# My cousin being forced to purchase health insurance, advice?



## Teddy Pollins (Apr 7, 2015)

He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).

Is it possible to get insurance at a lower cost than this? He really can't afford it since Iheonly earn $7,000 annually. How would I go about "shopping" for health insurance? Any piece of advice.


----------



## Zander (Apr 7, 2015)

Obamacare!!! woohoo!!!!!


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 7, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> 
> Is it possible to get insurance at a lower cost than this? He really can't afford it since Iheonly earn $7,000 annually. How would I go about "shopping" for health insurance? Any piece of advice.


That is cheap insurance. He should be glad the school offers it to him.

BTW, did he vote for Obama?

If he did, fuck him.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 7, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> 
> Is it possible to get insurance at a lower cost than this? He really can't afford it since Iheonly earn $7,000 annually. How would I go about "shopping" for health insurance? Any piece of advice.


He can get it for himself with a subsidy.

None issue, Teddy.  Nice try!


----------



## Teddy Pollins (Apr 7, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> ...


Who will pay then?


----------



## BULLDOG (Apr 7, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> 
> Is it possible to get insurance at a lower cost than this? He really can't afford it since Iheonly earn $7,000 annually. How would I go about "shopping" for health insurance? Any piece of advice.




Student health insurance is available  for as little as $20.00 per month. The college should have information on that. Ask them, or do a quick online search.


----------



## Papageorgio (Apr 7, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> 
> Is it possible to get insurance at a lower cost than this? He really can't afford it since Iheonly earn $7,000 annually. How would I go about "shopping" for health insurance? Any piece of advice.



He should be able to stay on his parents insurance.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 7, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Teddy Pollins said:
> ...


Probably a working taxpayer, at the expense of his own family.

That is the American way, isn't it, the working taxpayer struggling to feed his family pays for the guy who has a family he can't afford to feed and insure.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 7, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> 
> Is it possible to get insurance at a lower cost than this? He really can't afford it since Iheonly earn $7,000 annually. How would I go about "shopping" for health insurance? Any piece of advice.



If you're gonna attack ObamaCare, learn some facts cuz nobody is dumb enough to fall for this story.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 7, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> ...


This guy is bitching over a college grad having to pay less than $100 a month to insure his family?

Fuck, what is the world coming to?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 7, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Teddy Pollins said:
> ...


None issue, Teddy.  Step along.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 7, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> 
> Is it possible to get insurance at a lower cost than this? He really can't afford it since Iheonly earn $7,000 annually. How would I go about "shopping" for health insurance? Any piece of advice.



Do a gofundme fundraiser for 1,033
Post it to all the Tea Party and conservative groups.
Shoot and post a video or cell phone clip online
and send a link to the President and all members of Congress who signed this bill.

Demand that they pay this insurance, since he didn't consent to this burden.
(start a petition on change.org demanding that whichever Congressional rep voted for this
help pay this bill)

Maybe if you can hit the Memories Pizza crowd, who is sick of liberal politics charged to other people, you could get 4 X your goal.


----------



## BULLDOG (Apr 7, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> ...




Get Hannity to mention it. He's good at getting crazy right wingers to throw their money at anything.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 7, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> ...


This is a troll thread.

$1,033 to insure a family is cheap.

If he can afford graduate school, he can afford insurance.

There are assistantships available, scholarships, loans,etc.

My GF is going to grad school, and getting all three.

Of course, she had the sense never to have children and expect someone else to pay for their insurance.

But like I said, this is a troll thread, this shit ain't happening IRL.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 7, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Teddy Pollins said:
> ...


What rightwinger would throw money at a guy with a college education that can't make but $7,000 a year, and has the fuckin' gall to have a family?


----------



## BULLDOG (Apr 7, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...




Damn near all of them if Hannity tells them to.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 7, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Hey I hope nobody treats my issues that way.
I am struggling to stretch my salary to pay for all kinds of support for two communities
recovering from damages and abuses at the hands of govt. How are those costs any less
important to public security and RIGHTS and equal protections of the laws as health care which can be donated.

Saving the historic structures in my district to create a campus for PROVIDING accessible sustainable health care
is just as much needed to set up long term coverage for the public especially those who can't afford current plans.

Why aren't my expenses paying for that counted as my contribution? Why am I only allowed to buy INSURANCE as the ONLY WAY to qualify for exemption from a tax penalty (that will threaten to take money from two jobs needed to pay OTHER needs for families and volunteers).  Health care is not the only urgent need.

If you cannot even pay for housing and cars to work and serve to rebuild our community after it has been decimated by wrongful evictions, demolitions, and desecration of burials and other historic landmarks, 
why should we be forced to pay for corporate insurance we can't afford when we have more urgent immediate needs to pay for?

What about our Constitutional rights to assemble in secure, stable conditions, to use our salaries to FEED children in our neighborhood, and to cover costs of volunteer programs, in order to exercise our rights and freedoms.

I only saw one other mention of anyone bringing up the issue of other needs that the same salaries pay for.

Is anyone even listening or caring how this is affecting low income volunteers whose communities are riding on their salaries?

JakeStarkey are you really going to tell me this is a nonissue? Just "let them eat cake?"


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 7, 2015)

Roadrunner


Roadrunner said:


> What rightwinger would throw money at a guy with a college education that can't make but $7,000 a year, and has the fuckin' gall to have a family?



a PROLIFE person who considers all life precious. 
And would rather people ask for help than abort pregnancies to cut costs?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 7, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> ...


His Congress did consent, and that's how a republican government works, Emily, and has since 1789.

It's not going to change.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 7, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...





And here is Bulldog, trolling for some baggin'.   Luddly, help him out!




7262 by boedicca on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## BULLDOG (Apr 7, 2015)

boedicca said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...




Still the best you can do. How sad for you.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 7, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




I'm just performing a public service.    The sooner you get some baggin', the better off the board will be without you acting out your frustration all over the place.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 7, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Teddy Pollins said:
> ...



*Not on religious issues, where Congress cannot make laws.* Sorry Jake;
but the First Fourteenth and Tenth Amendments, as well as the Civil Rights Act,
all apply as laws, and govt is not supposed to bypass those either!

I'm willing and preparing to go on a hunger strike to protest this issue.

Would you be willing to put your life on the line for either side?
Which do you believe to be so right that you would hypothetically go on strike to defend that point?

That Congress has the right to impose a law dictating how to pay for insurance as the only choice of health care?

Or that people have the right of consent and dissent, and no taxation without representation,
and no laws that discriminate on the basis of creed by fining people willing to pay for health care OTHER WAYS consistent with their beliefs and without forcing anyone to buy insurance.

*How can buying insurance be such a compelling need that it SUPERCEDES any other choice
or liberty in investing one's salary, labor, and business or charitable work into MORE SUSTAINABLE
means of providing health care to MORE PEOPLE.*

Sorry JakeStarkey but it is the attitude of you and rightwinger and C_Clayton_Jones
that most makes me want to declare a hunger strike to protest as politically oppressive and discriminatory.

Your beliefs are your right to exercise on your own or through your own affiliations,
but not even God gives you the right to impose it through political party or Congress.
That goes against Human Nature which God designed to seek freedom from coercion and to seek consent
as the basis of laws and social relations.

*The First Amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof -- by imposing a mandate on my free exercise of religion,
you have already endorsed a law that prohibits this freedom. It now has a tax based condition as well as other federal regulations attached to the freedom to invest in, exercise and provide health care. It is no longer free!

Please see the Unitarian Universalists beliefs against COERCION
and in support of Consensus and consent-based relations for equal justice and inclusion:


 

So JakeStarkey that is fine for anyone to subscribe to the federal mandates by free will, by free choice according to social beliefs. Not forced by govt against their beliefs and creed which is unconstitutional.

I believe in freedom to provide health care for ALL people, not just ones covered by insurance, and reserve the right to fund campus programs and development that will serve more people FREELY instead of by federal force of law through the ACA mandates that I do NOT believe in and which are NOT chosen freely by all citizens forced to be under those mandated insurance and tax policies. This violates my beliefs as a Constitutionalist and a Universalist who believes in equal inclusion and equal protection of the law for all people regardless of CREED. Congress, the federal govt, the President and Judges who approved this legislation were WRONG and discriminated against me, people who believe in free market and states rights, and people who believe in singlepayer instead of paying Corporate insurance companies as a middleman.*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 7, 2015)

Emily.  Read carefully.  No, they don't.  Your feelings mean nothing in terms of the Constitution and case law.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 7, 2015)

boedicca said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...


BULLDOG likely gets tea bagged more often than he'd admit.


----------



## Donald Polish (Apr 7, 2015)

Everyone needs health insurance?!?

This is AMERIKA. We get to die deeply in medical debt if we want to. Go peddle your commie "insurance for everyone" ideas in Canada (or anywhere else in the first world). We don't need it here in the land of the ignorant.

Also keep your stinking gobmint hands off my social security!


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 7, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Roadrunner
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> ...


Only you could bring up the abortion issue in a troll thread on insurance.

But, at least you kept it brief.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 8, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Emily.  Read carefully.  No, they don't.  Your feelings mean nothing in terms of the Constitution and case law.



1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof -- Amendment 1, U.S. Constitution
2. Deprivation of liberty without due process of law to convict persons of any crime warranting loss of freedom:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- Fourteenth Amendment
3. Code of Ethics for Govt Service:
"Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion."
^ THIS DOES NOT SAY TO WAIT UNTIL COURTS RULE FOR OR AGAINST.
IT SAYS NEVER TO EVADE LAWS AND REGULATIONS ^*
4. Discrimination by Creed
Example of language from civil rights and EEOC:

*Sources and Authority*
Government Code section 12940(l) provides that it is an unlawful employment practice "[f]or an employer . . . to refuse to hire or employ a person, . . . or to discharge a person from employment, . . . or to discriminate against a person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of a conflict between the person's religious belief or observance and any employment requirement, unless the employer . . . demonstrates that it has explored any available reasonable alternative means of accommodating the religious belief or observance . . . but is unable to reasonably accommodate the religious belief or observance without undue hardship on the conduct of the business of the employer . . . . Religious belief or observance . . . includes, but is not limited to, observance of a Sabbath or other religious holy day or days, and reasonable time necessary for travel prior and subsequent to a religious observance."

Government Code section 12926(o) provides: " 'Religious creed,' 'religion,' 'religious observance,' 'religious belief,' and 'creed' include all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice."

The Fair Employment and Housing Commission's regulations provide: " 'Religious creed' includes any traditionally recognized religion as well as beliefs, observances, or practices which an individual sincerely holds and which occupy in his or her life a place of importance parallel to that of traditionally recognized religions. Religious creed discrimination may be established by showing: . . . [t]he employer or other covered entity has failed to reasonably accommodate the applicant's or employee's religious creed despite being informed by the applicant or employee or otherwise having become aware of the need for reasonable accommodation." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7293.1(b).)

Now JakeStarkey, you and Dante and C_Clayton_Jones can get all LITERAL and interpret this ONLY by the letter of the law where "religion" (in your mind) doesn't apply to Constitutional beliefs "until this is proven in Court"

but I still argue this is discrimination by creed.

Because the people like you who aren't adversely affected aren't forced to prove YOUR beliefs before the bill is enforced. It is still enforced in the meantime.

This is like justifying rape until the person proves they didn't consent,
and saying they are allowed to go ahead and have sex in the meantime! Because it wasn't legally proven yet!

Bullshit JakeStarkey

*Look at how the leadership of Indiana and Arkansas "didn't wait to get sued in Court"
before answering and accommodating objections, and agreeing to REVISE the bill WITHOUT
waiting to go to Court and for a Judge to ORDER them to change it!*

So those people are NOT being emotionally biased.

You are, but in reverse. If you were truly objective about people's beliefs, on both sides, you would seek consensus as I do to protect and include both sides' beliefs EQUALLY as required by the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection clause. {this does not require language specifying creed, but I added that from the Civil Rights act to explain how creed is like religion.}

You are allowing people's religious freedom to be abridged  "until and unless" the Court rules it is infringing. You are saying the govt has the right to infringe in the meantime, while I contest this, especially I can't afford to pay for the damages caused. That's just being conscientious!

So my question JakeStarkey: are you, rightwinger, C_Clayton_Jones
Congresswoman Pelosi, President Obama and Justice Roberts
WILLING TO PAY THE DAMAGES CAUSED IN THE MEANTIME

IF WE ARE LOOKING AT AN ESTIMATED 24 BILLION COST TO TAXPAYERS
BECAUSE THIS BILL (IF LATER AGREED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
AS THE DOMA BILL WAS ADMITTED TO BY CLINTON AND OTHERS)
TIED UP CONGRESS, KNOWING THAT IT HAD THIS FLAW IN IT THAT EXCLUDED
AND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST CITIZENS WHOSE CREED WOULD FORCE THEM TO REJECT IT, AND CAUSED A FEDERAL SHUTDOWN THAT COST AN EST. 24 BILLION.

ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY THE COSTS OR NOT?

THAT'S WHAT I FIND SO OFFENSIVE.

IT'S ONE THING TO PUSH THIS BELIEF WHEN YOU ARE PAYING FOR IT.
WHEN YOU ARE PUSHING IT, WHERE IT COSTS TAXPAYERS 24 BILLION
BECAUSE OF CONFLICTING CREEDS THAT CONGRESS AND OBAMA KNEW WEREN'T RESOLVED,
WHERE IS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY FOR THE COSTS OF THAT DELIBERATE DISCRIMINATION?


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 8, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> 
> Is it possible to get insurance at a lower cost than this? He really can't afford it since Iheonly earn $7,000 annually. How would I go about "shopping" for health insurance? Any piece of advice.


He should go to healthcare.gov and get inexpensive insurance, like millions of Americans.

Thank you, President Obama!


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 8, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner
> ...





Roadrunner said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner
> ...



Hi Roadrunner 
The issue of federally mandated insurance DIRECTLY ties in with prochoice.
I even posted a thread about these related conflicts:

Pulling my hair out federalizing health insurance then complaining about prochoice issues US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

1. First of all, once you put health care under federal regulations, of course, abortion and prochoice end up in the mix
2. Also, the whole concept of mandating health care regulations through the federal govt is ANTI-CHOICE

We no longer have freedom to buy insurance voluntarily.
Now we are fined if we don't use insurance as the only way to pay for health care.
The other means of providing health care (charity, medical schools, free services by volunteers or interns etc),
are now penalized and are no longer free choices.

The liberals I know would never let prolife legislation be imposed "in order to save more lives and sacrifice choice"

But here, prohealth legislation is being imposed "in order to save more lives and sacrifice choice"

So this constitutes political discrimination: defending prochoice when it comes to abortion, but penalizing free choice when it comes to paying for and providing health care in other ways which is not a crime!


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 8, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> ...


Synthaholic 
As long as the people who agree to pay the costs don't impose them on people who didn't agree to this.

You could make Christianity mandatory for the nation, and the spiritual healing that is free could cut the costs of disease, additions, crime from mental illness, sex abuse, etc. etc.

And that would still be UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the First Amendment
even if it saves money, lives and resources in order to provide health care to broader populations.

Why can't such a system be run by voluntary funding and participation?
Why not keep it legal by keeping it voluntary to opt in, so that it respects liberty, free choice, and religious freedom?


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 8, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> As long as the people who agree to pay the costs don't impose them on people who didn't agree to this.


I never agreed to the Iraq War, or massive tax cuts for billionaires.  But the Congress authorized both so I had to live with it.

Congress authorized ACA and you have to live with it.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 8, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > As long as the people who agree to pay the costs don't impose them on people who didn't agree to this.
> ...



Nope, I'm ALSO asking citizens and members across different parties
to organize teams and petitions to demand reimbursement of up to
30 trillion in unauthorized or contested war spending owed to taxpayers, 
if through credits in accounts under the Federal Reserve, that can be spent on Veteran and health care expansion, as well as rebuilding infrastructure in both Iraq and the US
with the same funds abused to destroy health care.

And charge the wrongdoers responsible for paying back what they profited illicitly from any war contracts abused, or allow investors to buy out the debts in exchange for being paid interest and/or owning shares in medical campuses and teaching hospitals, such as developing facilities along the border.

Why not go after all the crooks that abused taxpayer money?

Why justify one crook getting away with it because others did in the past.
What?

Would you agree to such a policy on a credit card that you are responsible for paying?
That just because one crook got away with charging fraud on your card,
you are going to say that everyone has to pay for fraudulent charges because you had to?

Hell, no. We'd refuse to pay any charges we didn't agree to.
And hold the wrongdoers for the costs of their abusive transactions,
and not wait for that to get paid back
before our available credit is refunded back to us immediately.

If private investors banded together to write the Federal Reserve laws, where investors lend
money to govt AND ISSUE NOTES AGAINST DEBTS, why can't citizens write laws to set up accounts
that represent debts that are owed back to us.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 8, 2015)

Donald Polish said:


> Everyone needs health insurance?!?
> 
> This is AMERIKA. We get to die deeply in medical debt if we want to. Go peddle your commie "insurance for everyone" ideas in Canada (or anywhere else in the first world). We don't need it here in the land of the ignorant.
> 
> Also keep your stinking gobmint hands off my social security!



Donald Polish
Don't leave out liberals who CLAIM to fight to keep govt out of women's wombs,
but hand over every cell of their bodies to federal govt to regulate through insurance mandates.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 8, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > As long as the people who agree to pay the costs don't impose them on people who didn't agree to this.
> ...



And if someone rapes you by holding a gun to your head and overpowering you, that's acceptable?
You just have to take it? Just because other people have been raped before and never got restitution,
you have no right to demand compensation for your damages and losses the assault and trauma costs you?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 8, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> 
> Is it possible to get insurance at a lower cost than this? He really can't afford it since Iheonly earn $7,000 annually. How would I go about "shopping" for health insurance? Any piece of advice.


He's just now finding this out.

He wasn't aware of this prior to starting school.

It seems your 'cousin' is more contrivance than student.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 8, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


To a liberal, there is no right to life until convicted of a heinous crime.


I am with Rand Paul on taking back our country, I just don't want to take it back for HIM.

Going to be interesting, America had a chance to realize its mistake in 2008.

Hopefully we get a second chance.

I'm 66, I can ride out anything, but, I feel for my kids.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 8, 2015)

"WHERE IS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY FOR THE COSTS OF THAT DELIBERATE DISCRIMINATION?"  There is no deliberate discrimination.  Yes, you put together a completely incompetent argument, in terms of constitutional law to justify your feelings.  You are unhappy that the finding in law disagrees with you.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 8, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> ...


Troll thread.

Nobody in their right mind would complain about insurance for a family at less than $100 a month.

We are talking approximately 1/7 of income for insurance.

Lots of hard working people not fortunate enough to even go to college, much less grad school, pay that much or more.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 8, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




It's his favorite activity - he celebrates it in his siggie!


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 8, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


Someone raping you at gunpoint is the same as the elected Congress passing a law?

Wow, you're a Grade A moron, aren't you?


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 8, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



??? Synthaholic if you don't see how this law was forced by coercion -- by EXCLUSION of people's objections based on CREED -- that is as unconscionable as you taking a case of forcible RAPE and
"assuming it was consensual because sex occurred." You are ASSUMING that because a law passed "it must have been consensual and represented the consent of the parties to the relations."

WTF???

The issue I was pointing to is CONSENT versus COERCION

*Consent : Coercion
: :
Sex : Rape
: : 
Law : Tyranny*

So NO this isn't "LAW" if it is LAWLESSLY imposing
"taxation without representation" which is "TYRANNY".

Are you intelligent enough to understand ANALOGIES?
If not, you are welcome to learn, as you seem to be lacking in understanding
the difference between Just Govt by "Consent of the Governed and Inclusion"
vs. Political Oppression by "Coercion and Exclusion"

If you only count the YES votes and totally disregard the NO votes, that
isn't representing the people. So yes it is like RAPE as opposed to MUTUALLY CONSENSUAL SEX.

Is that more clear, Synthaholic ?

Do you know any entities that can write out a business contract, and sign YOUR name to it or MINE,
requiring us to BUY products or services under conditions we didn't have a say in or agree to,
and BIND us to that contract?

Why aren't you outraged that federal officials met with Corporate insurance lobbyists and interests
to write out plans to pay them billions if not trillions in advance, using our taxdollars, and then
require us to buy insurance from them as a mandatory tax requirement under federal laws?

I didn't consent to that. just because you do, doesn't give you the right to sign my name to any such contract to buy into this.

The mandates violate my beliefs in Constitutional equality, due process, and consent of the governed in matters of belief and creed regarding health care choices, including spiritual healing which cannot be regulated by govt.

So I never approved of this bill passed so that it affects taxpayers who aren't represented by it.

Do you understand the concept of political coercion?
Like if prolife groups pass a law banning abortion which overrides and excludes dissent of prochoice beliefs?
Or if the anti-gay marriage groups pass a law banning gay marriage which excludes beliefs in pro gay marriage equality?

????

P.S. how this is "holding a gun to people's heads"
because of citizens/groups whose beliefs are violated by the bill,
they are put under pressure to change it. But can't change it without agreeing what to change it to! In the meantime, the bill as passed is still being pushed to be enforced.

This pressure to change it before anything else is forced against our will and beliefs
is not something we asked to be forced under. It was forced on us.

It is used as a political strategy to "force change" by first passing something
that NEITHER side agrees to. So the pressure is on to force it to be replaced, or else suffer
consequences in the meantime. But as long as the sides stay divided over what to change it to,
it remains although NEITHER side agrees to pay for it.

Nobody is going after the gunman, holding the people's freedom hostage with these mandates, but they are too busy fighting each other while the gun remains poised, forcing people by tax laws to fork over 1%, 2%, of their salary and counting, adding 1% per year that they don't agree to replace this law or unite in declaring it OPTIONAL instead of mandatory participation.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 8, 2015)

Point out that your relative can not only get FREE insurance but also small cash payments each month if agreeing to wear Jammie-Jake style Dr. Dentons to all classes.

See, they don't look so bad once you get used to them:


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 8, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> Point out that your relative can not only get FREE insurance but also small cash payments each month if agreeing to wear Jammie-Jake style Dr. Dentons to all classes.
> 
> See, they don't look so bad once you get used to them:
> 
> View attachment 39319​



Hey now THAT'S an idea! Offer to advertise whatever business sponsor will fund the costs.
And wear that logo and make a thank you video to go viral so that sponsor gets advertising out of the deal.

If corporate insurance got paid to pass this bill, maybe all citizens should follow the corporate route.
And ask corporate sponsorship to pay for it.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> if you don't see how this law was forced by coercion


That's ridiculous.  The law was passed by a majority of votes in the House and Senate, just like every single law that has ever been passed.

Sounds like you hate democracy.


----------



## xdangerousxdavex (Apr 10, 2015)




----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 10, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > if you don't see how this law was forced by coercion
> ...



Hi Synthaholic
No, the opposite, I take democracy to almost a direct democracy extreme.
And then respect people's choice to opt for representative democracy when it works without violating their rights. If you have direct democracy and consensus, you can always include representative democracy and voting in there; but not vice verse -- solely depending on representative democracy and on majority rule does not necessarily accommodate where people need to practice consensus or direct representation to defend their beliefs from infringement.

I am not opposing or excluding any part of the democratic process, I am including BOTH and ALL ways as needed within the given system. 

What you, Synthaholic and JakeStarkey are missing, is that the health care legislation and these issues of marriage laws INVOLVE BELIEFS.

So these are not like other laws on freeways, taxes for military service that people generally agree on (some conscientious objectors are allowed not to serve, but they must prove it so this isn't abused).

These are more like laws on COMMUNION that should be a private church policy.

if Catholics and Lutherans started SUING each other for either not allowing  nonCatholics
to take Catholic communion, people would argue that this is a PRIVATE matter and does not belong in state laws.

The problem with marriage laws is they were already embedded in state laws.
So when the issue of including gays was brought up, this affects laws already in the state.

Had it been like Church Communion, that isn't in state laws,
then the conflict would have stayed private.

both you and Jake keep missing my point.

I'm not against the democratic process at all; what I'm saying is the government does NOT apply to religious matters.

That's what went wrong with the Terri Schaivo case.
That's why abortion issues still aren't resolved because FAITH is involved.

And that's why people aren't going to roll over and let govt decide their beliefs
about MARRIAGE.  Because it involves a personal, spiritual and religious issues.

Please see msgs by other people, not just me, both on LEFT and RIGHT
who agree that if marriage was kept in private, and only have civil unions or contracts
through the state, there would be no discrimination, nobody would be excluded unequally,
and nobody would have to agree or be forced. the laws can be the same for all people,
and keep the parts in conflict in PRIVATE so everyone can have their BELIEFS treated EQUALLY.

I will find the links where at least 3-4 people AGREED.
So we don't have to change any beliefs to AGREE where to draw the line
and keep separate beliefs OUT OF GOVT to avoid violating anyone's equal religious freedom
and protection from discrimination.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 10, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Here Synthaholic I'm still looking for the messages where RKMBrown also agreed that one solution would be to keep marriage out of government and make secular civil laws on unions for everyone, something like that.

But here are msgs from PratchettFan and BluePhantom where we all agreed.


Jesus tells us to give to Caesar what is Caesar s and to God what is God s Page 10 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum




			
				PratchettFan said:
			
		

> If you want to say all marriage is now called civil unions, I am fine with that. *The key here is that it must apply to everyone, not just one segment.* If you want to get the government out of the marriage business entirely, that is fine as well. *But so long as the government is in the marriage business, then it should not be deciding who is entitled and who is not. *So long as it involves competent adults, the decision should be theirs alone.





			
				emilynghiem said:
			
		

> T H A N K Y O U !
> PratchettFan
> *A G R E E D*
> 
> ...



Solution to govt policies on Gay Marriage US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Jesus tells us to give to Caesar what is Caesar s and to God what is God s Page 10 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



			
				emilynghiem said:
			
		

> BluePhantom why can't marriage be allowed in private
> and keep civil unions and contracts with the govt. So this keeps govt out of the terms of marriage.
> it only applies to civil contracts of custody, property, estates, etc.and has nothing to do with the social relationships.





			
				BluePhantom said:
			
		

> I agree completely. Amen. Hallelujah! Let me give you the flip side though. My wife (TrinityPower) and I are not legally married. We both came from very bad first marriages that were completely ugly in how they split up. Neither of us want to go through that again. As people of faith we held our own ceremony where we held hands, looked into each others eyes, and each declared to God that we are husband and wife. The state doesn't recognize it but we don't care. It's between us and our God. We have both signed statements giving the other the right to make medical decisions according to our wills in the case of a medical emergency. We have covered our bases. For us, that is enough, but that is an arrangement we both freely entered into. To us, it is not important whether the government recognizes our union or not. Maybe someday we will change our minds..who knows.
> 
> But the thing is we have the right to make it "official" with the government whenever we want. We choose a spiritual union before God as our authority, but we have the freedom and right to make it civic as well. Homosexuals do not have that right. I agree with you completely that the government should recognize any civil union or marriage contract where all involved participants are willing and give consent. It's none of the government's business who we marry or bind ourselves to. In regards to a religious union before God, that's up to the church.



I'll look for RKMBrown's posts also. He is generally sympathetic about the gay marriage issue, and does not approve in any way of abusing govt to push anti-gay agenda, especially by denying gay marriage which he and I agree is unconstitutional and should be struck down since it never should have passed.

But he also posted something about keeping the religious issues out of govt, and keeping "civil unions" secular.


----------



## Antares (Apr 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> ...



\
Depends on where he lives and how much he makes Jake, you'd best stay out of these discussions as you don't know shit about it.


----------



## Antares (Apr 14, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > if you don't see how this law was forced by coercion
> ...



You are an idiot.

Reconciliation is not "normal".


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 23, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Emily.  Read carefully.  No, they don't.  Your feelings mean nothing in terms of the Constitution and case law.



Dear JakeStarkey BELIEFS count under the Constitution.
Otherwise, the BELIEFS about gay marriage versus civil unions,
would only count as "hurting people's feelings" and not count as DISCRIMINATION.

On the level of CREEDS we are equal, regardless of the content of our creeds.

You are being unfairly subjective if you count one person's creeds as "their feelings"
and not treating all people's beliefs the same way.  I trust you to be more objective than that!

I will send you, Rightwinger, C_Clayton_Jones and now francoHFW
a PM about which of you would be willing to be the target of a hunger strike,
along with Obama, Pelosi and Judge Roberts over the Constitutionality of the ACA mandates.

I thought Rightwinger would be willing to go public, but maybe RW is just a paid front and not really
committed to these views.  I think you, CCJones and franco are sincere in your beliefs.
I believe you have the right to your beliefs, but not to impose them by law or federal penalty on those of other creeds
which I respect equally.

So if you three are willing to stand for your beliefs publicly, using your real  names as I back my positions with my real  name as my real beliefs under the Constitution, then I will believe that is really the best representation of that viewpoint.

I don't need fake propaganda as I was warned RW is posting.
I need people who REALLY believe their positions are right, so I think you CCJones and franco are for real.

I would like to propose a public debate to convince you three, plus Obama Pelosi and Judge Roberts
that the ACA mandates are indeed unconstitutional, on several different grounds.  Thank you.

I set a deadline of June for the Court to make this ruling on their own.
But if not, I am prepared to go on a hunger strike to make this point, because the Constitution is more important.

All the things that can be established to reform health care can be done other ways
without violating Constitutional principles.  Not everyone agrees on every argument, so I will try to list them all,
and form teams around the different points to show these really are people's beliefs that are being violated by federal govt.

We don't have to agree on all the points. Just show that people really have these beliefs,
so that they deserve protection from discrimination by their creeds, and certainly don't deserve to be
punished by losing liberties where these people did not commit any crimes by having these beliefs, deserving of equal protection under law.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 23, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > if you don't see how this law was forced by coercion
> ...



Hi Synthaholic
A. if you notice, the vote in  Congress was divided along PARTY lines.
what does that tell you?

If Hindus and Muslims voted on a proHindu bill, and it passed by majority of Hindus voting in favor
while all the Muslims opposed, wouldn't that tell you it was biased by BELIEF of one group over another?

How is this any different except it is POLITICAL BELIEFS vs. religious beliefs.
Aren't they still BELIEFS in conflict?

So you are saying that people who HAPPEN to have SECULAR beliefs
have an ADVANTANGE because govt can pass a bill based on SECULAR beliefs but not religious beliefs?

how is this protecting all people's beliefs equally?
If those with SECULAR beliefs such as right to health care can establish that by federal law,
while political beliefs such as right to life are deemed "religious" and not allowed the same treatment.
Really? So it's okay to block one but not the other on the basis of BELIEFS being imposed by govt?

B. CONSENSUS includes Democracy; it does not go against it.
But majority rule can exclude consensus, and can go against it.

If people AGREE to majority rule, then such a vote can be WITHIN consensus.
But here, from the unwavering objections, clearly people do NOT consent to
have BELIEFS about govt health care IMPOSED on them by law and under penalty.

So this is AGAINST democracy but is abusing the system for TYRANNY.

*Synthaholic 
What if the shoe were on the other foot?
If "majority rule" in Congress passed a PROLIFE bill, and you objected
because the yes votes were all PROLIFE conservatives and Republicans
and the NO votes were all PROCHOICE liberals and democrats.

Would you still consider that fair to impose PROLIFE by majority rule?
Or would you argue that Constitutionally that bill cannot be  passed
because it is FAITH BASED and is pushing BELIEFS instead of protecting FREE CHOICE?

Wouldn't YOU argue that such a bill was Unconstitutional
because it imposed a BELIEF against your beliefs? And federal
govt cannot do that by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?*


----------



## dblack (Apr 24, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> 
> Is it possible to get insurance at a lower cost than this? He really can't afford it since Iheonly earn $7,000 annually. How would I go about "shopping" for health insurance? Any piece of advice.



Advice? Game the fucked up system.


----------



## Rozman (Apr 25, 2015)

Papageorgio said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > He is a very poor graduate student. His university requires that all students have health insurance, and if he cannot prove to them that he has insurance they will put him on their school insurance (at a cost to the family of $1,033).
> ...



That's the ticket....
He can stay on his parents insurance as a child until his late 30's or something like that.


----------



## Granny (May 24, 2015)

Why don't his parents add him to their existing insurance?  Isn't one of the new rules that parents can have children on their insurance until 26?  We can't raise our children without every social services agency, teacher, doctor, etc. on the planet telling us what we can't do but compel parents to keep them insured until well into adult years.


----------



## Pop23 (May 24, 2015)

Granny said:


> Why don't his parents add him to their existing insurance?  Isn't one of the new rules that parents can have children on their insurance until 26?  We can't raise our children without every social services agency, teacher, doctor, etc. on the planet telling us what we can't do but compel parents to keep them insured until well into adult years.



Or just find a same sex friend with a good job and spousal benefits. Marry and take the lower cost insurance. 

Heck, it's only a sham, but bank while you can.


----------

