Why I?m Republican and Love Obamacare - Yahoo Finance
I couldn't link to the facebook page referenced where readers were invited to reply,
and/or post why this person's statement is wrong.
There is nothing wrong with this statement as long as people are FREE to follow it,
and this system is not forced on people such as by penalty of law. I believe in prochoice or the Constitutional principle of free exercise of religion, free will or free choice not penalized or regulated by government, except if a crime is committed that still requires due process.
I guess my reply is answering "Why I'm a Democrat and oppose Obamacare as Unconstitutional"
For one, I believe there are more constitutional cost-effective ways to pay for health care instead of mandating insurance. For example, why not hold convicts responsible for the costs of crime, incarceration and prosecution and use THAT to pay for health care. Instead of charging lawabiding taxpayers more money when we already pay for health care in prisons.
If people disagree RELIGIOUSLY over systems and standards to use to pay for health care, why not separate by party the same way religious groups pay for their own programs?
Some groups require members to pay, some are based on voluntary donation and participation. Why not allow people of both views to fund their own programs through their own parties, separate the taxes or tax deductions, and organize through their elected reps?
If the govt wants to use insurance to pay for the costs of crime and corruption,
that's fine, but why impose this cost on the taxpayers for expenses incurred by others?
Until you address and include other choices for paying for health care equally,
instead of mandating insurance as the only way, and restricting/regulating exemptions
on the basis of political favor or religious discrimination is unconstitutional.
As long as this system is not PROVEN to work for people where it is chosen FREELY
it is the equivalent of establishing and imposing a "national religion" based on FAITH,
and penalizing those who do not share the same faith but believe in other choices.
Can anyone explain to me why if either approach is such a good idea
(singlepayer system through a central govt or free market health care that leaves costs and policies to the businesses and consumers) then why can't the separate parties each use their national networks and hierarchy of elected representatives to organize resources to manage their own health care provisions and policies for members who contribute and participate VOLUNTARILY?
Isn't that more consistent with equal protections of individual freedom of choice and beliefs? Why not open up the exemptions and innovations clauses to REWARD citizens for setting up their own systems voluntarily, instead of wasting resources fighting over federal policy imposing or excluding one group's beliefs for another. How is THAT constitutional?
I couldn't link to the facebook page referenced where readers were invited to reply,
and/or post why this person's statement is wrong.
There is nothing wrong with this statement as long as people are FREE to follow it,
and this system is not forced on people such as by penalty of law. I believe in prochoice or the Constitutional principle of free exercise of religion, free will or free choice not penalized or regulated by government, except if a crime is committed that still requires due process.
I guess my reply is answering "Why I'm a Democrat and oppose Obamacare as Unconstitutional"
For one, I believe there are more constitutional cost-effective ways to pay for health care instead of mandating insurance. For example, why not hold convicts responsible for the costs of crime, incarceration and prosecution and use THAT to pay for health care. Instead of charging lawabiding taxpayers more money when we already pay for health care in prisons.
If people disagree RELIGIOUSLY over systems and standards to use to pay for health care, why not separate by party the same way religious groups pay for their own programs?
Some groups require members to pay, some are based on voluntary donation and participation. Why not allow people of both views to fund their own programs through their own parties, separate the taxes or tax deductions, and organize through their elected reps?
If the govt wants to use insurance to pay for the costs of crime and corruption,
that's fine, but why impose this cost on the taxpayers for expenses incurred by others?
Until you address and include other choices for paying for health care equally,
instead of mandating insurance as the only way, and restricting/regulating exemptions
on the basis of political favor or religious discrimination is unconstitutional.
As long as this system is not PROVEN to work for people where it is chosen FREELY
it is the equivalent of establishing and imposing a "national religion" based on FAITH,
and penalizing those who do not share the same faith but believe in other choices.
Can anyone explain to me why if either approach is such a good idea
(singlepayer system through a central govt or free market health care that leaves costs and policies to the businesses and consumers) then why can't the separate parties each use their national networks and hierarchy of elected representatives to organize resources to manage their own health care provisions and policies for members who contribute and participate VOLUNTARILY?
Isn't that more consistent with equal protections of individual freedom of choice and beliefs? Why not open up the exemptions and innovations clauses to REWARD citizens for setting up their own systems voluntarily, instead of wasting resources fighting over federal policy imposing or excluding one group's beliefs for another. How is THAT constitutional?
