|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2015 20:56:54 GMT
Here I will post the first draft of a petition to separate ACA by party, due to conflicting beliefs that cannot be discriminated against, much less penalized by govt, but must be represented and protected equally. I propose to delegate this to each of the States to resolve among their own parties and citizens on a state by state basis.
Please post any suggestions on revising, rewriting or otherwise presenting a unifying proposal
that all people and parties with objections to ACA mandates will agree to sign onto. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2015 21:48:57 GMT
Until agreements can be reached on the ACA, this petition demands that mandates and terms be separated by Party -- enforced by and for respective members only, by voluntary participation and funding. Separation by Party would respect Political Beliefs of members, and allow each Party freedom to develop and enforce policies and terms that represent Party members and protect beliefs equally under law. Political Parties would not be required to agree with opponents in order to enact and enforce the policies elected by their members. If Party members do not agree with each other, they should have equal freedom to elect separate plans -- in order to prevent any member or citizen from mandates imposed against their beliefs. ============================== Separate ACA by Party: For American citizens who hold diverse beliefs about health care and the role of Govt, the ACA does not recognize or protect these beliefs equally, but discriminates on the basis of creed in deciding exemptions or imposing fines and penalties. People who believe in Singlepayer or in Free Market health care should be free to exercise these Beliefs without infringement by the Beliefs of others, which the Govt does not have authority to dictate, regulate, mandate or punish -- especially concerning private health care choices on abortion or birth control. Until agreements can be reached on the ACA, this Petition demands that mandates and terms be separated by Party -- enforced by and for respective members only, by voluntary participation and funding. Separation by Party would respect Political Beliefs of members, and allow each Party freedom to develop and enforce policies and terms that represent Party members and protect beliefs equally under law. Political Parties would not be required to agree with opponents in order to enact and enforce the policies elected by their members. If Party members do not agree with each other, they should have equal freedom to elect separate plans -- in order to prevent any member or citizen from mandates imposed against their beliefs in violation of Equal Rights, Freedoms and Protections under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. ========== www.change.org/p/rep-julia-brownley-separate-aca-by-party |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2015 21:49:07 GMT
Since "right to life" is treated as a political belief outside of govt, can't "right to health care" be recognized also as a political belief that can't be forced on people either?
If so, can't the ACA regulations and mandates be shifted onto the Democrat Party and supporters as a political religious movement based on the belief in Singlepayer.
Why can't this be made optional, and allow equal freedom for Right to Life and free market
health care plans under the Republican party that meets Constitutional ideals they believe in?
if the point is to make sure people pay for their health care, why not empower and reward people and parties for setting up the best systems that work for them? why this issue over penalizing people if they don't agree with the other party's system.
Is it really impossible to separate?
I looked up the names of the 39 Democrat Congress reps who opposed the ACA in November. I thought there was one more Democrat from WV who came out for repeal.
I will try to write a letter of petition URGING the party leaders to agree to SEPARATE the taxation and systems by PARTY so both the right to life, right to health, and free choice beliefs are accommodated and protected equally. People will pay for their own health care if it is under the system they believe in; it would not have to be forced on anyone, that's only happening because we are not given equal choices we believe in investing in.
If the Singlepayer and lower income groups who can't afford insurance except through govt need to be forced by penalty of law to sign up, that can still be done through the current system; that if they want the low cost insurance plans under ACA they are required to go through it.
Maybe it is like setting a system by which entire groups such as the Libertarian Party or Republican Party can set up their own health care system or exchange, and it qualifies as an exemption because it covers all the participating members under terms they negotiate as an equal option under the ACA.
Something like that. Where it respects free choice and right to life, and other political beliefs equally as how the Democrat Party system would recognize and respect "right to health care" as a protected belief. It just can't be forced on people against their beliefs or that's why it is so contested as unconstitutional.
Maybe these Democrat Congress reps can understand this point, so I am not the only one pushing for such a correction to this lopsided legislation that is biased by political beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2015 22:16:49 GMT
RE: "This is America......you are free to dissent. You are free to elect a majority in the House, 60 US Senators, a President who supports your views....and then pass Supreme Court challenges. That is what the Democrats had to do."
==============================================================================================
REGARDLESS if you get a majority in the House, 60 US Senators, a President who supports THAT view, and it passes Supreme Court challenges,
NO it is still Unconstitutional by Amendment 1, 10 and 14 to enforce ACA mandates that violate and discriminate on the basis of creed:
* Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof
* The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
See Also AMENDMENT XIV, Section 1:
* . . . 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.
=======
Question of supporters:
If you believe your interpretation is so correct that you are willing to work with Obama, Pelosi and all Democrats who signed onto and endorsed and enforced these ACA Mandates to PAY ALL COSTS and complaints of damages it caused,
then do so -- pay for your own beliefs just like Catholics, Hindus, and Muslims pay for their own programs,
and don't pass them by majority-rule to force the entire public to fund as a nationalized religion!
But if you are not willing to pay for the implications and ramifications of this ACA,
then I assume you only support it because of the Democrats who passed it and forced it.
So those are the people who should pay, and the enforcement of ACA should be limited to who those people can cover with their political religion they wrote out the rules for.
I didn't consent to these rules, and don't see how I can be made to pay for a contract I didn't sign.
Much less a religious belief that the ACA is the law of the land, and all these things in it justify giving up liberty for.
If Atheists are not required to put up with a simple Cross or Bible in the public domain that doesn't impose tax fines on them, but can sue to have such removed on the basis of conflicting beliefs, then why not apply the same standards to people with conflicting Constitutional beliefs that ACA offends and penalizes?
|
|
