not agree to but are forced to
either comply or now have to sue, to pass legislation, or vote other people into office
in order to change it back and restore rights and liberties that were deprived without due process.

sealybobo how would you like it if a Christian prolife proGod lobby passed a biased bill 51-49
through Congress and then got the Supreme Court to let it slide 5-4. And it violated YOUR beliefs
as a secular nontheist, but you had no direct say in this bill.

Yet you were forced to pay fines under it until it is changed.
Wouldn't you be furious? Why should YOU have to pay to either sue, to lobby for elected
officials or legislation, or pay to organize media outreach to change laws that violated
your beliefs and were unconstitutional to begin with?

This is like how DOMA got passed and then had to be struck down as unconstitutional.
In the meantime, that violated people's beliefs, who were forced to strike down an
unconstitutional law that shouldn't have been passed in the first place. it went too far.

The aca is a tax. Constitutional.

It's discriminatory taxation and an affront to equal protection and rule of law. Roberts betrayed his country.

You right wing nut jobs think you know the constitution better than judges and the rest of us. Laughable.

What's truly laughable is that you think I'm 'right wing'.