There is an interesting controversy brewing over the current version of the health care bill in which Amish families are exempted from the mandatory coverage. Other groups may also receive exemptions.
For some Americans who do not want to pay for health insurance (but face a fine under the law), the exemptions are likely to trigger challenges. Why should an Amish person be allowed exemption, but not someone with political or philosophical opposition to the insurance?
The Amish do use medical facilities and regular doctors, but they pay in cash. They believe that such care is the primary responsibility of their church.
The question is why religious conscientious objectors are given exemptions but not secular conscientious objectors. There are plenty of people who have profound objections to this plan that are not religious based. Is it far to allow only faith-based objectors to get exemptions so that some Christians can apply but not Cato members?
Congress can probably prevail in such distinctions (much like conscientious objectors to the draft), but it raises in my view a legitimate question of fairness.
For the story, click here.
Actually 30%er, I don’t believe there is a right to exist. Once here you have the right to be secure in your person and to pursue your goals and dreams. But the right to exist implies that I must feed, house and cloth you. I don’t believe that is part of the deal. You must feed, house and cloth yourself.
Shore can sista, cus you caint be my sista from the game they call fista, unless sumbody stoppeded at the sferms bank on da way. But dens youd be my artaficia sista from anutter mista.
Can I be your sister from another mister?
Byron, you know I love you. Your my brother from another mother.
The new mandate under the health care bill seems to me to be maybe not unconstitutional (don’t know I’m not a constitutional expert) but it sure seems to go against the grain of it.
I don’t mean the idea of giving health care coverage to every American through extending Medicare like they were originally talking. That’s fine. But compelling every American to purchase some private industries product???
Where is that allocated for in the Constitution? The republicans cry about not wanting socialism but it seems like they don’t have a problem with fascism. Remember it was the republicans who put that part in. The part that compels each American to purchase a crappy product from a private industry.
The nonsense that likening it unto auto insurance is laughable. Driving a car is a privilege. Existing is a right.
I shouldn’t be told by my government that I HAVE to purchase a crappy product from a private company just to exist.
The bill started out good but the republicans made sure that the bill won’t help anyone except maybe a handful of the poorest, and won’t lower insurance costs to make them affordable (do you have any idea how expensive insurance is for a self employed individual?) and worse, rewards the insurance companies for raping us for all these years by compelling every American to purchase their crappy product.
I hope this bill fails too, but not for the reason the republicans want it to fail. I hope it fails so they write a REAL health care bill that will extend medicare to everyone.
Bdaman:
I am cut to the kwik that you don’t agree with me. You are harsher than Buddha in your opprobrium.
Gyges:
I agree, the system needs fixing. Go take a look at John Stossel’s first show, it was about health care reform and was thought provoking. He had the president of Whole Foods Market as a guest and he had some good things to say.
I honestly don’t think government can do this properly but the insurance industry needs to be reformed as well.
Personally I think we need more competition and less government regulation of the industry. We have government regulation now and it doesn’t appear to be helping us. As far as people who cant pay, add a surcharge to your policy cost and help insure the people who cannot afford a policy on their own.
Byron,
I should mention that I’m in general opposed to the current “reform”. The current plan is essentially just making EVERYONE participate in a broken system instead of fixing the system. You’re right about this being a case of the Congress doing something halfway, you’re just wrong about which half they’re doing.
rcampbell:
so you are for people starving to death and dying of exposure?
You are correct they get health care (very good to) through their work. They don’t want it taxed and they apparently want to keep their private health care and not have it taxed.
So if they don’t want to be taxed on a premium plan (and they want to keep a private plan), why should my private sector plan get taxed and not theirs? And if they don’t want a government run plan because theirs is better, why would I want it?
Seems to me it should be good enough for everyone or are some pigs more equal than others?
And actually I am neither anti-union nor pro-monarchy. If people wish to form a united front to deal with management that is their right. I think you would call it freedom of association.
As far as being pro-monarchy, how do you get that out of anything I have written? Just curious.
Yea Byron, what Gyges and Rc said. That will be the last time I agree with you on anything, see what you done did now.
rcampbell,
Should those who are non-union, who accepted a better healthcare plan, in lieu of a pay raise, also be exempt?
Byron,
Because there’s a difference between “Health insurance” and “Health Care?”
Health insurance is an industry that arose to help defray the cost of health care over time. A better (but hardly perfect) analogy than food would be the fire departments, which are a way to defray the cost of putting out a house fire over time.
“…And if it is so great why dont unions want it”?
It’s hard to know whether you’ve deliberately misrepresented the unions’ position or you just don’t know what it is. The unions objected to having the better-than-average healthcare benefit taxed. Their feeling was that they had working cooperatively with management and accepted these benefit in lieu of wage increases.
That your anti-union, pro-monarchy posturing is shared by tootie and bdaman is no surprise.
At least the Amish are real Teamsters.
I second Byron
Byron: Exactly.
Exempt the Amish, Unions, Congress and other special interest groups. Why bother even having a bill at this point.
And if it is so great why dont unions want it?
If it isnt good enough for unions and the Amish I know I dont want it either.
If your health is so important and needs to be paid for by the federal government (actually we are paying and it isnt free) I say why not food? You actually need food to live, health care really doesnt matter if you starve to death.
So let’s really take care of people and provide free food to everyone. Why stop at free health care? Food is actually more important. So why health care and not food? And free utilities, again health care doesnt really matter if you freeze to death and die of heat stroke.
Leave it to the government to do things in half measures.
Are other religion’s exempted?
Sure does open the door though. Of course Rasta’s have claimed that for years but still get arrested.
Lets see, my religion prevents me from participating in this health care plan. Sorry sir, here’s your fine.
Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect 200 Dollars , go directly to jail.
I hope I get one of those get out of jail free cards.
I am not to sure that this is not unfair. Are other religion exempted?
If you think about it, Insurance of any kind is gambling. You are betting that you are not going to get sick and the insurance company is betting that you are. Or is that vice a versa?
The bottom line is that is why some may object to this. And gambling is a sin. Ok, I drive I guess that is a gamble too, but hey, I am not Amish.
This, in part, goes to the lie leftists like to promote that health care (specifically via the feds) is a “right”.
How can it be a right if law abiding citizens can be exempt from it?
I understand rights as being something unalienable (government cannot give them out or revoke).
I also understand that under this Marxist health-care scheme proposed by democrats, some will be denied medical services that they could have had BEFORE the Marxist scheme. How can any law abiding person be denied something democrats claim is a right?
What a pack of liars they are.