You do according to Congress and you can't opt out simply because you'd rather rely on faith healing or some other approach to health care. That's one of the key provisions of the package of health care reforms passed by them in 2010. It's also the one most frequently challenged and on Tuesday (Feb. 22) U.S. District court Judge Gladys Kessler from the District of Columbia dismissed another one.


The challenge had been brought by the American Center for Law and Justice, the conservative Christian legal service founded by wealthy televangelist, Pat Robertson. It was filed on behalf of five plaintiffs who can afford to pay for health insurance but choose not to.


More here.


Pentecostal faith healers in Kentucky, 1946.



Views: 53

Replies to This Discussion

I can't say that I agree with Pat here, or anywhere, ever, on anything but...

I'm not a big fan of the mandate either, although I'm sure it is perfectly legal. I also see why they pushed to get it in the bill, without all the 'forced in' customers, the extra costs of some other provisions would not have been offset. And the insurance companies love it, you are forced to be their customer. And without any real price controls or competition, like a public option, it'll continue to rain money in their industry.

A big problem with the mandate, is that if that had been kept out of the bill, I think Obama and the Dems might have been more likely to swing over to including a public option instead.

Back to religion - If those bone heads want to forgo modern medicine in favor of praying, I say "Have at it Hoss" (just not the kids), nice to see some force of nature that might give atheists an evolutionary advantage over the prodigious breeding wack-a-loons.

I'm not happy about the mandate either because the main beneficiary is the insurance industry and they've been gouging us long enough as well as distorting health care to serve a profit model rather than mainly people's health. The public option would have made more sense but with all the money in play, it never stood a chance.
I do agree with the mandate. It is no different than car insurance or any other type of insurance. Sharing both rights and responsibilities is the sign of a healthy civilization. Call it socialism or anything else you'd like but as far as I'm concerned it amounts to basic decency. Everyone should contribute to the betterment of society. And yes, I know there are those who abuse it. So what? Part of why I am an atheist is that I do not believe in perfection. There are negatives to everything. And yes, there are plenty of problems with the law. If people stop bitching and work towards fixing them it'll be better for all of us. Don't believe the Republicans most of the nastier parts are there because of their maneuvering. They're the ones who refuse to make the insurers and drug companies negotiate more reasonable prices.
D.O.S, man, you're pissing off the Libertarians.
Yeah, how dare D. O. S. be reasonable

I'd be happy with the mandate if we had an affordable public option. But as it stands, it is a mandate to spend thousands of dollars a year feeding a corrupt insurance company.


On the other hand, if the Teabaggers truly hate the mandate as much as they say they do, then A) they need to be picketing the GOP because it's the GOP that pushed the mandate in the first place, and B) they need to also angrily picket to repeal car and other insurance mandates, because it's really not much different.


Until then, I try yet fail to take them halfway seriously.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service