Dear Faun RE: conservative concept
1. are you talking about the policy credited to Reagan for opening up all hospitals to treat all people?
a. if you don't agree to the terms of taxpayers paying for that
and want to change them, why change it to something others don't agree with either?
b. why not go after prison budgets, convert those to medical treatment, research and education programs, and pay for medical education and training at the same time as offering public health services to both inmates and the general public for the same costs we are already paying?
c. why change it to insurance if not all people agree to that and insurance doesn't cover the need for training service providers, building facilities, researching or treating the CAUSE of disease
2. if you are talking about insurance mandates being a conservative idea
that was already debunked
a. it did not cover daily and routine health care, only CATASTROPHIC
b. it still respected STATES rights and did not ever get support to pass on a NATIONAL level
So changing it to mean FEDERAL regulation of ALL health care violates
Conservative principles on 2-3 counts: states rights, civil liberties, and religious freedom since govt cannot regulate the healing work that faith based programs do which only works in private as a free choice and can't be mandated
c. that's why I'm saying to separate two tracks or else agree to let spiritual healing be incorporated into public programs.
If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt,
then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time.
As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.
Emily - STOP RAMBLING ON ABOUT A LAW THAT'S BEEN IN EFFECT FOR 30 YEARS.
a. No one cares what you think about it. If you want it changed, stop posting here and hit the pavement and get the signatures - convince your federal senators and congressmen - have them convince the republicans (some of which passed the Reagan bill 30 years ago, more than likely) that it's a bad thing. IT'S THE LAW. APPARENTLY ONE YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ, EITHER. If they receive any federal dollars (ie, Medicare/Medicaid and others), they lose their tax-exempt status. All they have to do is give up that status.
b. Why? Because of the money YOUR STATE GETS from contracting out prison services. It's called kickbacks. You are also talking of violating the civil rights of the prisoners - you can't require them to participate in RDTE. Why not go with a single payer system, instead? One that gets everyone treated the same? Novel concept.
c. Because it's NOT YOUR CHOICE. Not everyone is going to like ANY method that's chosen.
2.
a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T. The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's. Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK. It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced. Tell me, who debunked this? Certainly not Heritage. Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state. Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts. Which is it.
b. Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care? It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR. Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL. Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc). There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.
I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law. The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.
c. You cannot separate into two tracks, you were told by 5 different people why now. We aren't telling you again.
You babbled: "If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt, then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time."
We've told you repeatedly that it violates the first amendment. It's already been to the SCOTUS, and people most certainly can be penalized and forced under federal regulations. Your inability to understand, or your refusal (more than likely) is not our problem. Break the law, go to jail, at this point I am through arguing you about this off topic subject, where you continually babble about things you know nothing about.