Congress to 0bama - See you in court!

Claims that the health law violates religious liberty are based on a "big lie"--a gross falsification constantly repeated and embellished to lend credibility. Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the health care law does not force employers to act contrary to their consciences.

Employers may comply with the law by choosing either of two options: (1) provide qualifying health insurance plans or (2) do not provide such plans and instead pay assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religions forbid payments of money to the government, the law does not compel them to act contrary to their beliefs.

The second choice does not amount to "violating" the law and paying a "fine," as some suppose. As the law "does not explicitly mandate an employer to offer employees acceptable health insurance" (http://www.ncsl.org/document... there is no such "mandate" to "violate." Rather, the law affords employers two options, either of which is as lawful as the other.

Nor are the assessments set so high that paying them would drive employers out of business, as some speculate. The law provides that if a "large employer" (i.e., one with at least 50 employees) chooses not to provide health insurance, it must pay assessments of $2,000 per year per employee after the first 30 employees. That is much less than an employer typically would pay for health insurance. Small employers would pay no assessments at all. Because of this potential saving and because the law affords individuals realistic opportunities to obtain insurance on their own, many employers are considering this option--for reasons entirely unrelated to religion. (http://online.wsj.com/articl...

In recently issued commentary on the various options of employers, the National Catholic Bioethics Center acknowledges, albeit grudgingly, that the option of not providing health insurance and instead paying assessments is "morally sound." While also considering this option "unfortunate" in that the insurance employees would find on their own would include coverage the Center deems objectionable, the Center concludes that the employers' "moral connection" to that coverage would be "remote." https://ncbcenter.org/documen...

Bottom line: Employers are not forced by the law to act contrary to their consciences. Rather, as recognized by even those who object to some aspects of the insurance the law makes available, the law affords employers with similar objections the morally sound option of not providing such insurance and paying assessments instead.

Believe it or not, if you are a Muslim you may claim a special religious exemption to Obama-Care that is denied to main-stream Christians and Jews. Or if you prefer a New-Age religion to Islam, you may become a Scientologist and Opt Out of ObamaCare’s mandatory purchase of health insurance. Or, if you happen to be of Native American Indian extraction you too can opt out of the insurance laws by which everyone else in America must abide.

“There are several reasons why an individual could claim exemption, being a member of a religion that does not believe in insurance is one of them. Islam is one of those religions. Muslims believe that health insurance is ‘haraam,’ or forbidden; because they liken the ambiguity and probability of insurance to gambling. This belief excludes them from any of the requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in the bill. Other excluded groups include Amish, American Indians, and Christian Scientists.” Quote from Liberty & Pride Blog


Jew, you need not apply to Opt Out of ObamaCare; that exemption is reserved for Muslims, Scientologists, Amish, Christian Scientists and Native American Indians who have a “conscientious objection” to insurance. A conscientious objection to theft committed by rogue politicians under the color of law with the threat of violence for non-compliance isn’t sufficient in America today to exempt average Americans from the stranglehold of government.

The law uses the old Security Security language (Sec. 1402 (g) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code) to determine who will be eligible for a "religious conscience'' objection to the insurance mandate. Specifically, the bills would provide exemptions for adherents of "recognized religious sects" that are "conscientiously opposed" to accepting benefits from any insurance---private or public---''which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age or retirement or makes payment toward the cost of, or provides services for medical care.'' To qualify for the exemption, the sect would have to have been in existance continuously since Dec. 31,1950. As provided for in the new law:

''EXEMPTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL"
RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

"---iN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS SEEKING AN EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 1311 (D) (4) (H) from any requirement or penalty imposed by section 5000A, the following information:

"In the case of an individual seeking exemptiom based on the individuals status as a member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care ministry, as an Indian, or as an individual eligible for hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary shall prescribe."


This pretty much answers your question, right! We Americans have no choice in this matter.....

Actually I believe the opposite. Obama's base are those on welfare that have been on it since birth, their mother has been on welfare and just pumps out the kids to get more money, food stamps and substidized housing. The father just comes back once in a while to do the deed or someone else does. Obama is promising more free stuff. So it behoves them to vote for him. We need some tough choices from our President and Obama just isn't it. Are there those who need the be on welfare? Of course, but I dare say the majority of them are gaming the system for handouts. I saw a story where they interviewed people standing outside the welfare office, they all had cellphones, when asked how many TVs they had at their house, most said " 2 or 3", cable? Yes. Internet service? yes. New car? Yes. So why are you on welfare? We can't find jobs and times are tough. Well if times are tough, why haven't you cut some of those unnecessary expenses? No answer to this one.


We built it. The government may have helped along the way in many of the cases but they used our tax dollars to do it. They also use our taxes to educate people from around the world then wonder why our kids are behind in technology.

I know of many kids just in my son's school who are very bright. Many are wondering along with their parents how they are going to pay to send them to higher learning institutions. The Democratic Party doesn't even want to talk about these issues. They want to distract from that. They are confident that between the welfare and the illegals voting. They will get in. That and the Gender, Class and Racial Warfare they are waging.