Yet another question for supporters of the mandate.....

[rightwinger]

[MENTION=32558]Luddly Neddite[/MENTION]
[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]
[MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]
[MENTION=20155]paperview[/MENTION]
[MENTION=20394]rdean[/MENTION]

If anyone can please help answer this, I am struggling to understand. Please help!

OK. Let's start with Government mandating religion. Blatant violation of the first amendment.

Let's start by reading the instructions. I specifically said I wasn't looking for technical excuses. I understand that forcing us to join state-approved religions is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. And that, according to Robert's Court, forcing us to buy state-approved insurance isn't. I think that should change. In my opinion, we need something like the first amendment that protects our economic freedom in the same way our religious freedom is protected.

But what I'm trying to understand is how some of you can recognize that Congress forcing us to join state-approved religions would be wrong, yet have somehow convinced yourselves that forcing us to buy insurance from their corporate sponsors is fine.

It could be argued that religious association strengthens society, providing mutual support and a moral foundation often missing from those who skip it. I'm sure we could dig up evidence showing that children raised without a religious foundation are more likely to get into trouble and require public assistance. Indeed, many people believe these things and would, if not for the first amendment, be eager to force their idea of responsible social life on the rest of us via legislation. But we agree as a nation, that government shouldn't have that kind of power and I simply don't see any substantive difference, and no less abuse, in the insurance mandates.

OK, then read the rest of what I posted..

Now, let's look at healthcare. Getting sick is bad. Everyone agrees with that. But who should pay? It would be nice if everyone picked up their own but a simple hospital stay will cost over $100K. Even Emily would have a hard time picking up that tab. So what do we do? Require everyone to have insurance and provide government assistance to those who can't afford it

Healthcare is essential to the General Welfare of the people. Those without access to healthcare die. Healthcare bills can bankrupt a family

No such claim can be made about religion

 

[dblack]

OK. Let's start with Government mandating religion. Blatant violation of the first amendment.

Let's start by reading the instructions. I specifically said I wasn't looking for technical excuses. I understand that forcing us to join state-approved religions is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. And that, according to Robert's Court, forcing us to buy state-approved insurance isn't. I think that should change. In my opinion, we need something like the first amendment that protects our economic freedom in the same way our religious freedom is protected.

But what I'm trying to understand is how some of you can recognize that Congress forcing us to join state-approved religions would be wrong, yet have somehow convinced yourselves that forcing us to buy insurance from their corporate sponsors is fine.

It could be argued that religious association strengthens society, providing mutual support and a moral foundation often missing from those who skip it. I'm sure we could dig up evidence showing that children raised without a religious foundation are more likely to get into trouble and require public assistance. Indeed, many people believe these things and would, if not for the first amendment, be eager to force their idea of responsible social life on the rest of us via legislation. But we agree as a nation, that government shouldn't have that kind of power and I simply don't see any substantive difference, and no less abuse, in the insurance mandates.

OK, then read the rest of what I posted..

I did. It was no different than the rationalizations I proposed for mandating religion.

Now, let's look at healthcare. Getting sick is bad. Everyone agrees with that. But who should pay? It would be nice if everyone picked up their own but a simple hospital stay will cost over $100K. Even Emily would have a hard time picking up that tab. So what do we do? Require everyone to have insurance and provide government assistance to those who can't afford it

Healthcare is essential to the General Welfare of the people. Those without access to healthcare die. Healthcare bills can bankrupt a family

No such claim can be made about religion

Actually, it can. Such a claim is made all the time. I suspect even a majority of people in the country agree with it. But, thankfully, the Constitution prevents the majority from forcing its religious preferences on the rest of us. I see no reason why insurance companies should have power that we deny to churches.

 

[billyerock1991]

I raised this issue in another thread, but didn't want to hijack it - so here we go....

For those of you who support the individual mandate (or, for that matter, the employer mandate), why is it OK for government to dictate that we all buy insurance, even telling us which companies we can buy it from and what kind of insurance we are required to purchase, yet not ok for them to dictate our religious practices?

(BR) the government doesn't tell you what insurance companies you must buy from ... they give you a list of all the insurance companies out their and all the plans these insurance companies have to offer ... as for the other thing of about the mandate ...

The mandate has something called the "shared responsibility payment" which Congress labelled a penalty.
for you to ask about religious practice, if you aren't a church you can't force your religious practices on others, at all, it violates the constitution
The two arguments proposed by the Government were ruled valid or invalid. Neither of those two were a "mandate" argument.

I'm not asking for technical authorization. I realize the Court has signed off on the mandates and, according to our current system, they pass Constitutional muster. But how do you justify the state's authority to force us to do business with their corporate cronies? I'd hope you'd all be appalled at the idea of the state forcing us to join government authorized religions, and tithe to them monthly - yet you seem to be ok with the idea of them forcing us to join insurance plans and pay them, even if we don't want the services they offer. What gives?

(BR) finally you aren't paying the government anything...you are paying a private insurance company to have health care ... where ever you get this notion you are forced to do anything is beyond me ... if you don't want to buy a private plan then don't.. but deal with being taxed for it its that simple you have a choice buy health care or get taxed

 

[dblack]

I raised this issue in another thread, but didn't want to hijack it - so here we go....

For those of you who support the individual mandate (or, for that matter, the employer mandate), why is it OK for government to dictate that we all buy insurance, even telling us which companies we can buy it from and what kind of insurance we are required to purchase, yet not ok for them to dictate our religious practices?

the government doesn't tell you what insurance companies you must buy from ... they give you a list of all the insurance companies out their and all the plans these insurance companies have to offer ...

Of course they do. They only license certain companies to offer insurance, and they designate what their plans must cover.

The mandate has something called the "shared responsibility payment" which Congress labelled a penalty.
for you to ask about religious practice, if you aren't a church you can't force your religious practices on others, at all, it violates the constitution [/B]
The two arguments proposed by the Government were ruled valid or invalid. Neither of those two were a "mandate" argument.

Can you rephrase that? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

finally you aren't paying the government anything...you are paying a private insurance company to have health care ... where ever you get this notion you are forced to do anything is beyond me ... if you don't want to buy a private plan then don't.. but deal with being taxed for it its that simple you have a choice buy health care or get taxed

Sorry, but that's idiotic. If you don't do as your told you are penalized. That's always the way government forces you to do things. It's always a choice between following the law or being penalized. So what?

In any case, why would it be any different if we allowed government to 'tax' us for refusing to join a religion?

 

[emilynghiem]

[MENTION=32558]Luddly Neddite[/MENTION]
[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]
[MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]
[MENTION=20155]paperview[/MENTION]
[MENTION=20394]rdean[/MENTION]

If anyone can please help answer this, I am struggling to understand. Please help!

I raised this issue in another thread, but didn't want to hijack it - so here we go....

For those of you who support the individual mandate (or, for that matter, the employer mandate), why is it OK for government to dictate that we all buy insurance, even telling us which companies we can buy it from and what kind of insurance we are required to purchase, yet not ok for them to dictate our religious practices?

I'm not asking for technical authorization. I realize the Court has signed off on the mandates and, according to our current system, they pass Constitutional muster. But how do you justify the state's authority to force us to do business with their corporate cronies? I'd hope you'd all be appalled at the idea of the state forcing us to join government authorized religions, and tithe to them monthly - yet you seem to be ok with the idea of them forcing us to join insurance plans and pay them, even if we don't want the services they offer. What gives?

OK. Let's start with Government mandating religion. Blatant violation of the first amendment

Now, let's look at healthcare. Getting sick is bad. Everyone agrees with that. But who should pay? It would be nice if everyone picked up their own but a simple hospital stay will cost over $100K. Even Emily would have a hard time picking up that tab. So what do we do? Require everyone to have insurance and provide government assistance to those who can't afford it

1. Close, but there is nothing to compel that INSURANCE be the required course of action as the "only way to cover costs" especially where it has been shown that putting the same amount of money into other forms of business could cover more of the costs than insurance does. All that is based on personal belief or preference or business experience and choice.

There is no compelling reason to make insurance the "only option" and penalize all other ways of paying.

2. this still does not address going after the actual people incurring the costs.
people who have not committed any fraud or imposed on anyone else are
being "DEPRIVED of liberty" as if we already committed a crime or refused to pay.
it is still missing the target and shooting so broadly it is imposing in other ways.

again it is up to people's beliefs and preferences which imposition is worse.

with abortion, some people prefer freedom to choose over the loss of unborn children.
with health care, some people prefer freedom to choose over whatever lives or costs would be saved. some people are not willing to give up their freedom to government in either case.

so why do we legalize choice in one case but penalize it in the other? purely subjective,
and arguably political discrimination by creed since the division is predominantly by party.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why not just refuse treatment for those who can't pay? There are hundreds of programs granting insurance coverage for those on the low end of the income scale so they are covered. Why do we insist on letting people skate?

That's the root of the problem, free treatment for those who can afford to buy their own policies.

1. why not go after criminals convicted of crimes and not paying back their costs, then.
why are we letting them skate at taxpayers expense? it's not like we don't know who they are since in those cases we do, and they are in state custody. why not reimburse those costs and use that pay for health care or microloans to help people pay without handouts?

2. why not reward citizens, charities, businesses and other programs for providing health care in whatever ways they work best? why not leave insurance as an equal choice in the plans? why is it the only way to avoid penalties?

if the issue is to make sure people pay their own way,
what business is it of govt HOW people pay for it?

I believe in free spiritual healing and charity, does that mean THAT should be mandated?

 

[Antares]

I raised this issue in another thread, but didn't want to hijack it - so here we go....

For those of you who support the individual mandate (or, for that matter, the employer mandate), why is it OK for government to dictate that we all buy insurance, even telling us which companies we can buy it from and what kind of insurance we are required to purchase, yet not ok for them to dictate our religious practices?

the government doesn't tell you what insurance companies you must buy from ... they give you a list of all the insurance companies out their and all the plans these insurance companies have to offer ...

Of course they do. They only license certain companies to offer insurance, and they designate what their plans must cover.

The mandate has something called the "shared responsibility payment" which Congress labelled a penalty.
for you to ask about religious practice, if you aren't a church you can't force your religious practices on others, at all, it violates the constitution [/B]
The two arguments proposed by the Government were ruled valid or invalid. Neither of those two were a "mandate" argument.

Can you rephrase that? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

finally you aren't paying the government anything...you are paying a private insurance company to have health care ... where ever you get this notion you are forced to do anything is beyond me ... if you don't want to buy a private plan then don't.. but deal with being taxed for it its that simple you have a choice buy health care or get taxed

Sorry, but that's idiotic. If you don't do as your told you are penalized. That's always the way government forces you to do things. It's always a choice between following the law or being penalized. So what?

In any case, why would it be any different if we allowed government to 'tax' us for refusing to join a religion?

Billy will never give you a straight answer, he isn't capable.
He says "sources" are a waste time so he will never provide one of those either.

All you will get is name calling and his self proclaimed always "right" opinion.
Seriously, it is like debating an onion.

 

[emilynghiem]

the government doesn't tell you what insurance companies you must buy from ... they give you a list of all the insurance companies out their and all the plans these insurance companies have to offer ... as for the other thing of about the mandate ...

1. do we agree that the federal govt IS requiring that citizens BUY INSURANCE.
And that is contested as outside the limits of federal government, whether this is imposed as a tax or whatever the structure is.

Before the ACA, do you agree that citizens had LIBERTY to buy or not buy insurance, and not face any penalty, tax or fine by federal govt?

But now, there is a fine or tax penalty if we don't buy insurance NOW, not when we want it or need it, but even in advance of needing it.

And we must report this on our taxes or we get fined for it.

How is that NOT government forcing people either to BUY INSURANCE (which previously was a FREE CHOICE WITHOUT Penalty for choosing to pay for costs other ways)
or pay a fine/tax TO GOVERNMENT (ie not a choice to pay money to medical schools or charities helping to serve the poor, but only paying for either INSURANCE or paying the FEDERAL GOVT as the ONLY TWO CHOICES)

finally you aren't paying the government anything...you are paying a private insurance company to have health care ... where ever you get this notion you are forced to do anything is beyond me ... if you don't want to buy a private plan then don't.. but deal with being taxed for it its that simple you have a choice buy health care or get taxed

NO the choice is NOT open to pay for "health care"
the choices are ONLY BUY "INSURANCE" or "PAY GOVT"

If other choices of "health care" were allowed without fines
WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS!!!

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, THE WHOLE CONFLICT BEING OPPOSED.

ACA does *NOT* just require people to "buy health care" and "leave it open to free choice"

it DICTATES those choices and restricts them to just INSURANCE or FEDERAL GOVT

Anything else people want to use to pay for health care is FINED by PENALTY.

So Billy this is what we mean by comparing it with religions that force only "one way"
and don't allow freedom of choice. What is the difference between forcing the belief that INSURANCE is the "only way to pay for health care," or else you pay a fine to government.

If political parties did this with a religious belief, like saying Christian healing prayer works BETTER than AA so everyone has to use THAT or you get fined, they would scream.

Do you understand there are OTHER CHOICES that are NOT a crime
besides either paying for insurance or "pushing costs onto the public."

those are NOT the only two choices, yet any other choices is FINED by federal government.

how is that fair?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

OK. Let's start with Government mandating religion. Blatant violation of the first amendment.

Let's start by reading the instructions. I specifically said I wasn't looking for technical excuses. I understand that forcing us to join state-approved religions is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. And that, according to Robert's Court, forcing us to buy state-approved insurance isn't. I think that should change. In my opinion, we need something like the first amendment that protects our economic freedom in the same way our religious freedom is protected.

But what I'm trying to understand is how some of you can recognize that Congress forcing us to join state-approved religions would be wrong, yet have somehow convinced yourselves that forcing us to buy insurance from their corporate sponsors is fine.

It could be argued that religious association strengthens society, providing mutual support and a moral foundation often missing from those who skip it. I'm sure we could dig up evidence showing that children raised without a religious foundation are more likely to get into trouble and require public assistance. Indeed, many people believe these things and would, if not for the first amendment, be eager to force their idea of responsible social life on the rest of us via legislation. But we agree as a nation, that government shouldn't have that kind of power and I simply don't see any substantive difference, and no less abuse, in the insurance mandates.

OK, then read the rest of what I posted..

Now, let's look at healthcare. Getting sick is bad. Everyone agrees with that. But who should pay? It would be nice if everyone picked up their own but a simple hospital stay will cost over $100K. Even Emily would have a hard time picking up that tab. So what do we do? Require everyone to have insurance and provide government assistance to those who can't afford it

Healthcare is essential to the General Welfare of the people. Those without access to healthcare die. Healthcare bills can bankrupt a family

No such claim can be made about religion

How does general welfare turn into specific welfare anyway?

 

[rightwinger]

Let's start by reading the instructions. I specifically said I wasn't looking for technical excuses. I understand that forcing us to join state-approved religions is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. And that, according to Robert's Court, forcing us to buy state-approved insurance isn't. I think that should change. In my opinion, we need something like the first amendment that protects our economic freedom in the same way our religious freedom is protected.

But what I'm trying to understand is how some of you can recognize that Congress forcing us to join state-approved religions would be wrong, yet have somehow convinced yourselves that forcing us to buy insurance from their corporate sponsors is fine.

It could be argued that religious association strengthens society, providing mutual support and a moral foundation often missing from those who skip it. I'm sure we could dig up evidence showing that children raised without a religious foundation are more likely to get into trouble and require public assistance. Indeed, many people believe these things and would, if not for the first amendment, be eager to force their idea of responsible social life on the rest of us via legislation. But we agree as a nation, that government shouldn't have that kind of power and I simply don't see any substantive difference, and no less abuse, in the insurance mandates.

OK, then read the rest of what I posted..

Now, let's look at healthcare. Getting sick is bad. Everyone agrees with that. But who should pay? It would be nice if everyone picked up their own but a simple hospital stay will cost over $100K. Even Emily would have a hard time picking up that tab. So what do we do? Require everyone to have insurance and provide government assistance to those who can't afford it

Healthcare is essential to the General Welfare of the people. Those without access to healthcare die. Healthcare bills can bankrupt a family

No such claim can be made about religion

How does general welfare turn into specific welfare anyway?

No law affects all people equally

Helping people who are desperate helps our society as a whole and is good for the general welfare of our nation

 

[TakeAStepBack]

OK, then read the rest of what I posted..

Now, let's look at healthcare. Getting sick is bad. Everyone agrees with that. But who should pay? It would be nice if everyone picked up their own but a simple hospital stay will cost over $100K. Even Emily would have a hard time picking up that tab. So what do we do? Require everyone to have insurance and provide government assistance to those who can't afford it

Healthcare is essential to the General Welfare of the people. Those without access to healthcare die. Healthcare bills can bankrupt a family

No such claim can be made about religion

How does general welfare turn into specific welfare anyway?

No law affects all people equally

Helping people who are desperate helps our society as a whole and is good for the general welfare of our nation

That's a swing and a miss.
Let me help since you're a leftist and predisposed to changing the definition of words.

gen·er·al adjective \ˈjen-rəl, ˈje-nə-\
: of, relating to, or affecting all the people or things in a group : involving or including many or most people

: relating to the main or major parts of something rather than the details : not specific

—used to indicate that a description relates to an entire person or thing rather than a particular part

Full Definition of GENERAL

1
: involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
2
: involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group <the general equation of a straight line>
3
: not confined by specialization or careful limitation
4
: belonging to the common nature of a group of like individuals : generic
5
a : applicable to or characteristic of the majority of individuals involved : prevalent
b : concerned or dealing with universal rather than particular aspects
6
: relating to, determined by, or concerned with main elements rather than limited details <bearing a general resemblance to the original>
7
: holding superior rank or taking precedence over others similarly titled <the general manager>


As it turns out, general is an antonym of specific. So i'll ask again, how does general turn into specific?

 

[emilynghiem]

OK. Let's start with Government mandating religion. Blatant violation of the first amendment.

Let's start by reading the instructions. I specifically said I wasn't looking for technical excuses. I understand that forcing us to join state-approved religions is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. And that, according to Robert's Court, forcing us to buy state-approved insurance isn't. I think that should change. In my opinion, we need something like the first amendment that protects our economic freedom in the same way our religious freedom is protected.

But what I'm trying to understand is how some of you can recognize that Congress forcing us to join state-approved religions would be wrong, yet have somehow convinced yourselves that forcing us to buy insurance from their corporate sponsors is fine.

It could be argued that religious association strengthens society, providing mutual support and a moral foundation often missing from those who skip it. I'm sure we could dig up evidence showing that children raised without a religious foundation are more likely to get into trouble and require public assistance. Indeed, many people believe these things and would, if not for the first amendment, be eager to force their idea of responsible social life on the rest of us via legislation. But we agree as a nation, that government shouldn't have that kind of power and I simply don't see any substantive difference, and no less abuse, in the insurance mandates.

OK, then read the rest of what I posted..

Now, let's look at healthcare. Getting sick is bad. Everyone agrees with that. But who should pay? It would be nice if everyone picked up their own but a simple hospital stay will cost over $100K. Even Emily would have a hard time picking up that tab. So what do we do? Require everyone to have insurance and provide government assistance to those who can't afford it

Healthcare is essential to the General Welfare of the people. Those without access to healthcare die. Healthcare bills can bankrupt a family

No such claim can be made about religion

Dear Rightwinger:
Health care can be provided in many ways, through charity, schools, businesses, etc.
There is nothing that compels health care to be managed by government,
much less restricted to only TWO choices: either buying insurance or paying fines to govt.

And yes, you can argue that spiritual or religious beliefs
are essential to one's mental and physical health.

Forgiveness and faith are shown to correlate with lower stress and better health,
while unforgiveness is linked to greater risk of stress-related diseases.

In the methods of spiritual healing used to cure people of diseases from cancer
to demonic sickness, these therapies rely on identifying unforgiven issues in the spiritual history
of the person or their family, and helping to forgive and let go of those blockages
so the mind and body can heal itself. This is a natural process that follows science.
it can be PROVEN how the healing process works by medical research studies.

All people have a mind/body connection that affects not only our physical and mental health,
but the health in our relationships with others. The spiritual connection IS a part of human nature and health,
whether you believe in it or call it something else. Because it is faith based it can't be forced on people,
but science has demonstrated the connection and effect on health and healing. This is well known,
whether you believe it or not; and if not, no one has the right to force it on you like the ACA is pushed as mandatory law.

Nobody can mandate or regulate forgiveness, it must be freely chosen and the
healing effects of it are voluntary to go through therapy or recovery.

So neither can government regulate "health care" without imposing on
people's beliefs.

Rightwinger, if we AGREED to compromise our beliefs for the greater good, sure,
we can enforce this bill even if it's isn't perfect; but people DON'T AGREE. So WHICH are the parties or officials in government with MORE RIGHT to tell the others
what we should believe in and follow: if both sides disagree with the others' beliefs,
shouldn't it be clear to leave it equally to free choice so nobody is excluded by creed.

All health care choices involve people's beliefs.

You can ask around here, and see how deeply people believe about individual
freedoms, rights, responsibilities and government roles in health care.

These are people's BELIEFS, you can tell because of the differences
and the biases that people can't necessarily choose or change.

If it was just based on information and education, we'd all agree.
But since we don't who has authority to push one set of beliefs on to others,
when there are PLENTY of other choices for paying for and covering health care!

Rightwinger, why are people acting like these insurance mandates are the ONLY
WAY to save lives. How is that different from Prolifers who believe banning choice
is the ONLY WAY to prevent abortion, and don't trust people to prevent it EXCEPT banning it?

If it isn't necessary to BAN abortion as a choice in order to prevent it,
why is it deemed necessary to eliminate and penalize "all other choices for health care"
EXCEPT buying insurance or paying fines to govt?

Where is this leap in logic coming from?
Religious bias perhaps?

Like how some people just don't believe in other choices besides believing in God or Jesus (and all other ways are FALSE WRONG and DON'T COUNT as valid choices or beliefs),
some people don't believe in any other choice to cover health care except Government?
And all other ways of health care are FALSE WRONG and DON'T COUNT as equally valid?

All the church charities and medical nonprofits that provide low cost services and help for free or funded by donations. all those are WRONG or INFERIOR and should be FINED?

 

[Grandma]

I raised this issue in another thread, but didn't want to hijack it - so here we go....

For those of you who support the individual mandate (or, for that matter, the employer mandate), why is it OK for government to dictate that we all buy insurance, even telling us which companies we can buy it from and what kind of insurance we are required to purchase, yet not ok for them to dictate our religious practices?

I'm not asking for technical authorization. I realize the Court has signed off on the mandates and, according to our current system, they pass Constitutional muster. But how do you justify the state's authority to force us to do business with their corporate cronies? I'd hope you'd all be appalled at the idea of the state forcing us to join government authorized religions, and tithe to them monthly - yet you seem to be ok with the idea of them forcing us to join insurance plans and pay them, even if we don't want the services they offer. What gives?

I have a question for you - why is it okay for some mooching deadbeats to skip out on medical bills, leaving the paying customers and taxpayers with your expenses?

Why is it okay for you to come into work sick and infect the whole workplace?

Why the **** should I adhere to your magic sky fairy superstitions? They have nothing to do with healthcare. Didn't Jesus say, "Physician - heal thyself!"? I'm pretty sure that's what I read. I didn't see the godchild mandating what should be covered beyond having his disciples heal the sick at no charge. And occasionally bringing guys back from the dead. Cause god zombies are cool.

 

[oreo]

We'll this is a forced purchase of healthcare. To add insult to injury it's not only that you purchase a policy, but you better have coverage for maternity, drug and alcohol abuse, otherwise your policy will be considered a junk policy and will most certainly be cancelled.

Democrats wisely postponed the employer mandate until after the midterm election, because they now 69 percent of the current employer/employee policies will not meet the new mandates of Obamacare.

 

[william the wie]

We'll this is a forced purchase of healthcare. To add insult to injury it's not only that you purchase a policy, but you better have coverage for maternity, drug and alcohol abuse, otherwise your policy will be considered a junk policy and will most certainly be cancelled.

Democrats wisely postponed the employer mandate until after the midterm election, because they now 69 percent of the current employer/employee policies will not meet the new mandates of Obamacare.

I think you could defend the proposition Reid, Pelosi and Obama are secret members of a great right-wing conspiracy for pinning this piece of shit on the Ds.

 

[bluesman]

I raised this issue in another thread, but didn't want to hijack it - so here we go....

For those of you who support the individual mandate (or, for that matter, the employer mandate), why is it OK for government to dictate that we all buy insurance, even telling us which companies we can buy it from and what kind of insurance we are required to purchase, yet not ok for them to dictate our religious practices?

I'm not asking for technical authorization. I realize the Court has signed off on the mandates and, according to our current system, they pass Constitutional muster. But how do you justify the state's authority to force us to do business with their corporate cronies? I'd hope you'd all be appalled at the idea of the state forcing us to join government authorized religions, and tithe to them monthly - yet you seem to be ok with the idea of them forcing us to join insurance plans and pay them, even if we don't want the services they offer. What gives?

Right now you may not want services but if you have a serious health condition and show up at the emergency room, then you are going to get treated and you will not turn down the treatment. Then, if it is a serious thing like a stroke or heart attack and it costs a couple of hundred thousand dollars for treatment, you will get the treatment and then they will send you a bill. Generally the people who get the treatment in situations like that don't pay the bill and instead will just blow it off or include it in a bankruptcy. Then the hospital has to accept it as a cost of doing business which they pass along to the paying customers; the people who buy insurance. So when people say they want to "opt out", they are being honest. They want to "opt out" of paying for insurance. However, if they get cancer, they will change their tone and show up at the hospital. It is constitutional for states to require you to buy car insurance if you are going to drive a car and according to the Supreme Court, it is constitutional for the government to require that you buy health insurance also.

Personally, I would do some things differently but in my opinion Obama was able to get the law passed because of George W Bush. When we people see that we have trillions to spend overseas then it becomes common sense that we have enough money for poor people to have health insurance. Again, I would have done things a little differently but something definitely needed to be done and the republicans plan was to do nothing. Now the republicans are onboard with the idea of doing something about it but want a different plan. Even if the Republicans get control and change the law, they will not completely gut it. They talk big but when it comes to votes, they are all politicians. Government involvement in healthcare is here to stay and ultimately George W Bush was instrumental in creating the environment where Obama could get the law enacted.

 

[dblack]

I raised this issue in another thread, but didn't want to hijack it - so here we go....

For those of you who support the individual mandate (or, for that matter, the employer mandate), why is it OK for government to dictate that we all buy insurance, even telling us which companies we can buy it from and what kind of insurance we are required to purchase, yet not ok for them to dictate our religious practices?

I'm not asking for technical authorization. I realize the Court has signed off on the mandates and, according to our current system, they pass Constitutional muster. But how do you justify the state's authority to force us to do business with their corporate cronies? I'd hope you'd all be appalled at the idea of the state forcing us to join government authorized religions, and tithe to them monthly - yet you seem to be ok with the idea of them forcing us to join insurance plans and pay them, even if we don't want the services they offer. What gives?

I have a question for you - why is it okay for some mooching deadbeats to skip out on medical bills, leaving the paying customers and taxpayers with your expenses?

It's not.

Why is it okay for you to come into work sick and infect the whole workplace?

It's not.

Why the **** should I adhere to your magic sky fairy superstitions?

You shouldn't. That's the point.

 

[dblack]

Right now you may not want services but if you have a serious health condition and show up at the emergency room, then you are going to get treated and you will not turn down the treatment. Then, if it is a serious thing like a stroke or heart attack and it costs a couple of hundred thousand dollars for treatment, you will get the treatment and then they will send you a bill. Generally the people who get the treatment in situations like that don't pay the bill and instead will just blow it off or include it in a bankruptcy. Then the hospital has to accept it as a cost of doing business which they pass along to the paying customers; the people who buy insurance. So when people say they want to "opt out", they are being honest. They want to "opt out" of paying for insurance. However, if they get cancer, they will change their tone and show up at the hospital.

I'm in favor of sane attempts to deal with people who don't pay their bills. But insurance is only one way - and honestly not a very good way - to pay for health care. It only really makes sense as a backstop for unexpected catastrophes, but we're trying to use it as some kind of general financing scheme. Insurance isn't designed for that.

The question I'm asking here is why is it OK for government to force people sign up and tithe to state-approved insurance companies, but not ok for them to force us to join the religions that most people think are good for us? I don't see much difference in principle.

It is constitutional for states to require you to buy car insurance if you are going to drive a car and according to the Supreme Court, it is constitutional for the government to require that you buy health insurance also.

Right, as I said, I'm aware the Court has signed off on this. I think they were wrong to do so. Do you think they were right? If so, why is it OK for Congress to force us to do business with their cronies, with the very companies who lobbied aggressively and had a profound influence on the legislation? Doesn't that seem corrupt to you? Like a conflict of interest?

Personally, I would do some things differently but in my opinion Obama was able to get the law passed because of George W Bush. When we people see that we have trillions to spend overseas then it becomes common sense that we have enough money for poor people to have health insurance. Again, I would have done things a little differently but something definitely needed to be done and the republicans plan was to do nothing. Now the republicans are onboard with the idea of doing something about it but want a different plan. Even if the Republicans get control and change the law, they will not completely gut it. They talk big but when it comes to votes, they are all politicians. Government involvement in healthcare is here to stay and ultimately George W Bush was instrumental in creating the environment where Obama could get the law enacted.

Oh, I have absolutely no delusions that Republicans will change anything. All you have to do is look at what they've proposed to 'replace' ACA with - it's nearly identical. But that doesn't really address the question.

 

[bluesman]

...The question I'm asking here is why is it OK for government to force people sign up and tithe to state-approved insurance companies, but not ok for them to force us to join the religions that most people think are good for us? I don't see much difference in principle...

I don't know if you really sincerely asking a question as much as trying to make a statement. Calling it a tithe isn't accurate. A tithe is something that people give by choice to a religious organization. I see that you are trying to use logic to show that Obamacare isn't right but I don't think religion is a good example. The constitution specifically says that government cannot sponsor a religion. That is not going to happen and isn't up for debate.

The government does have the right to levy taxes. When the framers wrote the constitution, going to the doctor was a crapshoot. There was just about as much chance as them killing you as saving your life. Technology has moved forward and it is a basic American principle that we Americans have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...". Fast forward to now and it simply isn't an American Christian ideal to let the poor die and the aristocrats live. Healthcare is a life and death type of thing. Regardless of what anybody claims about wanting to opt out, they will opt in if they get sick enough. In some regards it is similar to being forced to buy car insurance. Why should the people who do pay for car insurance have to pay for the accidents of uninsured motorists? Same thing with healthcare, why should the people who pay for insurance have to pay for the freeloaders? When Obama ran for office, he was very open about wanting to change the healthcare law. Everybody knew about that and he won the election and had also been re-elected. He got the law passed and the question of it being constitutional was raised and it went before the Supreme Court and they ruled in favor of Obama. When you talk about freedom of religion, you are basically trying to make a constitutional issue out of it. The constitution sets forth the process for settling constitutional questions and that is what the Supreme Court is there for. It is just how our system works.

 

[Grandma]

the government doesn't tell you what insurance companies you must buy from ... they give you a list of all the insurance companies out their and all the plans these insurance companies have to offer ... as for the other thing of about the mandate ...

1. do we agree that the federal govt IS requiring that citizens BUY INSURANCE.
And that is contested as outside the limits of federal government, whether this is imposed as a tax or whatever the structure is.

Before the ACA, do you agree that citizens had LIBERTY to buy or not buy insurance, and not face any penalty, tax or fine by federal govt?

But now, there is a fine or tax penalty if we don't buy insurance NOW, not when we want it or need it, but even in advance of needing it.

And we must report this on our taxes or we get fined for it.

How is that NOT government forcing people either to BUY INSURANCE (which previously was a FREE CHOICE WITHOUT Penalty for choosing to pay for costs other ways)
or pay a fine/tax TO GOVERNMENT (ie not a choice to pay money to medical schools or charities helping to serve the poor, but only paying for either INSURANCE or paying the FEDERAL GOVT as the ONLY TWO CHOICES)

finally you aren't paying the government anything...you are paying a private insurance company to have health care ... where ever you get this notion you are forced to do anything is beyond me ... if you don't want to buy a private plan then don't.. but deal with being taxed for it its that simple you have a choice buy health care or get taxed

NO the choice is NOT open to pay for "health care"
the choices are ONLY BUY "INSURANCE" or "PAY GOVT"

If other choices of "health care" were allowed without fines
WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS!!!

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, THE WHOLE CONFLICT BEING OPPOSED.

ACA does *NOT* just require people to "buy health care" and "leave it open to free choice"

it DICTATES those choices and restricts them to just INSURANCE or FEDERAL GOVT

Anything else people want to use to pay for health care is FINED by PENALTY.

So Billy this is what we mean by comparing it with religions that force only "one way"
and don't allow freedom of choice. What is the difference between forcing the belief that INSURANCE is the "only way to pay for health care," or else you pay a fine to government.

If political parties did this with a religious belief, like saying Christian healing prayer works BETTER than AA so everyone has to use THAT or you get fined, they would scream.

Do you understand there are OTHER CHOICES that are NOT a crime
besides either paying for insurance or "pushing costs onto the public."

those are NOT the only two choices, yet any other choices is FINED by federal government.

how is that fair?

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]

Emily, read this:

The fines, the individual mandate, the forcing of everyone to sign up, however you want to look at it was one of the republican ideas, lobbied for by insurance companies.

Why?

Because not everyone needs a lot of medical care. Younger people tend to require less expensive medical attention than the cost of their insurance. Older people tend to require more expensive treatments than the cost of their insurance. See, if insurance companies only insure the frail and chronically ill, they'll go bankrupt. Having generally healthy people in the program keeps it solvent.

A good idea, it'll keep the program going until we advance to single payer.