The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: tt11758 on April 20, 2010, 11:09:28 AM
-
Something ocurred to me this morning that I have yet to hear addressed regarding the health care
debacle bill that was recently signed into law.
The law, as I understand it, will require people, under threat of prosecution, to purchase health insurance. What about people who refuse to make that purchase for religious reasons? Christian Scientists come to mind, but it could affect other religions, as well. Are these people still going to be required to purchase health insurance, contrary to their religious beliefs? If so, doesn't that render the law unconstitutional due to a violation of the First Amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Those words seem pretty simple and unambiguous to me (but then, so does, "shall not be infringed").
Not being a student of Constitutional law, or a lawyer, I find this a fascinating scenario, and would be curious to see what others here think about the issue. (God help me, I'm even talking about you, FQ) ;D
-
These are the questions being asked by the States Governments that have file suit against this bill.
More information will follow. Here in MA, they can't prosecute you but they will withhold any deductions on your state income tax and prevent you from getting a tax refund.
-
These are the questions being asked by the States Governments that have file suit against this bill.
More information will follow. Here in MA, they can't prosecute you but they will withhold any deductions on your state income tax and prevent you from getting a tax refund.
But isn't that, in itself, "prohibiting the free exercise" of those with religious reasons to decline?
-
But isn't that, in itself, "prohibiting the free exercise" of those with religious reasons to decline?
I would think so, but up here, our rights aren't the concern of the state legislature. They make it up as they go and if they don't do it, the Supreme Judicial Court will do it for them!
Romney signed the law, he didn't write it. I do hold him responsible none the less!
-
Amish, Muslims to be excused from Obamacare mandate
The Senate health care bill just signed contains some exemptions to the "pay-or-play" mandate requiring purchase of Obamacare-approved health insurance or payment of a penalty fine. As Fox News has pointed out, for instance, the Amish are excused from the mandate:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/16/health-care-mandate-applies-amish/
So while most Americans would be required to sign up with insurance companies or government insurance plans, the church would serve as something of an informal insurance plan for the Amish.
Law experts say that kind of exemption withstands scrutiny.
"Here the statute is going to say that people who are conscientiously opposed to paying for health insurance don't have to do it where the conscientious objection arises from religion," said Mark Tushnet a Harvard law professor. "And that's perfectly constitutional."
Apparently, this exemption will apply similarly to believers in Islam, which considers health insurance - and, for that matter, any form of risk insurance - to be haraam (forbidden).
Steve Gilbert of Sweetness & Light calls our attention to the probability that Muslims will also be exempt. According to a March 23 publication on an authoritative Islamic Web site managed by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, various fatwas (religious decrees) absolutely forbid Muslim participation in any sort of health care or other risk insurance:
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/113924/insurance
Health insurance is haraam like other types of commercial insurance, because it is based on ambiguity, gambling and riba (usury). This is what is stated in fatwas by the senior scholars.
In Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa'imah (15/277) there is a quotation of a statement of the Council of Senior Scholars concerning the prohibition on insurance and why it is haraam:
It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa'imah (15/251):
Firstly: Commercial insurance of all types is haraam because it involves ambiguity, riba, uncertainty, gambling and consuming people's wealth unlawfully, and other shar'i
Secondly: It is not permissible for the Muslim to get involved with insurance companies by working in administration or otherwise, because working in them comes under the heading of cooperating in sin and transgression, and Allaah forbids that as He says: "but do not help one another in sin and transgression. And fear Allaah. Verily, Allaah is Severe in punishment"
[al-Maa'idah 5:2]. End quote.
So, it turns out that observant Muslims are not only strictly forbidden from buying any health insurance under the ObamaCare mandate, but may also not even work for any company that provides such insurance or any other form of commercial insurance.
It is not made clear whether or not it is religiously okay to accept "free" non-insured medical care such as that offered in hospital ERs and to some who are covered by Medicaid.
-
Ok, so they're exempt from buying the insurance. But what about paying the extra taxes that will be required to keep the government care system afloat? Isn't the compulsory taxation a violation of their religious freedoms?
Not trying to be argumentative, I'm just writing these thoughts as they occur to me.
-
It seems to me that it shouldn't matter what your reasons are. I don't see how the government has ANY authority to force anyone to buy anything. I know that they are using the regulatory clause to get away with it, but haven't they already perverted this clause beyond recognition?
The way I understand it, the constitution grants congress the ability to regulate commerce between the states. This was simply so that you couldn't make a better deal to one state and not another. This was to keep things fair for any commerce that happened between the states. I can pretty much guarantee that the founders never meant for the feds to be able to regulate and tax every aspect of our lives.
I don't see how this monstrosity er wonderful bill could ever be constitutional.
-
Not trying to be argumentative, I'm just writing these thoughts as they occur to me.
Well! There's the problem! The Government no longer requires conscious thought.
Stop it TT....
-
It is not made clear whether or not it is religiously okay to accept "free" non-insured medical care such as that offered in hospital ERs and to some who are covered by Medicaid.
I recently watched a video, probably posted here, where a woman reporter interviewed a Muslim cleric and one of the questions she asked him was why he accepted money form a system of government he wanted to overthrow.
His answer was basically .... Allah says to take the money. If the infidels what to contribute to help us overthrow them, let them.
-
Well! There's the problem! The Government no longer requires conscious thought.
Stop it TT....
In fact, it is prohibited.
The fact that they have already excluded certain religious groups in the bill makes it obvious they know it is wrong. They just excluded the groups with the best lobbyists (which points to another problem).
-
In fact, it is prohibited.
The fact that they have already excluded certain religious groups in the bill makes it obvious they know it is wrong. They just excluded the groups with the best lobbyists (which points to another problem).
You did notice that the Unions are exempt also. >:(
-
I'm going to start a church...
lets see my list of commandments...
Thou shall not let gun metal rust
thou shall not run out of ammo, ever
thou shall not pay for goverment health care
thou shall not let thy women run around clothed
Thou shall not wear spandex if over 120 lbs
thou shall not be with out a gun
thou shall tell your goverment to GTFO daily
Ugly women shall wear paper bag over head
thy gun is always loaded
Thy eyes and ear are my temple, thou shall always protect them while worshiping
-
Amen TAB ! ;D
-
Something ocurred to me this morning that I have yet to hear addressed regarding the health care debacle bill that was recently signed into law.
The law, as I understand it, will require people, under threat of prosecution, to purchase health insurance. What about people who refuse to make that purchase for religious reasons? Christian Scientists come to mind, but it could affect other religions, as well. Are these people still going to be required to purchase health insurance, contrary to their religious beliefs? If so, doesn't that render the law unconstitutional due to a violation of the First Amendment?
Those words seem pretty simple and unambiguous to me (but then, so does, "shall not be infringed").
Not being a student of Constitutional law, or a lawyer, I find this a fascinating scenario, and would be curious to see what others here think about the issue. (God help me, I'm even talking about you, FQ) ;D
Just noticed your post. On the 1A, its a bit sketchy. The law allows an adult to refuse medical treatment against their will. It des not allow them to make that call for a child (appropriately so). It is far more nebulous on medical powers of attorney for say one Christian Scientist to refuse treatment for a spouse, but it tends to lean toward the right to deny treatment. So, we can see here a sitution that MIGHT allow conscientious objectors to bow out, but still have pay for their kids.
Thing is though, I'm not sure this applies to insurance. If you work for a company or the government your insurance comes out of your wages directly or indirectly. There is no precedent I am aware of that says you can demand the difference in cash to avoid paying for what you won't use. You can either use it or not. I don't doubt there will be a suit, but I doubt it will go anywhere. If it does, expect to see a whole slew of converts to Chritian Science. ;)
FQ13
-
I read somewhere that Menonites or Quakers along with Muslims are exempt from the bill.
-
where do I sign up TAB
-
I read somewhere that Menonites or Quakers along with Muslims are exempt from the bill.
you might have read it in Mette's post on page 1 of this thread (which she copied from her own thread on her topic).
Amish and Muslims are exempt.
-
Just noticed your post. On the 1A, its a bit sketchy. The law allows an adult to refuse medical treatment against their will. It des not allow them to make that call for a child (appropriately so). It is far more nebulous on medical powers of attorney for say one Christian Scientist to refuse treatment for a spouse, but it tends to lean toward the right to deny treatment. So, we can see here a sitution that MIGHT allow conscientious objectors to bow out, but still have pay for their kids.
Thing is though, I'm not sure this applies to insurance. If you work for a company or the government your insurance comes out of your wages directly or indirectly. There is no precedent I am aware of that says you can demand the difference in cash to avoid paying for what you won't use. You can either use it or not. I don't doubt there will be a suit, but I doubt it will go anywhere. If it does, expect to see a whole slew of converts to Chritian Science. ;)
FQ13
While the highlighted section is accurate, you fail to take into account that an employee may opt out of the coverage if he or she is required to pay a portion of the premium. And that is from whence my question arose.......the government forcing someone to use THEIR money to pay for a product against which their religious beliefs fall.
-
While the highlighted section is accurate, you fail to take into account that an employee may opt out of the coverage if he or she is required to pay a portion of the premium. And that is from whence my question arose.......the government forcing someone to use THEIR money to pay for a product against their will which their religious beliefs fall.
Slight change for correctness.
The federal government nor any state government has this authority. If you let this stand then where does it end? The government mandating that we all use a certain bank? Mandates that we all buy vehicles from GM? All because we the people own these entities? (Also against our will)