Let's assume that, since I'm on TriCare, I've paid basically no attention to the entire debate. In fact, let's say that I know almost nothing about it except that Obama spent his presidency trying to get it passed, the Republicans hate it, and Nancy Pelosi thought the only way she could find out what the bill said was to vote for it. This is your chance to sell someone more or less neutral on it and/or turn them against it.
I'd compare it to the Military draft. It's required for all men to sign up for Selective Service upon turning 18.
But enlisting and serving in the Military is optional. Once you're in, you agree to all the rules, and can't disobey orders or desert, etc.
Now compare this federal mandate that requires all citizens to enroll in either federal programs or buy insurance
that is also regulated, where you no longer have free choice.
And compare: what if you could have free choice to participate, and if you opt in, then you agree to follow the program as is.
Why is there not a choice to participate?
That's the part that is unconstitutional unless you happen to believe and agree with it.
If you don't, you're stuck unless and until someone in govt happens to have the guts to stand up and enforce the Constitution instead of putting this bill first over Constitutional rights and liberties, and separation of federal powers from the rights reserved to people and states.
If you are liberal, prochoice or unreligious, imagine if "the majority of Congress" decided it was better for public interest to require all people to enroll in Christian programs and/or pay a tax into a federal Christian program that "serves the public."
You can pay for any choice of program that is approved and meets federal standards.
That's "not so bad," right? Because what you're forcing the public to participate and pay for is all good, all the Christian programs are family supportive, and shown to benefit people in positive ways. So what's wrong with requiring this for all people, right?
But what if you want other choices besides Christian programs exempted and approve by govt.
Any other choices outside that don't count as exemptions, incur a tax penalty, and that goes into the federal program, NOT the programs you believe in choosing.
Wouldn't you consider that overreaching of federal govt?
But unfortunately we have Democrats in denial that this, in any way, constitutes imposing a political belief or it infringes on the political beliefs of others. Because it is secular, the biases and discrimination are masked.
We could see it better if it were more obviously a Christian or Muslim mandate, but because it is disguised as secular,
people don't see the bias.
If you happen to agree with federalized health care, or see this as a just another tax,
then you would have to understand how this violates the BELIEFS of others, similar to violating
Christian or Muslims beliefs, before you would see it is discriminatory. Most people can't see that,
so it is passed off as a tax, and considered voted on by Congress and approved by Courts.
Even if you agreed with the content of the bill, I still believe this should be protested on PRINCIPLE.
Otherwise, it is like allowing bills to be passed as long as they mesh with the majority religion,
and only protesting when it violates the majority religion but not the religion of other groups that "don't count."
That is a dangerous precedent, and I can't help but question the political competency of leaders who can't
see this bias going on, and aren't willing to defend the creeds of the people whose beliefs are violated and excluded,
penalized and discriminated against.
Even if I agree with people accessing health care in this manner if they so choose,
I believe the mandates should only apply to people who CHOOSE to participate in the public option
and should not be REQUIRED of all people to participate in.
Citizens retain a free choice where
no crime has been committed and there has been no due process by govt to justify depriving liberties.
^ If this isn't inherent by the Constitution directly, then it still is defensible as a CREED that is protected by law.
And if that isn't inherent by the Constitution directly, then THAT is still a defendable CREED protected by law.
People who don't recognize this, don't understand the meaning and BELIEFS behind the Constitution,
and don't understand the reason half the nation is not represented by this bill. So how can anyone "lead and
claim to represent the nation" without understanding how this bill violates the beliefs of half the population?