No Obamacare ~ God will protect you

[Exotix]

Judge tosses suit against Obama health care plan.

Today

Judge tosses suit against Obama health care plan - U.S. news - msnbc.com



WASHINGTON ~ A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit claiming that President Barack Obama's requirement that all Americans have health insurance violates the religious freedom of those who rely on God to protect them.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler in Washington dismissed a lawsuit filed by the American Center for Law and Justice, a Christian legal group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson, on behalf of five Americans who can afford health insurance but have chosen for years not to buy it.

The case was one of several lawsuits filed against Obama's requirement that Americans either buy health insurance or pay a penalty, beginning in 2014.

Kessler is the third Democratic-appointed judge to dismiss a challenge, while two Republican-appointed judges have ruled part or all of the law unconstitutional.
Kessler wrote that the Supreme Court will need to settle the constitutional issues.

Three of the plaintiffs — Margaret Peggy Lee Mead of Hillsborough, N.C., Charles Edward Lee of San Antonio and Susan Seven-Sky of West Harrison, N.Y. — are Christians who said they want to refuse all medical services for the rest of their lives because they believe God will heal their afflictions.

They say being forced to buy insurance would conflict with their faith because they believe doing so would indicate they need "a backup plan and (are) not really sure whether God will, in fact, provide," the lawsuit said.

The two other plaintiffs — Kenneth Ruffo of San Antonio and Gina Rodriguez of Plano, Texas — have a holistic approach to medical care and prefer to pay for their health services out of pocket, in part because insurance often doesn't cover their chosen methods of healing.

The lawsuit argued that Congress does not have the power under the Constitution to require health care purchases and that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

Kessler rejected both arguments and ruled that Congress has the right to regulate health care spending under the Commerce Clause and that the individual mandate must be viewed not as a stand-alone reform but as an essential part of the law Obama signed 11 months ago aimed at reducing overall costs.

She also said that anyone who objects to having health care for religious reasons can choose to pay the penalty instead — as the lawsuit said all five plaintiffs plan to do.



Kessler also expressed doubts that they can really determine whether they will never require health care.

"Individuals like plaintiffs who allege now that they will refuse medical services in the future may well find their way into the health care market when they face the reality of illness or injury," she wrote.

Judges George Steeh of Michigan and Norman Moon of Virginia — like Kessler, they were nominated to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton — dismissed suits against the individual mandate last fall.

George W. Bush-appointed Henry Hudson in Virginia ruled the insurance purchase requirement unconstitutional in December, while Ronald Reagan appointee Roger Vinson in Florida ruled the entire health care reform act unconstitutional last month.

The Justice Department, which has been defending the law in court, noted that the law has now been upheld more times than not.

"We welcome this ruling, which marks the third time a court has reviewed the Affordable Care Act on the merits and upheld it as constitutional," said spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.

"This court found — as two others have previously — that the minimum coverage provision of the statute was a reasonable measure for Congress to take in reforming our health care system."






Pat Robertson celebrates his 80th birthday last march

http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.c...-80th-birthday

*Robertson in 1990 said of homosexuality, “It is a sickness, and it needs to be treated” and added, “Many of those people involved with Adolf Hitler were Satanists; many of them were homosexuals.

The two things seem to go together”

[Scissors]

Good.

It is unconstitutional, but not for that reason. Once again Pat Robertson proves he's a dumbass.

[ChasC5]

Here's an idea, Republicans can't get Health Care from their Corporate friends and Democrats can utilize the Health Care Bill.

There you have cost split. Problem solved and cost saving all in one.

BTW Republicans can call their buddies after they retire at 80.

[Exotix]

You have to like Robertsons' take on curing the homo ... just not on taxpayer money ...

[Peter Pan]

Seems Obamacare will be gutted regardless of the Supreme Court decision, 4 states already have waivers, expect the flood gates to open, Obamacare needs all Americans signed up and the waivers from NJ, OH, FL and TN have lots of Americans, the pool of healthy young Americans are dwinding fast as they are needed in the pool to bring down the cost for this old fart and the others wanting cheap healthcare

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Peter Pan

Seems Obamacare will be gutted regardless of the Supreme Court decision, 4 states already have waivers, expect the flood gates to open, Obamacare needs all Americans signed up and the waivers from NJ, OH, FL and TN have lots of Americans, the pool of healthy young Americans are dwinding fast as they are needed in the pool to bring down the cost for this old fart and the others wanting cheap healthcare

Country First American

[Peter Pan]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Country First American

Your point is?

Oh Healthcare is going up with this bill, has already in preparing for Obamacare

[Entropy]

There is so much wrong with being forced to buy health insurance. Creative angle for sure.

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Entropy

There is so much wrong with being forced to buy health insurance. Creative angle for sure.

But Honest Officer; it so much wrong with making me buy Auto Insurance. If I get into an accident and or hurt someone, why can't you pay for it? You have a job, why not?

So please, let me go on my way.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by Entropy

There is so much wrong with being forced to buy health insurance. Creative angle for sure.

You're forced to buy auto & home insurance (if still bank owned) ... how come that's not socialist/communist/national socialist fascist wrong ?

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Exotix

You're forced to buy auto & home insurance (if still bank owned) ... how come that's not socialist/communist/national socialist fascist wrong ?

If I borrowed money on something and don't own it out right, I would expect the lender to have some sort of required insurance in case of damage, fire, etc. Since I don't own it outright, I don't get to make the choice. Part of the bargain.

I carry auto insurance on cars to protect me in the event of an accident and I completely disagree with it being required to purchase. It's a sad commentary that we have to force people to be responsible. The choice and the consequences need to be left up to the individual.

I feel the same way about health insurance. Buy it for emergencies and pay for the everyday stuff. But requiring people to buy a product that they don't want is tyranny, plain and simple.

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Entropy

If I borrowed money on something and don't own it out right, I would expect the lender to have some sort of required insurance in case of damage, fire, etc. Since I don't own it outright, I don't get to make the choice. Part of the bargain.

I carry auto insurance on cars to protect me in the event of an accident and I completely disagree with it being required to purchase. It's a sad commentary that we have to force people to be responsible. The choice and the consequences need to be left up to the individual.

I feel the same way about health insurance. Buy it for emergencies and pay for the everyday stuff. But requiring people to buy a product that they don't want is tyranny, plain and simple.

Do you have Liability Insurance? And if so, why?

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Do you have Liability Insurance? And if so, why?

1. The state of Iowa requires me to do so, and I hate that.
2. It also allows me to protect myself. Chances are property damage or bodily injury will likely far exceed the small premiums I pay over the lifetime of my insurance. It's a bet I'm willing to make, and it gives me peace of mind.

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Entropy

1. The state of Iowa requires me to do so, and I hate that.
2. It also allows me to protect myself. Chances are property damage or bodily injury will likely far exceed the small premiums I pay over the lifetime of my insurance. It's a bet I'm willing to make, and it gives me peace of mind.

good for you, and it take the burden off of the public because you're responsible.

Glad we agree.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

good for you, and it take the burden off of the public because you're responsible.

Glad we agree.

I just hate the fact that we have to legislate it.

[Peter Pan]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Do you have Liability Insurance? And if so, why?

Only because I drive, if I decide to not drive I do not need to have car insurance, I own my home and I have decided to carry home owners insurance, my choice, same for health insurance, I decided on it and it worked when I needed it, but if I decide I do not want any of the insurance policies I have I can drop them and stop driving to be legal if I decide on that.

Healthcare is a choice, same as the others I can rent a home and not drive, in 2014 HC will not be a choice, but with 4 states already getting waivers more are on tap and this law is falling apart with just waivers, will not be enough healthly young people left to buy insurance, and my son will pay the penalty as he is you and that is much cheaper than purchasing a HC plan that is mandated. In fact many healthy adults will do the same as when they get sick then purchase insurance, cheaper than the tax, with no pre-x allowed why carry insurance until you need it

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Peter Pan

Only because I drive, if I decide to not drive I do not need to have car insurance, I own my home and I have decided to carry home owners insurance, my choice, same for health insurance, I decided on it and it worked when I needed it, but if I decide I do not want any of the insurance policies I have I can drop them and stop driving to be legal if I decide on that.

Healthcare is a choice, same as the others I can rent a home and not drive, in 2014 HC will not be a choice, but with 4 states already getting waivers more are on tap and this law is falling apart with just waivers, will not be enough healthly young people left to buy insurance, and my son will pay the penalty as he is you and that is much cheaper than purchasing a HC plan that is mandated. In fact many healthy adults will do the same as when they get sick then purchase insurance, cheaper than the tax, with no pre-x allowed why carry insurance until you need it

Why don't you "Choose" to not pay Taxes.

[Scissors]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

But Honest Officer; it so much wrong with making me buy Auto Insurance. If I get into an accident and or hurt someone, why can't you pay for it? You have a job, why not?

So please, let me go on my way.

Being forced by the government to buy auto insurance is also wrong.

However, I am not forced to do so.

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Scissors

Being forced by the government to buy auto insurance is also wrong.

However, I am not forced to do so.

It's sad that some people put more stock into their Car than their Health.


I'm glad someone is looking out for all the American People and not just the Privilege few.

[Scissors]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

It's sad that some people put more stock into their Car than their Health.

You're referring, I take it, to anyone who maintains their car but is fat, yes?