Posted on 03/23/2010 9:03:46 PM PDT by freedomwarrior998
These things are very difficult to read!
It looks like the problem here is that the Fed still forces an individual to join something or participate in something, even if that itself violates the conscience of an individual.
It is still a control mechanism, and is violative of our liberties. It is still unconstitutional to the MAX!
What about an individual who is in his 50s and has never had a health insurance policy because of personal “religous” conscience.
This is still the Fed determining for an indiividual what “conscience” is acceptaablle to the government and what is not.
‘‘(2) RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS.—
18 ‘‘(A) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMP19
TION.—Such term shall not include any indi20
vidual for any month if such individual has in
21 effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H)
22 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
23 Act which certifies that such individual is a
24 member of a recognized religious sect or division
25 thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an
327
HR 3590 EAS/PP
1 adherent of established tenets or teachings of such
2 sect or division as described in such section.
3 ‘‘(B) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY.—
4 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Such term shall
5 not include any individual for any month
6 if such individual is a member of a health
7 care sharing ministry for the month.
8 ‘‘(ii) HEALTH CARE SHARING MIN9
ISTRY.—The term ‘health care sharing min10
istry’ means an organization—
11 ‘‘(I) which is described in section
12 501(c)(3) and is exempt from taxation
13 under section 501(a),
14 ‘‘(II) members of which share a
15 common set of ethical or religious be16
liefs and share medical expenses among
17 members in accordance with those be18
liefs and without regard to the State in
19 which a member resides or is em20
ployed,
21 ‘‘(III) members of which retain
22 membership even after they develop a
23 medical condition,
24 ‘‘(IV) which (or a predecessor of
25 which) has been in existence at all
328
HR 3590 EAS/PP
1 times since December 31, 1999, and
2 medical expenses of its members have
3 been shared continuously and without
4 interruption since at least December
5 31, 1999, and
6 ‘‘(V) which conducts an annual
7 audit which is performed by an inde8
pendent certified public accounting
9 firm in accordance with generally ac10
cepted accounting principles and
11 which is made available to the public
12 upon request.
I agree with you, but I’d rather one of these organizations get my money while we fight KenyanCare.
I’m always suspect but if this is true...my heart tells me to go with it. Even if it may ensnare me later on down the road (name being linked with conservative Christian). They know that Christians will run to these companies.
Weren’t the Amish and possibly the Christian Scientists specifically exempted in this bill? If so, then couldn’t a suit be filed on behalf of other religion(s) for similar exemption status?
... And/or that the entire bill is unconstitutional on the basis that it discriminates against citizens who are NOT of those exempted religions, because they do NOT have the option to opt-out of this goobermint crapola?
self ping for later
I don’t know the details, and they weren’t given in the notice from Samaritan. At that time, I assumed from the notice that their attorneys had presented their ministry to officials in Washington and were just told “Nyet!” to the whole idea of medical cost sharing organizations because they were not controlled by the government in the same way insurance companies are.
It needs to be emphasized that these miniistries DON’T sell insurance. They are not insurance schemes. I’m just saying this for anyone reading this who are not familiar with them.
So, I think that when Samaritan sent out the notice, there was big time ignorance of these ministries by people in Washington who were giving projections about what would be acceptable under Obamacare.
There could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of people in these cost-sharing ministries, and all of these people are probably counted in that imaginary figure of those who the government says are “uninsured.” Correct(!) they don’t have iinsurance policies, and so technically are “uninsured.” But this doesn’t mean that they are without care, and the idiots in Washington would not want to emphasize this even if they know it.
If they have have been examined and positively included for exemptions since that notice, all well and good. I’m for them, not against them.
I still have my doubts, however, that beiing a member of one of these will provide exemption over the long haul.
Furthermore, we shouldn’t allow this to soothe us out of fighting the destruction of our liberties.
Nobody should be forced to either BUY something or JOIN something.
The medical cost-sharing ministries are big-time proof that people can figure out how to deal with their own problems and care for themselves and each other WITHOUT GOVERNMENT HELP.
If creeps like Jesse Jackson genuinely cared for people and wanted to prove that they are not really communist-bent (communists don’t care about people!), they could get the people in those churches (Southern so-called Christian Leadership Conference; etc.) that they use for political rabble-rousing, to form medical cost-sharing ministries with each other and among those churches. Those people could learn to depend on each other rather than on the government.
These kinds of solutions were totally ignored in the debate on BOTH sides of the isle! Every church denomination could form these non-government medical cost-sharing organiizations for their own memberships. Who ever talked about these kinds of things?
“I’m always suspect but if this is true...my heart tells me to go with it. Even if it may ensnare me later on down the road (name being linked with conservative Christian). They know that Christians will run to these companies.”
First, I appreciate your reply. I don’t have much details about them myself. But the idea of getting around this evilcare that is being imposed on the American people is intriguing to me.
“Furthermore, we shouldn’t allow this to soothe us out of fighting the destruction of our liberties.”
No, I do not find this soothing at all!! In fact, this could be a legal way to “starve the beast”, if you will.
No fines, no outrageous premiums, and the beginnings of networks of like people who wish to be free of the government in their health care.
What better way to tell the gov to go pound sand?
More will need to be done to prevent the socialists ramming their utopia down our throats, yes, indeed. But his is a good place to start. They need the money,... starve the beast.
>>> Any attempt to force these organizations out of business would likely violate the First Amendment.
The constitution isn’t worth SPIT if it’s not defended.
Violate???? What the hell does that mean? Like it hasn’t already been violated?
Our government just violated the hell out of our constitution.... and if that stands, NO LAW IS WORTH JACK SH*T
I’ve seen their ads in Christian magazines - now I’m thinking I should have signed up! Hopefully there is still a chance. Whether the gove’t considers them “adequate” or not I hope they do.
Every time I see that word I’m reminded of the service truck I once saw with the company name on the side: “Adequate Fire Protection Services”. (AAA or A1 I could see, but Adequate???!!!)
sorry.. not yellin at you dude.
Thanks for the info. And prayers for your continued remission of the cancer. My dad had leukimia that went into remission and he had many years of a good life before he passed away of other causes.
WOW!!!!
I understood that the fine was 2% or 2.5% of income, or $2250 whichever was greater. That's less than $2880 to $4800 that this plan costs. Am I misinformed?
Well, all I did was post the full article that this thread refers to... I’m not the writer of the article...
I think I’ll leave that answer to someone else, if you don’t mind... :-)
ping
saving
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.