Constitutionalist / Universalist
- Jan 21, 2010
- Reaction score
- National Freedmen's Town District
Let's try this approach PenelopeI have insurance , and I don't believe in faith healing which is fakery. So go without and we get to pay for your visits to er and your healthcare.Dear dblack and PenelopeYes. And the question is pertinent. In my view, forcing other people to buy things for your convenience is NOT the purpose of government.Nope, the title of this thread is about mandatory health ins or pay a fine.I'm not going to run down an endless 'what-if' list, but in general you do the same thing you do with all the other tragedies you might face in life. You figure out a way to deal with it. Or you don't.I see this is an old thread, so lets say you are in an auto accident , should they bring you to the er or just let you die,
and if they bring you to the er to save your life due to a fractured hip and broken pelvis , while in the hosp for your broken hip and pelvis they also discover you have abnormal lab work and doing a scan for your ribs see you also have a spot in your breast and a lymph node is enlarged in your armpit, the dx is breast cancer. They also suspect adult onset diabetes.
What do you do??
Can I ask you, what do you see as the purpose of government?
1. I'd say the people like Penelope have the right to force themselves to terms under govt they agree to. Similar to Muslims who agree to submit to the Five Pillars, or to give up pork, because THEY have faith in these things. Sure, if YOU want to practice that through govt, fine, but can't impose it on others. Especially not through govt!
2. Penelope also has the right NOT to pay for ER and hospitals
under terms she doesn't agree to either! If she doesn't want to pay for people
who don't agree to insurance mandates, then let Democrats set up their
own system and terms and only pay for members who AGREE to those terms for THOSE govt contractual services.
3. Then apply this same to Conservatives who believe in privatizing health
care for Vets, for elderly etc. and managing facilities publicly but the programs through nonprofit charities or businesses
run by free choice of local owners residents and taxpayers under terms THOSE people and payers/payees agree to.
There is no reason we cannot separate these ways of funding and terms of health care.
We already have free choice to expand and develop more clinics and teaching hospitals
through EFFECTIVE programs such as Doctors without Borders or St. Jude's Children's Hospital which is an excellent model.
So let govt run health care believers fund their own terms and policies through their own registration system
they elect and pay for.
And let private groups set up and run theirs.
There is no reason to force either group under the terms of the other approach.
In fact, in order to be Constitutional protective, fair and equally inclusive of ALL people of ALL beliefs,
it becomes legally necessary to separate these two approaches
so they DON'T abuse govt to impose one way or another on the wrong people who believe the other way!
Congressman Rand Paul is supportive of the idea of ASSOCIATIONS that would allow
the best of govt stability and guarantee of health care while still respecting free choice of individuals and states
to manage their own resources without unnecessary/unconstitutional interference by federal govt.
Sean Hannity supports health care coops and so do the progressive Greens including
Paul Glover who teaches how to set up democratically locally managed health care "insurance."
It isn't easy, but it takes work to set up enough clinics and teaching hospital programs/internships/residencies
to serve the greater population in need.
So if it's going to take that much work, why compound it by fighting over federal vs state vs private jurisdiction?
Give taxpayers equal choice of funding whichever means they support, and develop ALL These venues.
But by FREE CHOICE of funding, so we quit fighting over that point.
Set up tax returns and tax forms where taxpayers check which boxes they want to fund,
for federal, state, party or private means of administering terms and provisions for health care.
Then we can all get to work building these programs through all venues instead of fighting over who is going to force which way on which people
which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL anyway!
I wouldn't belong to anything Hannity belongs to and I certainty wouldn't join a Christian healing crap.
the way you wouldn't want to be FORCED to join any "Christian Healing crap"
other people don't want to be FORCED to join a federal registry for insurance YOU believe in.
All I'm asking is equal protection of free choice in both cases.
If you want free choice, can you understand other people want free choice also.
NOT federal mandates that penalize people for paying for health care other ways.
If you want to reserve and enforce your own right to free choice,
can we agree that other people of other beliefs deserve the same protection of free choice?
1. nobody is forcing YOU to change your beliefs or join any Christian institution against your free choice.
The point is NOT to force this on anyone through federal govt.
And applying that same principle to not forcing anyone to believe in govt health insurance either
or force them to join that or face PENALTIES/fines if they don't comply.
2. Spiritual healing doesn't even work unless it's undertaken by free choice.
So what you are saying is self-contradictory.
You cannot force anyone to take on or change their faith, because if it is coerced it isn't real faith, it's fake.
Only you can decide or choose to be open that some forms of SPIRITUAL HEALING
have been documented by medical science to work effectively. And this is NOT the
same thing as false/fake faith healing that is forced and fails, and becomes dangerous and deadly.
What gets me Penelope is that you understand NOT to force Christian beliefs on people.
But when it comes to your own political beliefs, you think you have the right to use govt to force that belief on others against their will and beliefs.
Why the double standard?