I have a question about the health care bill

[JC5123]

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. 

[TAB]

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

[tombogan03884]

Amen TAB !   

[fightingquaker13]

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)   

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

[Dagger53]

I read somewhere that Menonites or Quakers along with Muslims are exempt from the bill.

[Sponsor]

[philw]

where do I sign up TAB

[Solus]

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.

[tt11758]

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.

[JC5123]

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)