The Obamacare scam is failing and exposes its built-in treachery

[Arianrhod]

Health is not a belief. No matter how many paragraphs you expend trying to claim that it is.

Dear Arianrhod
You are mixing two different things.
HEALTH is one thing
HEALTH CARE THROUGH GOVT is another thing

When you talk about HEALTH in the CONTEXT of
FEDERAL GOVT
you have already changed the nature of HEALTH
from something naturally existing to
something that depends on political constructs.

So you can no longer compare HEALTH
to "health care rights" <-- when THESE are filtered through GOVT.
=================================
Compare
* LIFE is a RIGHT and not a belief;
* but the >>>BELIEF<<< that "Life is a Right to be PROTECTED BY GOVT" IS a BELIEF

"LIFE" <-- which exists naturally and is not given by Govt
is different from "the belief in the Right to Life through Govt"

Now substitute HEALTH for LIFE
* HEALTH is naturally existing
* but the BELIEF in political rights to GOVERN and MANAGE
health care THROUGH GOVT is not naturally existing

You cannot forget that you are arguing
about this IN THE CONTEXT OF FEDERAL GOVT

That TOTALLY changes the dynamic

Same as with CHRISTIANITY which is a natural right
to exercise one's religion. BUT NOT IN THE CONTEXT
OF GOVT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS TO PAY OR PARTICIPATE.

One's faith is naturally existent, and nobody has the right to deny that
especially not govt. BUT INJECTING FAITH INTO GOVT is a totally different level.

Do you understand that HEALTH is one thing
but MANAGING IT THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT
is a completely different context and dynamic?

==============

Same with MARRIAGE laws

* right to marriage OUTSIDE OF GOVT
is a natural freedom and extension/expression
of Free Exercise of Religion and one's personal beliefs and life

so that's why it's unconstitutional to BAN people
from marriage which is a spiritual personal and/or religious choice
that govt cannot restrict much less penalize people for.
that's like banning someone's religious practice in private.
unless they are breaking criminal or civil law, like killing raping
or abusing or violating rights of others claiming it's their religion,
then it's not govt's business to regulate restrict or ban the
free exercise of someone's beliefs as long as people consent
and there is no abuse or coercion or other violation going on.

* but ENDORSING and REGULATING marriage
THROUGH GOVT is a different context

================

So back to health care
YES anyone has the right to maintain their
own health and provide/share access to health care resources.

but mandating this through FEDERAL GOVT
is no longer within the free choice/consent of the people
but involves IMPOSING on the rights/freedoms of OTHER PEOPLE

So that's where the limits on religious freedom end -- where they
start imposing on others who DON'T consent and DON'T believe
in being forced to go along with a program instead of other choices.

The difference between this and other areas that CAN be
regulated and forced by govt is where we CONSENT to
authorize govt to manage SECULAR areas and duties we
AGREE belong to govt.

But obviously we don't all agree on SOCIAL and SPIRITUAL areas
including
* right to life and right to health care
* marriage laws and benefits
* transgender and sexual orientation

If we all CONSENT to give rights/responsibilities to govt,
then YES we can write marriage laws and benefits laws
that authorize govt to manage social programs and policies.

But if we don't agree, it can't be forced on us
without violating Constitutional equal protections of
representations, beliefs and due process of law.

This has been VIOLATED in the past, so it seems
we have become accustomed to "bullying and coercion"
"discrimination and exclusion" and justified this as "politics as usual."

Just because there has been bullying in the past
does not make it right. I have been arguing it is UNLAWFUL
as a form of CONSPIRING to VIOLATE EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS.

Both parties are GUILTY of lobbying to censor and discriminate
against the equal rights and beliefs of people of the other party!!!

I DO believe that is Unconstitutional
to pass laws,
to invest money into campaigns and
to elect leaders and lobbyists who keep
pushing threats or enforcing discrimination against the beliefs of others THROUGH GOVT.

If you want to lobby against something on your own,
sure, that's part of your religious freedom and free speech
to express your beliefs.

But Arianrhod where I draw the line is NOT
abusing Govt, legal or legislative processes, public funds resources or authority, such as taxpayer money used to lobby for Obamacare enrollment.

Anything that is public should remain NEUTRAL and ALL inclusive.

What has been pushed through GOVT is DISCRIMINATORY
penalizing and exclusionary AGAINST people
whose beliefs and consent are VIOLATED.

A lot of words that you could have distilled down to "Government BAD."

'Cause that's pretty much all you're going to hear, eh?

Depends on the poster.

Blinders for the win!

They say acknowledging the problem is the first step.

You're known for a paucity of words. Maybe you can hack away some of the overgrowth in Emily's posts and meet me halfway. From here what she seems to be saying is "Government is wonderful when it does what I want."

Which is pretty much the conservative/libertopian position anyway. She just expresses it in bigger, more voluminous words.

Care to interpret? What am I missing?

 

[emilynghiem]

That's very nice, but one's health status is not a "belief," and the ability to access health care should not be dependent on someone else's "belief."

If you truly want to defend your fellow Americans, try being proactive in seeing that they get the basics of first-world health care.

YES IT IS Arianrhod

Health is not a belief. No matter how many paragraphs you expend trying to claim that it is.

Dear Arianrhod
You are mixing two different things.
HEALTH is one thing
HEALTH CARE THROUGH GOVT is another thing

When you talk about HEALTH in the CONTEXT of
FEDERAL GOVT
you have already changed the nature of HEALTH
from something naturally existing to
something that depends on political constructs.

So you can no longer compare HEALTH
to "health care rights" <-- when THESE are filtered through GOVT.
=================================
Compare
* LIFE is a RIGHT and not a belief;
* but the >>>BELIEF<<< that "Life is a Right to be PROTECTED BY GOVT" IS a BELIEF

"LIFE" <-- which exists naturally and is not given by Govt
is different from "the belief in the Right to Life through Govt"

Now substitute HEALTH for LIFE
* HEALTH is naturally existing
* but the BELIEF in political rights to GOVERN and MANAGE
health care THROUGH GOVT is not naturally existing

You cannot forget that you are arguing
about this IN THE CONTEXT OF FEDERAL GOVT

That TOTALLY changes the dynamic

Same as with CHRISTIANITY which is a natural right
to exercise one's religion. BUT NOT IN THE CONTEXT
OF GOVT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS TO PAY OR PARTICIPATE.

One's faith is naturally existent, and nobody has the right to deny that
especially not govt. BUT INJECTING FAITH INTO GOVT is a totally different level.

Do you understand that HEALTH is one thing
but MANAGING IT THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT
is a completely different context and dynamic?

==============

Same with MARRIAGE laws

* right to marriage OUTSIDE OF GOVT
is a natural freedom and extension/expression
of Free Exercise of Religion and one's personal beliefs and life

so that's why it's unconstitutional to BAN people
from marriage which is a spiritual personal and/or religious choice
that govt cannot restrict much less penalize people for.
that's like banning someone's religious practice in private.
unless they are breaking criminal or civil law, like killing raping
or abusing or violating rights of others claiming it's their religion,
then it's not govt's business to regulate restrict or ban the
free exercise of someone's beliefs as long as people consent
and there is no abuse or coercion or other violation going on.

* but ENDORSING and REGULATING marriage
THROUGH GOVT is a different context

================

So back to health care
YES anyone has the right to maintain their
own health and provide/share access to health care resources.

but mandating this through FEDERAL GOVT
is no longer within the free choice/consent of the people
but involves IMPOSING on the rights/freedoms of OTHER PEOPLE

So that's where the limits on religious freedom end -- where they
start imposing on others who DON'T consent and DON'T believe
in being forced to go along with a program instead of other choices.

The difference between this and other areas that CAN be
regulated and forced by govt is where we CONSENT to
authorize govt to manage SECULAR areas and duties we
AGREE belong to govt.

But obviously we don't all agree on SOCIAL and SPIRITUAL areas
including
* right to life and right to health care
* marriage laws and benefits
* transgender and sexual orientation

If we all CONSENT to give rights/responsibilities to govt,
then YES we can write marriage laws and benefits laws
that authorize govt to manage social programs and policies.

But if we don't agree, it can't be forced on us
without violating Constitutional equal protections of
representations, beliefs and due process of law.

This has been VIOLATED in the past, so it seems
we have become accustomed to "bullying and coercion"
"discrimination and exclusion" and justified this as "politics as usual."

Just because there has been bullying in the past
does not make it right. I have been arguing it is UNLAWFUL
as a form of CONSPIRING to VIOLATE EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS.

Both parties are GUILTY of lobbying to censor and discriminate
against the equal rights and beliefs of people of the other party!!!

I DO believe that is Unconstitutional
to pass laws,
to invest money into campaigns and
to elect leaders and lobbyists who keep
pushing threats or enforcing discrimination against the beliefs of others THROUGH GOVT.

If you want to lobby against something on your own,
sure, that's part of your religious freedom and free speech
to express your beliefs.

But Arianrhod where I draw the line is NOT
abusing Govt, legal or legislative processes, public funds resources or authority, such as taxpayer money used to lobby for Obamacare enrollment.

Anything that is public should remain NEUTRAL and ALL inclusive.

What has been pushed through GOVT is DISCRIMINATORY
penalizing and exclusionary AGAINST people
whose beliefs and consent are VIOLATED.

A lot of words that you could have distilled down to "Government BAD."

No, Arianrhod you completely miss the point and the principle.

Christianity isn't BAD, but it's against govt policy to endorse faith based beliefs.

The same with what's wrong with pushing FAITH BASED policies whether right to life, marriage policies, health care etc.

It doesn't make it BAD.

My argument is that it is unconstitutional.

Again, compare with Christianity that is unconstitutional for govt to push.

That has nothing to do with any judgment call on the religious beliefs themselves, good or bad, right or wrong, true or false.

The issue is that if it is FAITH BASED then govt has no authority to endorse or impose it, much less to bully, coerce, penalize or HARASS people whose beliefs don't agree, are in conflict, or are violated; when they would otherwise NOT be unlawful except that govt imposed restrictions, mandates or penalties that made them so.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Arianrhod
You are mixing two different things.
HEALTH is one thing
HEALTH CARE THROUGH GOVT is another thing

When you talk about HEALTH in the CONTEXT of
FEDERAL GOVT
you have already changed the nature of HEALTH
from something naturally existing to
something that depends on political constructs.

So you can no longer compare HEALTH
to "health care rights" <-- when THESE are filtered through GOVT.
=================================
Compare
* LIFE is a RIGHT and not a belief;
* but the >>>BELIEF<<< that "Life is a Right to be PROTECTED BY GOVT" IS a BELIEF

"LIFE" <-- which exists naturally and is not given by Govt
is different from "the belief in the Right to Life through Govt"

Now substitute HEALTH for LIFE
* HEALTH is naturally existing
* but the BELIEF in political rights to GOVERN and MANAGE
health care THROUGH GOVT is not naturally existing

You cannot forget that you are arguing
about this IN THE CONTEXT OF FEDERAL GOVT

That TOTALLY changes the dynamic

Same as with CHRISTIANITY which is a natural right
to exercise one's religion. BUT NOT IN THE CONTEXT
OF GOVT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS TO PAY OR PARTICIPATE.

One's faith is naturally existent, and nobody has the right to deny that
especially not govt. BUT INJECTING FAITH INTO GOVT is a totally different level.

Do you understand that HEALTH is one thing
but MANAGING IT THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT
is a completely different context and dynamic?

==============

Same with MARRIAGE laws

* right to marriage OUTSIDE OF GOVT
is a natural freedom and extension/expression
of Free Exercise of Religion and one's personal beliefs and life

so that's why it's unconstitutional to BAN people
from marriage which is a spiritual personal and/or religious choice
that govt cannot restrict much less penalize people for.
that's like banning someone's religious practice in private.
unless they are breaking criminal or civil law, like killing raping
or abusing or violating rights of others claiming it's their religion,
then it's not govt's business to regulate restrict or ban the
free exercise of someone's beliefs as long as people consent
and there is no abuse or coercion or other violation going on.

* but ENDORSING and REGULATING marriage
THROUGH GOVT is a different context

================

So back to health care
YES anyone has the right to maintain their
own health and provide/share access to health care resources.

but mandating this through FEDERAL GOVT
is no longer within the free choice/consent of the people
but involves IMPOSING on the rights/freedoms of OTHER PEOPLE

So that's where the limits on religious freedom end -- where they
start imposing on others who DON'T consent and DON'T believe
in being forced to go along with a program instead of other choices.

The difference between this and other areas that CAN be
regulated and forced by govt is where we CONSENT to
authorize govt to manage SECULAR areas and duties we
AGREE belong to govt.

But obviously we don't all agree on SOCIAL and SPIRITUAL areas
including
* right to life and right to health care
* marriage laws and benefits
* transgender and sexual orientation

If we all CONSENT to give rights/responsibilities to govt,
then YES we can write marriage laws and benefits laws
that authorize govt to manage social programs and policies.

But if we don't agree, it can't be forced on us
without violating Constitutional equal protections of
representations, beliefs and due process of law.

This has been VIOLATED in the past, so it seems
we have become accustomed to "bullying and coercion"
"discrimination and exclusion" and justified this as "politics as usual."

Just because there has been bullying in the past
does not make it right. I have been arguing it is UNLAWFUL
as a form of CONSPIRING to VIOLATE EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS.

Both parties are GUILTY of lobbying to censor and discriminate
against the equal rights and beliefs of people of the other party!!!

I DO believe that is Unconstitutional
to pass laws,
to invest money into campaigns and
to elect leaders and lobbyists who keep
pushing threats or enforcing discrimination against the beliefs of others THROUGH GOVT.

If you want to lobby against something on your own,
sure, that's part of your religious freedom and free speech
to express your beliefs.

But Arianrhod where I draw the line is NOT
abusing Govt, legal or legislative processes, public funds resources or authority, such as taxpayer money used to lobby for Obamacare enrollment.

Anything that is public should remain NEUTRAL and ALL inclusive.

What has been pushed through GOVT is DISCRIMINATORY
penalizing and exclusionary AGAINST people
whose beliefs and consent are VIOLATED.

A lot of words that you could have distilled down to "Government BAD."

'Cause that's pretty much all you're going to hear, eh?

Depends on the poster.

Blinders for the win!

They say acknowledging the problem is the first step.

You're known for a paucity of words. Maybe you can hack away some of the overgrowth in Emily's posts and meet me halfway. From here what she seems to be saying is "Government is wonderful when it does what I want."

Which is pretty much the conservative/libertopian position anyway. She just expresses it in bigger, more voluminous words.

Care to interpret? What am I missing?

Yes you are misinterpreting.

I am like saying if
* prolife advocates/policies imposes prolife beliefs THROUGH GOVT that discriminate against prochoice beliefs that is unconstitutional
* AND I am saying if prochoice beliefs are imposed THROUGH GOVT to discriminate against prolife beliefs that is unconstitutional
* I am NOT saying that anyone needs to make ANY judgment call on whether prochoice or prolife is "good/bad right/wrong true/false"

It does not matter if you or I agree/disagree or think good or bad about EITHER
"prochoice" or "prolife" -- the point is to let people CHOOSE which policy they want to fund,
and don't pass judgment either way. Don't bar either one, but don't IMPOSE either one through govt where it doesn't respect the equal rights and beliefs of people of the other view/belief.

The point is to respect both sides' beliefs NEUTRALLY WITHOUT PASSING JUDGMENT and stick to what is CONSTITUTIONALLY inclusive and equally representing both, not imposing or favoring one bias while excluding or penalizing the other.

Do you see the difference?

I am saying to PROTECT BOTH SIDES' BELIEFS FROM EACH OTHER by not abusing Govt to impose EITHER one over the other.

Arianrhod do you see that this does not require judging either belief set?

Where are you getting that I am only taking one side and saying the other is bad????

Have you even grasped the idea I propose for giving taxpayers a choice of funding either option according to how the various parties have represented their members:

so if the Democrats proclaim "We BELIEVE that health care is a right not a privilege" then all the people who SHARE that belief can fund and be under those mandates and exercise their beliefs and invest in the policies they agree are best for singlepayer or universal care.

And if Republicans believe in free market health care and accounts, they can organize a registration system for all citizens who want to invest in making that approach work for their populations who AGREE to that system. (And the advantage is they can fund prolife or anti-drugs or whatever else they believe in, WITHOUT imposing on anyone who is prochoice about abortion and believes in right to health care)

The Greens can set up their cooperative health care networks and singlepayer to represent their values, possibly in conjunction with the Libertarians.

Then give all taxpayers a choice of which group they want to invest in to provide health care consistent with their beliefs, standards and principles.

Arianrhod that is including ALL approaches and letting people invest in the programs THEY WANT TO ENSURE WILL WORK.

How is that saying any of these choices is "bad"???

The only thing I am saying is conflicting is DEPRIVING people of the CHOICE of which party program they believe in funding.

Unless they have committed a crime or abuse, or incurred a debt to the public/taxpayers, there is NOTHING WRONG with believing in free market health care and providing medical services outside of govt.

What is WRONG with giving people a choice.

Arianrhod where are you getting that I am saying this is bad?

I am INCLUDING the right of people like you to go through govt if you believe in that. I'm not saying that's bad I'm saying that should be your free choice!

Again, just like Christianity is not a bad thing, but it should be people's free choice. Imposing it THROUGH GOVT by PENALIZING people if they don't comply is a "bad idea" because it goes against Constitutional laws based on the need for free will/choice/consent that is inherent in human nature and natural laws.

But that doesn't make Christianity itself bad.

Is this point clear enough?

 

[emilynghiem]

Arianrhod

If the prolife/prochoice comparison doesn't clear it up, can we try these other similar cases:

A. free choice of LANGUAGE,
A1. whether govt should REQUIRE everyone to be literate and able to communicate in ENGLISH for sake of public safety and security, such as in cases of emergency, and for sake of equality in participating in the democratic process and legal protections.
vs.
A2. govt should not impose but respect people's free choice whether or not to become proficient in English, even though this incurs greater costs and even risks of danger when it comes to helping citizens in situations of crime, catastrophic disasters, etc.

B. free choice of whether or not to use the govt postal services, regardless if these are better or worse than private businesses.

Do you want to try comparing health care choices, mandates and penalties to either of these situations?

Is there anything there that would help explain why people still want free choice instead of govt penalizing people for not participating and complying?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That's very nice, but one's health status is not a "belief," and the ability to access health care should not be dependent on someone else's "belief."

If you truly want to defend your fellow Americans, try being proactive in seeing that they get the basics of first-world health care.

YES IT IS Arianrhod

Health is not a belief. No matter how many paragraphs you expend trying to claim that it is.

Dear Arianrhod
You are mixing two different things.
HEALTH is one thing
HEALTH CARE THROUGH GOVT is another thing

When you talk about HEALTH in the CONTEXT of
FEDERAL GOVT
you have already changed the nature of HEALTH
from something naturally existing to
something that depends on political constructs.

So you can no longer compare HEALTH
to "health care rights" <-- when THESE are filtered through GOVT.
=================================
Compare
* LIFE is a RIGHT and not a belief;
* but the >>>BELIEF<<< that "Life is a Right to be PROTECTED BY GOVT" IS a BELIEF

"LIFE" <-- which exists naturally and is not given by Govt
is different from "the belief in the Right to Life through Govt"

Now substitute HEALTH for LIFE
* HEALTH is naturally existing
* but the BELIEF in political rights to GOVERN and MANAGE
health care THROUGH GOVT is not naturally existing

You cannot forget that you are arguing
about this IN THE CONTEXT OF FEDERAL GOVT

That TOTALLY changes the dynamic

Same as with CHRISTIANITY which is a natural right
to exercise one's religion. BUT NOT IN THE CONTEXT
OF GOVT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS TO PAY OR PARTICIPATE.

One's faith is naturally existent, and nobody has the right to deny that
especially not govt. BUT INJECTING FAITH INTO GOVT is a totally different level.

Do you understand that HEALTH is one thing
but MANAGING IT THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT
is a completely different context and dynamic?

==============

Same with MARRIAGE laws

* right to marriage OUTSIDE OF GOVT
is a natural freedom and extension/expression
of Free Exercise of Religion and one's personal beliefs and life

so that's why it's unconstitutional to BAN people
from marriage which is a spiritual personal and/or religious choice
that govt cannot restrict much less penalize people for.
that's like banning someone's religious practice in private.
unless they are breaking criminal or civil law, like killing raping
or abusing or violating rights of others claiming it's their religion,
then it's not govt's business to regulate restrict or ban the
free exercise of someone's beliefs as long as people consent
and there is no abuse or coercion or other violation going on.

* but ENDORSING and REGULATING marriage
THROUGH GOVT is a different context

================

So back to health care
YES anyone has the right to maintain their
own health and provide/share access to health care resources.

but mandating this through FEDERAL GOVT
is no longer within the free choice/consent of the people
but involves IMPOSING on the rights/freedoms of OTHER PEOPLE

So that's where the limits on religious freedom end -- where they
start imposing on others who DON'T consent and DON'T believe
in being forced to go along with a program instead of other choices.

The difference between this and other areas that CAN be
regulated and forced by govt is where we CONSENT to
authorize govt to manage SECULAR areas and duties we
AGREE belong to govt.

But obviously we don't all agree on SOCIAL and SPIRITUAL areas
including
* right to life and right to health care
* marriage laws and benefits
* transgender and sexual orientation

If we all CONSENT to give rights/responsibilities to govt,
then YES we can write marriage laws and benefits laws
that authorize govt to manage social programs and policies.

But if we don't agree, it can't be forced on us
without violating Constitutional equal protections of
representations, beliefs and due process of law.

This has been VIOLATED in the past, so it seems
we have become accustomed to "bullying and coercion"
"discrimination and exclusion" and justified this as "politics as usual."

Just because there has been bullying in the past
does not make it right. I have been arguing it is UNLAWFUL
as a form of CONSPIRING to VIOLATE EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS.

Both parties are GUILTY of lobbying to censor and discriminate
against the equal rights and beliefs of people of the other party!!!

I DO believe that is Unconstitutional
to pass laws,
to invest money into campaigns and
to elect leaders and lobbyists who keep
pushing threats or enforcing discrimination against the beliefs of others THROUGH GOVT.

If you want to lobby against something on your own,
sure, that's part of your religious freedom and free speech
to express your beliefs.

But Arianrhod where I draw the line is NOT
abusing Govt, legal or legislative processes, public funds resources or authority, such as taxpayer money used to lobby for Obamacare enrollment.

Anything that is public should remain NEUTRAL and ALL inclusive.

What has been pushed through GOVT is DISCRIMINATORY
penalizing and exclusionary AGAINST people
whose beliefs and consent are VIOLATED.

A lot of words that you could have distilled down to "Government BAD."

No, Arianrhod you completely miss the point and the principle.

Christianity isn't BAD, but it's against govt policy to endorse faith based beliefs.

The same with what's wrong with pushing FAITH BASED policies whether right to life, marriage policies, health care etc.

It doesn't make it BAD.

My argument is that it is unconstitutional.

Again, compare with Christianity that is unconstitutional for govt to push.

That has nothing to do with any judgment call on the religious beliefs themselves, good or bad, right or wrong, true or false.

The issue is that if it is FAITH BASED then govt has no authority to endorse or impose it, much less to bully, coerce, penalize or HARASS people whose beliefs don't agree, are in conflict, or are violated; when they would otherwise NOT be unlawful except that govt imposed restrictions, mandates or penalties that made them so.

Actually, the constitution prevents the federal government from making laws regarding the establishment of religion.

Which can easily be seen to say that religion can be established and the federal government should have no hand in stopping it.

There is NOTHING to prevent states from establishing religions and many did. They stayed in place long after 1787 and were only elminated when they were specifically written out of state constititutions........

The federal government never sought to impose itself on those situations.

Thomas Jefferson's famous quote "separation of church and state" came in response to a request that he establish a day of fasting and prayer.

Jefferson didn't like some religions. The congregationalists were of particular trouble to him. They preached against him in full force (with no repercussions) during the election of 1800.

Religion and moral standards (not necessarily the same) were always expected to be part of the public discussion.

We've become a nation of idiots.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Is this point clear enough?

Don't hold your breath.

 

[dblack]

You're known for a paucity of words. Maybe you can hack away some of the overgrowth in Emily's posts and meet me halfway.

The problem is that the two of you don't share a common conception of human rights.

Care to interpret? What am I missing?

We're coming at it from the perspective that the purpose of government, first and foremost, is to protect our rights, which we construe to be freedoms, not claims on service from others.

 

[emilynghiem]

YES IT IS Arianrhod

Health is not a belief. No matter how many paragraphs you expend trying to claim that it is.

Dear Arianrhod
You are mixing two different things.
HEALTH is one thing
HEALTH CARE THROUGH GOVT is another thing

When you talk about HEALTH in the CONTEXT of
FEDERAL GOVT
you have already changed the nature of HEALTH
from something naturally existing to
something that depends on political constructs.

So you can no longer compare HEALTH
to "health care rights" <-- when THESE are filtered through GOVT.
=================================
Compare
* LIFE is a RIGHT and not a belief;
* but the >>>BELIEF<<< that "Life is a Right to be PROTECTED BY GOVT" IS a BELIEF

"LIFE" <-- which exists naturally and is not given by Govt
is different from "the belief in the Right to Life through Govt"

Now substitute HEALTH for LIFE
* HEALTH is naturally existing
* but the BELIEF in political rights to GOVERN and MANAGE
health care THROUGH GOVT is not naturally existing

You cannot forget that you are arguing
about this IN THE CONTEXT OF FEDERAL GOVT

That TOTALLY changes the dynamic

Same as with CHRISTIANITY which is a natural right
to exercise one's religion. BUT NOT IN THE CONTEXT
OF GOVT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS TO PAY OR PARTICIPATE.

One's faith is naturally existent, and nobody has the right to deny that
especially not govt. BUT INJECTING FAITH INTO GOVT is a totally different level.

Do you understand that HEALTH is one thing
but MANAGING IT THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT
is a completely different context and dynamic?

==============

Same with MARRIAGE laws

* right to marriage OUTSIDE OF GOVT
is a natural freedom and extension/expression
of Free Exercise of Religion and one's personal beliefs and life

so that's why it's unconstitutional to BAN people
from marriage which is a spiritual personal and/or religious choice
that govt cannot restrict much less penalize people for.
that's like banning someone's religious practice in private.
unless they are breaking criminal or civil law, like killing raping
or abusing or violating rights of others claiming it's their religion,
then it's not govt's business to regulate restrict or ban the
free exercise of someone's beliefs as long as people consent
and there is no abuse or coercion or other violation going on.

* but ENDORSING and REGULATING marriage
THROUGH GOVT is a different context

================

So back to health care
YES anyone has the right to maintain their
own health and provide/share access to health care resources.

but mandating this through FEDERAL GOVT
is no longer within the free choice/consent of the people
but involves IMPOSING on the rights/freedoms of OTHER PEOPLE

So that's where the limits on religious freedom end -- where they
start imposing on others who DON'T consent and DON'T believe
in being forced to go along with a program instead of other choices.

The difference between this and other areas that CAN be
regulated and forced by govt is where we CONSENT to
authorize govt to manage SECULAR areas and duties we
AGREE belong to govt.

But obviously we don't all agree on SOCIAL and SPIRITUAL areas
including
* right to life and right to health care
* marriage laws and benefits
* transgender and sexual orientation

If we all CONSENT to give rights/responsibilities to govt,
then YES we can write marriage laws and benefits laws
that authorize govt to manage social programs and policies.

But if we don't agree, it can't be forced on us
without violating Constitutional equal protections of
representations, beliefs and due process of law.

This has been VIOLATED in the past, so it seems
we have become accustomed to "bullying and coercion"
"discrimination and exclusion" and justified this as "politics as usual."

Just because there has been bullying in the past
does not make it right. I have been arguing it is UNLAWFUL
as a form of CONSPIRING to VIOLATE EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS.

Both parties are GUILTY of lobbying to censor and discriminate
against the equal rights and beliefs of people of the other party!!!

I DO believe that is Unconstitutional
to pass laws,
to invest money into campaigns and
to elect leaders and lobbyists who keep
pushing threats or enforcing discrimination against the beliefs of others THROUGH GOVT.

If you want to lobby against something on your own,
sure, that's part of your religious freedom and free speech
to express your beliefs.

But Arianrhod where I draw the line is NOT
abusing Govt, legal or legislative processes, public funds resources or authority, such as taxpayer money used to lobby for Obamacare enrollment.

Anything that is public should remain NEUTRAL and ALL inclusive.

What has been pushed through GOVT is DISCRIMINATORY
penalizing and exclusionary AGAINST people
whose beliefs and consent are VIOLATED.

A lot of words that you could have distilled down to "Government BAD."

No, Arianrhod you completely miss the point and the principle.

Christianity isn't BAD, but it's against govt policy to endorse faith based beliefs.

The same with what's wrong with pushing FAITH BASED policies whether right to life, marriage policies, health care etc.

It doesn't make it BAD.

My argument is that it is unconstitutional.

Again, compare with Christianity that is unconstitutional for govt to push.

That has nothing to do with any judgment call on the religious beliefs themselves, good or bad, right or wrong, true or false.

The issue is that if it is FAITH BASED then govt has no authority to endorse or impose it, much less to bully, coerce, penalize or HARASS people whose beliefs don't agree, are in conflict, or are violated; when they would otherwise NOT be unlawful except that govt imposed restrictions, mandates or penalties that made them so.

Actually, the constitution prevents the federal government from making laws regarding the establishment of religion.

Which can easily be seen to say that religion can be established and the federal government should have no hand in stopping it.

There is NOTHING to prevent states from establishing religions and many did. They stayed in place long after 1787 and were only elminated when they were specifically written out of state constititutions........

The federal government never sought to impose itself on those situations.

Thomas Jefferson's famous quote "separation of church and state" came in response to a request that he establish a day of fasting and prayer.

Jefferson didn't like some religions. The congregationalists were of particular trouble to him. They preached against him in full force (with no repercussions) during the election of 1800.

Religion and moral standards (not necessarily the same) were always expected to be part of the public discussion.

We've become a nation of idiots.

Dear Sun Devil 92
Yes and no.

The state govt's establishing law even including religious references such as God, Bible and Prayer still depends on CONSENT and Representation/Authority of the People.

Then YES even on a National level if we all CONSENT to faith based elements or references in our laws, SURE we can include that and it isn't IMPOSING or EXCLUDING anyone based on FORCING someone to accept something FAITH BASED.

For example, the concept of JUSTICE is basically faith based.
It is an abstract concept we all happen to AGREE on.
So we have a JUSTICE system and a court system that is supposed to
be based on EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW.

If we all AGREE on something, even if it is totally based on faith,
then clearly we don't contest that as against the First Amendment.
Same with using DATES/years that were based on religious references BC and AD.
We all agree to this for convenience, so it's not contested as a religious establishment by govt.

As for States establishing a religious or faith based policy,
we can see this failed both times with the marriage laws that
either (a) BANNED same sex marriage which EXCLUDED the representation, faith and consent of people who believe in treating same sex marriage and couples the same as traditional couples and marriage (b) ESTABLISHING or recognizing same sex marriage through govt which violated the beliefs of people in conflict with that concept.

since people did NOT ALL AGREE OR CONSENT to compromise their BELIEFS
for the convenience of govt,
that is why that marriage policy should be kept out of govt and removed to private
levels, either through private institutions, churches, or even party if needed to
treat all people of all beliefs equally. They could all register through separate benefits programs to CHOOSE the policy that coincides and respects their beliefs.
Similar to choosing a church denomination or political affiliation to support those policies.

We should do the same with marriage and benefits
since clearly we do not agree but have clashing beliefs that shouldn't be
regulated by govt, forcing one group or another to deal with the other group's beliefs.

(NOTE: Previously, when traditional marriage was sanctioned with benefits through govt, people generally consented to this policy. And only when the people who contested this as discrimination organized enough representation to establish DISSENT, then they could push to change marriage policies. But the problem is the others who believe in traditional marriage only didn't consent to the changes. So we have the same problem where marriage policies and benefits that involve people's beliefs are STILL being pushed through govt AGAINST the beliefs of the dissenting members of the public.)

The problem Sun Devil 92
is that we have never had an agreement how to manage
Political Beliefs that inherently involve government.
There is no way to separate the beliefs involved in marriage
once you incorporate marriage through govt.
The issue of abortion, of capital punishment/executions,
of euthanasia and both right to life and right to die,
involve spiritual beliefs about life death and authority to decide to terminate life.

There is no way to involve govt in these issues WITHOUT
getting into people's spiritual and political beliefs.

We as a Nation have never openly and directly addressed this.

Right now we have people in denial that such beliefs
are even valid much less to be respected equally!

Until we get over ourselves, and the fact we have different beliefs and quit
judging each other for those differences in beliefs, regardless how much we
disagree, how can we sit at the table and write laws to work around
those differences. If we are still set on bullying and coercing/excluding
each other from representation, both sides trying so hard to defend
their own beliefs from infringement they run over the beliefs of others.

That's why I call for a separation by party on political beliefs.
And start separating the policies, funding and representation
so all beliefs are protected equally and nobody funds or supports
anything that is against their beliefs. We must all have free choice
of affiliation just like we choose which churches to fund and work with.
And let other people choose from themselves, without penalty.

This can be done on a state level.
I believe Texas could set a precedent by party leaders
recognizing we need a different approach.

Then we can work out the rest nationally.

Thank you and I hope some of what I offer helps shed
light on what we can do to get out of these deadlocks
caused by clashing beliefs that people will never change.

Why not acknowledge that, and quit pushing those through govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

Arianrhod

Knowing how intelligent and conscientious you are about establishing and defending
what is the truth in each situation, I hope you can get the point of what I'm saying
despite my inability to express it as directly as you would if you got it and you were saying it.

Clearly I am not you. But I would like to see how you would take this
same concept and spell it out how YOU would say it and understand it.

How would YOU say this concept:
A. That rejecting the faith in Christianity as outside govt jurisdiction
is NOT saying Christianity is bad or negative. It is saying it isn't the
role of govt to force people into compliance because they inherently
have free choice and free exercise in matters of belief and faith.

B. Likewise with believing in right to life through govt, or right to health care
through govt, who are we to judge people for these beliefs for or against.
Why would we force that through govt, knowing people believe in free choice
and not govt controlling those decisions for people, whether over abortion or health care.

C. and the argument that health is not a faith based concept but a fact of life,
that is still separate from the issues and bureaucracy of regulations created
by trying to run this through govt.

It can be a fact that preventing abortion all together is
better for everyone's health than having abortions after the fact.

But running that through govt causes problems because it
is a private matter and choice whether to have sex or not,
and the consequences of pregnancy land more on the woman than the man;
so laws regulating abortion would unequally affect women and be discriminatory
for failing to hold men responsible for their part of the process which is private.

Arianrhod I don't have to argue if "Christianity is good or bad"
or "Abortion is good or bad" to argue that Managing these through Govt
causes problems due to people's free choice of beliefs that would get entangled
and infringed upon.

These involve private decisions and beliefs,
so unless those are all protected and accounted for,
trying to regulate these through Govt is going to infringe on
people's free choice and beliefs REGARDLESS WHICH SIDE THEY ARE ON.

Even if I AGREE Christianity is good, it is NOT GOOD to push that through govt
where people are dissenting and saying no we don't believe in giving up our free choice.

So Even if I AGREE that managing health care through Govt offers good benefits,
it is equally Problematic to run that through govt UNLESS PEOPLE CONSENT.

So if we consented to emergency care through govt, then we could have federal
laws providing for that.

But people do NOT agree to have regular health care "micromanaged" through
FEDERAL govt. So that is as problematic/bad as regulating Abortion through
govt when people are saying NO we don't consent to giving up our free choice to govt.

Even if I think Abortion is bad or good or whatever,
I'd still say regulating it through govt is going to cause problems
because people's beliefs don't agree; and this would be better
SEPARATED under different health care programs so nobody is imposed
upon by the beliefs of the other group that wants to fund a separate policy.

That is only fair, similar to letting Muslims and Hindus fund their own
programs, or Baptists and Catholics, Atheists and Buddhists.

We can protect the free choice and exercise of beliefs
without endorsing them through govt where it excludes people of other beliefs.

It isn't "DENYING or denouncing" any of these beliefs
to say that govt should not be regulating or penalizing people for not complying.

Same with beliefs about health care.
Why not respect people's free choice, just like any other belief system
instead of trying to force, coerce or penalizing people if they don't comply.

Now Arianrhod if you can understand what I'm saying,
HOW WOULD YOU SAY THESE SAME THINGS WHERE IT IS CLEAR?

Is it clear my view is NOT what you "thought I meant".
I am NOT just contesting what I don't agree with, as you thought,
but contesting what infringes on ANYONE ELSE'S BELIEFS on EITHER side,
WHETHER I AGREE OR DISAGREE, based on the SAME principle of beliefs
not regulated by govt, because it causes unequal treatment of people
and thus causes problems until the conflicts are resolved and CONSENT is restored.

 

[emilynghiem]

You're known for a paucity of words. Maybe you can hack away some of the overgrowth in Emily's posts and meet me halfway.

The problem is that the two of you don't share a common conception of human rights.

Care to interpret? What am I missing?

We're coming at it from the perspective that the purpose of government, first and foremost, is to protect our rights, which we construe to be freedoms, not claims on service from others.

Yes dblack
And this difference in belief is so inherently embedded, people cannot even see each other's ways as a separately valid belief.

People see their way as right, as the only way, the only truth, they discount the other view as wrong and invalid.

So we are no different than Hindus and Muslims going to war over whose beliefs are going to be mandated through govt for everyone to follow and comply with.

Question: How do we address and acknowledge this difference? Knowing that it requires revamping so much of govt that has been going along with forcing policies by "majority rule" regardless of clashing beliefs?

I have suggested a truce or Constitutional Consortium between members/leaders of all Parties, to write a joint resolution recognizing political beliefs, and to end the political practice of bullying by coercion or exclusion which discriminated against one belief or another.

How can this be written in accessible language?

How can we take this concept and spell it out where even people like Arianrhod coming from the other viewpoint can see that it applies, includes and protects those views equally and not just the people opposed?

 

[dblack]

... And this difference in belief is so inherently embedded, people cannot even see each other's ways as a separately valid belief.

That depends on the beliefs. Many are incompatible. Here, in fact, I think you're working overtime to accommodate the statists, but it can't be done. You're describing schemes to give them what you think they want - broad social insurance - but the programs you suggest are all voluntary. They don't want voluntary.

 

[Arianrhod]

You're known for a paucity of words. Maybe you can hack away some of the overgrowth in Emily's posts and meet me halfway.

The problem is that the two of you don't share a common conception of human rights.

Care to interpret? What am I missing?

We're coming at it from the perspective that the purpose of government, first and foremost, is to protect our rights, which we construe to be freedoms, not claims on service from others.

Two contradictory statements...unless you believe you have rights that others don't.

 

[dblack]

You're known for a paucity of words. Maybe you can hack away some of the overgrowth in Emily's posts and meet me halfway.

The problem is that the two of you don't share a common conception of human rights.

Care to interpret? What am I missing?

We're coming at it from the perspective that the purpose of government, first and foremost, is to protect our rights, which we construe to be freedoms, not claims on service from others.

Two contradictory statements...unless you believe you have rights that others don't.

How so?

 

[emilynghiem]

... And this difference in belief is so inherently embedded, people cannot even see each other's ways as a separately valid belief.

That depends on the beliefs. Many are incompatible. Here, in fact, I think you're working overtime to accommodate the statists, but it can't be done. You're describing schemes to give them what you think they want - broad social insurance - but the programs you suggest are all voluntary. They don't want voluntary.

Well, dblack neither do the prolife believers
want the right to life to be "voluntary choice."

So let's be fair here.

If we are going to defend choice -- in light of beliefs that right to life is INHERENT and is not a "choice" --

Then let's argue the SAME treatment should be applied to right to health care, where people are making similar arguments, that it ISN'T a choice or belief but NECESSARY for govt to protect and provide.

Let's demand equal protection -- NOT discrimination by govt
"against" the right to life beliefs being made mandatory
but FOR the right to health care as mandatory.

* If one is going to be "free choice" despite the people who want it mandatory, so does the other deserve the same treatment, regardless of those who want it mandatory

* If we are going to say it's okay for people to push policies through govt, despite the beliefs against it, the SAME should be applied to both "right to life"
AND "right to health care." It is NOT passing judgment on one or the other to demand to treat them the same.

So either allow both, or disallow both. That's only fair and Constitutionally equal treatment to address these beliefs in the same manner, out of respect for beliefs on both sides.

Otherwise endorsing one through govt while denying the other is NOT equal treatment or protections under law.

That's favoring one set of beliefs over another,
and if you look, the majority of proponents and defenders are MEMBERS, LEADERS and AFFILIATES/Supporters of the Democratic Party, where at least the Texas platform RECOGNIZES this as a BELIEF, ie: "We BELIEVE that health care is a right not a privilege" (Look up the TDP Platform that acknowledges this statement of believing in this principle.)

So these members of this political party and belief ARE IMPOSING their beliefs on others under penalty of law. This belief is declared in writing as part of their party beliefs that the members resolve and agree represents them as a group.

Why are we accepting this level of political bullying, abuse and discrimination? Especially when this same party denounces the abuse of govt office and legislation to impose Christian beliefs against the free will, choice and consent of the public. Clearly this is discrimination on the basis of CREED, in violation of Civil Rights and equal protections of the law.

If we act like it is normal politics, we are setting ourselves up to be abused and bullied.

But if we declare it discriminatory, then we stand up PUBLICLY against the bullying and demand that it be stopped.

As for now, the reason it isn't stopping is both sides insist on bullying to get their way, so they are in no position to denounce these tactics:

If the Prolife keep pushing THEIR beliefs through govt, they lose authority to stop others from doing the same with right to health care beliefs. (and likewise with beliefs about marriage, where both sides are equally wrong to push laws that discriminate against people of the other beliefs.)

Both sides need to stop and acknowledge this is unconstitutional to abuse govt to deny the equal beliefs and protections of others!

Otherwise, it's like watching a couple caught in a domestic dispute, where both are throwing mud and objects at each other, both accusing the other of being abusive. Nobody is stopping it because they are both abusing the other.

But that doesn't make it normal or right just because it's been going on all this time. Two wrongs don't make either one right or justified. And the length it's been going on without anyone standing up and denouncing it doesn't make it okay.

But it keeps going on until we call a truce and decide enough is enough, no means no, and if people don't consent to having beliefs either pushed through govt or denied by govt, then we need to address those conflicts another way, resolve the issues BEFORE we make policy decisions through govt.

We need to come to this realization.

At what point do we decide it's abusive, ie unconstitutional to abuse govt to endorse one group's beliefs while discriminating against and penalizing people of other beliefs for not complying, and we AGREE to stop and take a more CONSISTENT approach.

At what point are we ready to call for a truce and resolution to recognize this problem and agree to seek solutions?

 

[Arianrhod]

Two contradictory statements...unless you believe you have rights that others don't.

How so?

Well, you can start with the irony of a man writing "all men are created equal" while contemplating the slaves working his fields, and progress through August 18, 1920 when the other 51% of "men" were finally "allowed" to vote. Or you can convince yourself that a kid born with spina bifida has the same hypothetical "rights" as a kid who was born healthy, but it doesn't matter that he can't utilize them.

John Galt, I suspect, would have left the disabled kid on the hillside for the buzzards.

 

[dblack]

Two contradictory statements...unless you believe you have rights that others don't.

How so?

Well, you can start with the irony of a man writing "all men are created equal" while contemplating the slaves working his fields, and progress through August 18, 1920 when the other 51% of "men" were finally "allowed" to vote. Or you can convince yourself that a kid born with spina bifida has the same hypothetical "rights" as a kid who was born healthy, but it doesn't matter that he can't utilize them.

John Galt, I suspect, would have left the disabled kid on the hillside for the buzzards.

WTF? I was referring to your claim that my post consisted of "two contradictory statements". What did you mean by that?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Arianrhod:
A. No I'm saying BOTH sides have equal right to free choice, and not to be coerced by govt into changing their beliefs or being imposed on by opposing beliefs. I am saying ALL people on BOTH sides have equal rights to dissent and reject, and to respect their consent and free will when it comes to beliefs.

You're known for a paucity of words. Maybe you can hack away some of the overgrowth in Emily's posts and meet me halfway.

The problem is that the two of you don't share a common conception of human rights.

Care to interpret? What am I missing?

We're coming at it from the perspective that the purpose of government, first and foremost, is to protect our rights, which we construe to be freedoms, not claims on service from others.

Two contradictory statements...unless you believe you have rights that others don't.

Dear Arianrhod:

B. But isn't that what you are doing by imposing
govt health care where people ARE FORCED
into it WITHOUT free choice and AGAINST their BELIEFS and consent.

You are basically saying YOU have the right to impose your "right to health care" beliefs through govt and penalize people who don't believe participation should be coerced;
but you are saying OTHERS DON'T have that SAME right to impose their "right to life" beliefs through govt if YOU don't consent.

So you are saying you have the right to consent and reject a political belief that is against YOUR beliefs;
but are not respecting or giving the same right
to others to consent and to reject a political
belief that is against THEIR beliefs.

Why should you and I have more rights to defend free choice and reject "right to life" imposed through govt as unconstitutional;
while those who demand free choice in health care are being penalized and don't have the right to contest that as unconstitutional?

So Arianrhod are you saying that because YOU agree with free choice with abortion, YOU recognize that right to choice; but because YOU don't agree with free choice with health care, then you DON'T recognize that right to choice.

Because YOU are only recognizing rights to beliefs if you agree with those beliefs,
then are you accusing me of that?

Because I don't agree with doing that; my whole argument is people's beliefs should be protected from govt regulation and penalty.
Only if they are doing something unlawful or abusive, such as having sex or marrying underaged minors as part of their "beliefs" then that is against other laws; so clearly free choice in beliefs doesn't give license to violate other civil or criminal laws.

But if there is nothing illegal about having the free choice of abortion without penalty of law, why not the free choice of how to pay for health care. Free choice of abortion isn't DENYING people of the right to give birth, so why assume that free choice of health care is DENYING people the right to health care? If "banning abortion through govt" isn't the ONLY way nor the most effective way to prevent abortion; why the assumption that mandates through govt are the ONLY way to provide health care?

Since when it is a crime to want to pay for health care another way besides mandatory insurance or govt exchanges? If those already don't cover all the health care demands, and other sources are ALREADY needed, then why penalize people for investing in developing the medical resources and services that are needed ANYWAY, in ADDITION to govt. Why not give people the equal free choice in health care, the SAME WAY you and I might defend free choice with abortion and reproductive health. Why not treat people's choices and beliefs with equal respect?

Why are you only recognizing the right to choose when you agree with beliefs?

Is this why you think I am saying this?
Because you are doing it and projecting it onto me? Because I disagree with that totally, that's my whole point!

 

[Arianrhod]

Two contradictory statements...unless you believe you have rights that others don't.

How so?

Well, you can start with the irony of a man writing "all men are created equal" while contemplating the slaves working his fields, and progress through August 18, 1920 when the other 51% of "men" were finally "allowed" to vote. Or you can convince yourself that a kid born with spina bifida has the same hypothetical "rights" as a kid who was born healthy, but it doesn't matter that he can't utilize them.

John Galt, I suspect, would have left the disabled kid on the hillside for the buzzards.

WTF? I was referring to your claim that my post consisted of "two contradictory statements". What did you mean by that?

It all has to do with the concept of "rights." While I agree that you and Emily are talking about one thing and I another, the fact that the words "equal rights" is written down somewhere does not make them equal IRL. My previous post gave you three examples which I doubt you can address, but don't worry about it. Just uphold your Letter of the Law and your perception of grievance at having to "serve" others.

 

[koshergrl]

Racket (crime) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[emilynghiem]

Two contradictory statements...unless you believe you have rights that others don't.

How so?

Well, you can start with the irony of a man writing "all men are created equal" while contemplating the slaves working his fields, and progress through August 18, 1920 when the other 51% of "men" were finally "allowed" to vote. Or you can convince yourself that a kid born with spina bifida has the same hypothetical "rights" as a kid who was born healthy, but it doesn't matter that he can't utilize them.

John Galt, I suspect, would have left the disabled kid on the hillside for the buzzards.

Dear Arianrhod:
Ironic you should bring up slavery.

A. Just because the ACA mandates were passed by Congress (as a public health bill) then approved by Courts (as a tax), doesn't make them constitutional per se. Because slavery USED to be enforced by govt and by courts, as part of valid property laws, and was later declared unlawful and banned by law.

Does that mean that only at the point the law was changed THEN it became unconstitutional? It was ALWAYS a violation of people's inherent right to liberty and freedom. And the same can be said of the laws imposing mandates that all people be required to buy private insurance or enroll in the govt programs or be fined. As for the religious exemptions, that is govt regulating which religious affiliations qualify for exempt status, so it is federal govt regulating religion and penalizing or waiving penalties based on people's religious membership. So that is also questionable and contested as unconstitutional.

B. it has been explained to me that mandatory health care
creates involuntary servitude
BECAUSE health care services do not exist naturally like food that can be found in nature, or water and air.

Health care services require the labor, services or resources bought or provided by the labor of others.

So demanding that this be given free, without a free choice of who agrees to provide it and who they want to donate it to,
would take labor from someone.

If the labor or resources are given freely,
such as through charity, or educational training where people choose
to fund and participate, that isn't slave labor.

But if you are forcing it through govt, and requiring people pay in
or face penalties where their income is seized,
that's involuntary, taking their money from their labor
in ways they didn't have a choice.

When this is agreed upon in advance, such as paying for roads
or national security/military defense, that is CONSENTING.

so it isn't involuntary servitude.

But forcing people to pay for health care through govt
instead of giving a choice to provide through schools, charity, or
businesses that can manage services cost effectively,
is a form of FORCED servitude INVOLUNTARILY.

I understand this argument,
do you Arianrhod?