So can you. So can anyone who wants to. But that's not the question. The question is whether government should.
dblack and
Tommy Tainant
And if people don't believe the same, and don't agree when or how government "should" -- shouldn't we respect the laws that protect the free choice and beliefs of people from govt establishing or prohibiting those? Shouldn't this remain free choice depending what people believe they want done through govt or not?
Of course. But you're not going to sell the idea of voluntary participation to those want socialized health care. The whole point of making health care a government concern is to force participation, to force conformity. There's no point in getting government involved otherwise.
Dear
dblack that's why I'm asking support to teach that it is unconstitutional to force health care policy through govt in violation of Constitutional beliefs and process.
so people QUIT thinking this is some kind of short cut or best way, when it's not even constitutional. Only where people CONSENT to such policies would it be lawful.
So again we are back to voluntary consent!
What does it take, a LAWSUIT to establish that pushing the BELIEF through govt that "health care is a right" constitutes discrimination by creed if the "right to life" isn't treated the same way? Do we have to SUE to have a "court order" stating that this constitutes Discrimination by Creed? Is that how liberals work, that a court order is required before this is law?
In the meantime, the conservatives seem to catch on to this idea that the cooperative system is superior, it cuts the costs to the lowest rates while maximizing the benefits and reducing or removing the problems with big profit insurance and with big bureaucratic govt.
If the liberals want this implemented through govt, we can ask for that help. I could see them implementing this system through precincts or through prisons, if the parties want to maintain positions of authority helping people to set up reforms and programs. If they refuse to change to a more effective system because of conflicts of interest, it could take a LAWSUIT to force change by demanding it as part of RESTITUTION to reimburse the public for the cost of ACA due to unconstitutional spending not authorized, and thus owed back to taxpayers which could be invested in setting up these cooperative reforms which are constitutionally inclusive and protective of people regardless of party, beliefs or creeds.
