Health Care Mandate Applies to All -- Except the Amish

[Dragoon68]

... I agree, but you're being inconsistent. First you're mad because the government is trying to respect a group's religious beliefs, and now you're mad because they are trying to respect their religious beliefs. ...

I rarely get called "inconsistent" but, hey, if you don't understand I can see how you might reach such a conclusion.

The law can not "respect" a particular religious sect because that's not Constitutional. You know that! This exception does just that because it singles out a religious sect - excludes them from paying taxes - and yet requires everyone else to do so regardless of their particular religious beliefs. It's wrong in principle and in fact. Either everyone has to pay or everyone should have the option not to pay.

 

[targus]

Obama and the dems are overlooking the simple solution that they wish to employ where it comes to Federal funding of abortion.

Just have the Amish pay a "fee" for exempting themselves from the healthscare scam.

The "fee" could co-incidentally be exactly the same amount as the fines that they are exempted from. :tonofbricks:

 

[Dragoon68]

... Really, Supreme Court rulings that the government cannot force a religious group to violate it's beliefs should be struck down?

Although drifting away from the original topic I will answer you question: What would the Supreme Court say about laws that prohibits a Mormon man from having multiple wives, or to a Christian Scientist parent that withholds medical care thier child, or that require a Muslim woman who refuses to remove her head covering for a driver license photo, or to a Muslim man who believes he has a god given right to kill his wife or child for certain offenses, or to a Christian who refuses to teach his child the theory of evolution, or to a Christian who refuses to fund abortions because it is murder, or perhaps to some African tribal member who believes cannibalism is okay, and so forth? Yes, the law does infringe on "religious" beliefs and, yes, it was modeled around a minimal set of Christian beliefs without preference to a particular sect of Christianity.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Although drifting away from the original topic I will answer you question: What would the Supreme Court say about laws that prohibits a Mormon man from having multiple wives

Mormons are not required by their religion to practice polygamy.

or to a Christian Scientist parent that withholds medical care thier child or that require a Muslim woman who refuses to remove her head covering for a driver license photo, or to a Muslim man who believes he has a god given right to kill his wife or child for certain offenses, or to a Christian who refuses to teach his child the theory of evolution, or to a Christian who refuses to fund abortions because it is murder, or perhaps to some African tribal member who believes cannibalism is okay, and so forth? Yes, the law does infringe on "religious" beliefs and, yes, it was modeled around a minimal set of Christian beliefs without preference to a particular sect of Christianity.

In each case, the court has ruled that your right to express your religious beliefs do not include the right to harm another person.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

The law can not "respect" a particular religious sect because that's not Constitutional. You know that!

Actually, I know that it says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", not "Congress shall not recognize a religious group's 1st Amendment right to practice their religion".

excludes them from paying taxes

I don't know where you got thie idea, but the Amish do pay taxes. If you don't know that, then you probably shouldn't be commenting.

 

[Dragoon68]

... I don't know where you got thie idea, but the Amish do pay taxes. If you don't know that, then you probably shouldn't be commenting.

You're extrapolating for pending taxes for the new medical health care program to taxes in general. The issue is the exemption for the new taxes which, again, is a preference given to the Amish - and other selected groups - based on they being members of that group. It is wrong!

 

[Dragoon68]

Mormons are not required by their religion to practice polygamy. ...

Mormons were permitted and encourage to have multiple wives by their religion. That was one of several examples where religious beliefs conflicted with the law of the land and the law won. It's valid as were all the others I mentioned.

This example was given to rebuke the theory that the Amish has a untouchable right to be exempt from the pending health care taxes just because their religious preference is to take care of their own.

It would be slightly more palatable if the law were to allow any religious group to form their own cooperative health care system and opt out of the government's taxes. Some, other than the Amiish, might want to do that.

But, of course, the best thing would be for the government to stay out of the health care business altogether. They have failed at every other social program they've ever tried. Such history should foretell what we can except from the pending bureaucratic dream.

 

[Dragoon68]

Actually, I know that it says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", not "Congress shall not recognize a religious group's 1st Amendment right to practice their religion". ...

This, then, is a Constitutional basis for the government not showing special favor to the Amish sect by excluding them for the obligation to pay taxes for the new health care programs that other citizens would be required to pay.

Maybe the "smart" layers will be wise enough to understand that. If not they will be generating a large window of opportunity for endless exceptions to our laws that will be used to impose ways upon us which we will deeply regret.

 

[targus]

Mormons are not required by their religion to practice polygamy.

And the Amish are not required to pay for medical services by cash.

That is just how they happen to prefer to do it.

 

[Steven2006]

The Amish should be exempt. Their case is different than someone being opposed to the bill, they don't believe in insurance. They currently don't have it but instead rely on only themselves to pay the bills. Their beliefs is to be truly separate and they live their lives accordingly. Making them get insurance by law would be a clear violation to their religious beliefs and I think it wise all Christian support them in this case. If we so quickly dismiss their religious freedoms we just might wake up and it will be ours taken from us next.

 

[billwald]

How would the rest of us be harmed if the Mormons had been permitted to become a state under the Articles of Confederation and governed by the LDS?

 

[Dragoon68]

The Amish should be exempt. Their case is different than someone being opposed to the bill, they don't believe in insurance. They currently don't have it but instead rely on only themselves to pay the bills. Their beliefs is to be truly separate and they live their lives accordingly. Making them get insurance by law would be a clear violation to their religious beliefs and I think it wise all Christian support them in this case. If we so quickly dismiss their religious freedoms we just might wake up and it will be ours taken from us next.

Many people don't "believe" in having insurance based on how they understand the Bible but they are not Amish. With this exemption, by a specific class, all except the Amish would be prohibited for exercising their belief and forced to participate. That's a violation of the principles of our Constitution.

What we should be concerned about is the freedom of all Americans to chose their medical providers, procedures, and insurance coverage.

What we should not want is more special classes of exceptions that opens the doors to even more in the future. We need to look way beyond this issue to what else will be on the table around the corner.

I don't care what the Amish do - insurance or not - and I respect their independent thinking. However, I don't think one should have to Amish to attain the same benefit. Such a quality was once considered to be an American virtue. This pending law will strip that from most Americans and generate yet another "special" group to be treated differently under the law.

 

[windcatcher]

If the Amish don't take anything from the government regarding their own health care, should they be expected to conform to the governments rules on insurance or penalty?

We could succeed if we could organize and as a large group of people..... dump our dependance on health insurance and government committments and employer provided plans and insist on being self insured......... and commit ourselves to special charitable funding to go specifically to those in our midst with dire and catastrophic need......... not the kind of expensive but chronic need which many find themselves in.

I heard an informative program Monday and may report it in a new thread if I can get my brownserto stop stalling during my attmept to post.

 

[targus]

The Amish should be exempt. Their case is different than someone being opposed to the bill, they don't believe in insurance. They currently don't have it but instead rely on only themselves to pay the bills. Their beliefs is to be truly separate and they live their lives accordingly. Making them get insurance by law would be a clear violation to their religious beliefs and I think it wise all Christian support them in this case. If we so quickly dismiss their religious freedoms we just might wake up and it will be ours taken from us next.

Can you point to evidence that buying insurance is against their religious beliefs - other than a preference to pay in cash?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

If the Amish don't take anything from the government regarding their own health care, should they be expected to conform to the governments rules on insurance or penalty?

We could succeed if we could organize and as a large group of people..... dump our dependance on health insurance and government committments and employer provided plans and insist on being self insured......... and commit ourselves to special charitable funding to go specifically to those in our midst with dire and catastrophic need......... not the kind of expensive but chronic need which many find themselves in.

I heard an informative program Monday and may report it in a new thread if I can get my brownserto stop stalling during my attmept to post.

After listening to Jack Spirko talk about it, I've come to agree with his idea that there should only be catastrophic health insurance and all other medical procedures paid by cash

 

[windcatcher]

Can you point to evidence that buying insurance is against their religious beliefs - other than a preference to pay in cash?

I wondered at the same thing. I did find this:

Modern conveniences:
Vehicles: With very few exceptions, Old Order Amish congregations do not allow the owning or use of automobiles or farm tractors. However, they will ride in cars when needed.
Electrical devices: They do not use electricity, or have radios, TV sets, personal computers, computer games, etc.
Telephones: In-home telephones are not normally allowed. Some families have a phone remote from the house.
Government programs: Most Amish groups do not collect Social Security/Canada Pension Plan benefits, unemployment insurance or welfare. They maintain mutual aid funds for members who need help with medical costs, dental bills, etc.

HERE

 

[targus]

I wondered at the same thing. I did find this:


HERE

Ok - but is required by their beliefs - or simply a preference?

They don't drive cars - but will ride in them...

Tractors are not allowed - except they will use them at the barn...

I don't think that there is any religious prohibition against insurance in the Amish belief system. Merely a choice to pay for medical services by cash.

I don't think that the exception for the Amish is justified...

Unless the rest of us can also be exempted from the healthscare scam as a matter of personal choice also.

Which would be my choice.

 

[just-want-peace]

If this monstrosity that we call "government" stayed within it's purview of constitutionally mandated powers, this whole conversation would be non-existent.

But then just look at the myriad problems caused by this same "government" in many other areas of society because of this same reluctance to abide by the constitution - starting with ole Abe - or earlier!!:BangHead:

 

[Steven2006]

Can you point to evidence that buying insurance is against their religious beliefs - other than a preference to pay in cash?

Unfortunately I can't link to Amish.com :laugh: But seriously if you don't think it is part of their beliefs you need to educate yourself a little about the issue before forming such strong opinions about it. To be honest, I thought it was common knowledge that they didn't believe in insurance, I guess I was wrong.

 

[Dragoon68]

Unfortunately I can't link to Amish.com :laugh: But seriously if you don't think it is part of their beliefs you need to educate yourself a little about the issue before forming such strong opinions about it. To be honest, I thought it was common knowledge that they didn't believe in insurance, I guess I was wrong.

Many people - not just Amish - don't believe in insurance and a whole lot more don't believe in the government taking over medical care and insurance.

The original point of this thread - as I intended it - was suppose to be that the government has selected certain groups - namely union workers, government workers, and the Amish and maybe others we haven't learned about yet from the secret work they're doing - to be excluded or deferred from paying the taxes that will be imposed on the rest of us.

These categories have nothing to do with the "goodness" of the bureaucrats that are writing these laws. They are simply political moves to avoid certain problem areas, to appease certain vocal groups, and to maintain voter support. The rest of us will pay that much more for their programs.

The Amish are just be played for the political gain - avoidance of conflict - so the plan can be forced upon the rest who might not have the unified support of a particular religious sect but believe just as strongly. That's wrong and it's a misuse of power by the government that's forbidden by our Constitution.

The unions have bought the government and robbed the non-union workers of their hard-earned wages and salaries with their typical strong-armed back room politics. You didn't see it on C-SPAN like the chief thief had promised us all albeit some of us never believed his empty promise.

What's happening now is that many people can not see that they are trading their liberty for the "security" of the state. Some I suppose like that and actually believe it will be better even though history has taught us many times other that it is not.

Remember Bismark did this in Germany over one hundred years ago with a wide area of previously unheard of social programs. The people bought it and gave up their liberty in the process. It's happened more than once and now, in my beloved homeland, we have lost our way and are falling for it heads over heals.