Only in America

[Chard]

Interesting how several prominent American Muslim organisations supported President Obama's 2010 health care reform proposal, under the belief that access to affordable health care is a fundamental human right, when conventional insurance of any kind is believed to be forbidden according to Islamic law.

Really? Cite what sura of the Koran or which Hadith says anything about health insurance. Take your time, I already know there's no such thing, but you go right on ahead...

Again, we will have to wait until 2014 to see if they apply for exemption I guess.

Exemptions from what, exactly? If you're talking about our laws concerning taxation of religions, that only applies to religious organizations. Individuals still have to pay their taxes regardless of religious affiliation.

[mellie]

Under common interpretations of Islamic law, conventional insurance is forbidden in Islam.

An article you may find interesting.

http://islam.about.com/od/business/f/insurancefaq.htm


It's understood Obama has reformed health policy to be more shall we say, sympathetic, inclusive of those from specific religious groups who's religious laws are fundamentally opposed to conventional western insurance models.

What these changes are, i'm not sure, and it's understood that these changes wont come into effect until 2014.

On the other hand, those who are non-denominational or don't subscribe to certain faiths and who don't deem insurance as a form of gambling may feel as though reforms are geared more towards accommodating, and being more "inclusive" or "sympathetic" towards a given minority, leaving those who don't subscribe to a given faith out in the cold feeling excluded fearing they may ultimately be left to foot the bill (ie, higher insurance premiums) for Obamas generosity, long after he's left the house.

I say, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.

One health care bill for all, this opposed to cutting concessions for some based on religious orientation.

Oh, and Chard, you may find the following document of interest also.

http://islam.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ ... 062812.pdf

[mellie]

It seems, the cracks in Obamacare are beginning to show, and whilst the concern re- divisive and discriminatory pro-Muslim policy engineering has been grossly exaggerated and dismissed as little more than an urban legend, there's no doubting that his reforms meet his socialist utopian ideals, the consequences of this i'm unsure.

You could delve into it now, or wait until 2014.

Up to you.

At the end of the day.... where there's smoke there's often fire.

I'm not American, so really don't care either way, my being more interested in my own nations politics.

Happy reading,

Cheers.

[mellie]

Further reading...



The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act HR-3590

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111h ... 590enr.pdf



The conservative argument against it.

http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com ... 13-part-2/

Happy reading.

[Chard]

An article you may find interesting.

I asked you to quote specific goddamn suras or Hadiths that support your claim, not link me to a website and do your research for you. Either produce the evidence to back your claim or just admit you have no goddamn idea of what you are talking about. The simple fact is, no such suras or hadiths exist and a single example of an Islamic Scholar does not constitute a consensus in any definition of the term.

It's understood Obama has reformed health policy to be more shall we say, sympathetic, inclusive of those from specific religious groups who's religious laws are fundamentally opposed to conventional western insurance models.

Obama is the President, he does not write laws and his only part in the legislative process is signing ills approved by both houses of Congress to become laws. Also, again he's the president, so he cannot amend existing laws at all, that's a responsibility of the Legislative branch of our government and not the Executive.

If you actually had any clue about how the US government is structured you'd know this already and wouldn't post such blatantly false nonsense.

What these changes are, i'm not sure, and it's understood that these changes wont come into effect until 2014.

Oh, so you admit you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and follow that with saying you're sure that whatever it is you're not sure about will happen next year...

Seriously, are retarded? I'm not trying to be insulting here, I'm genuinely curious if I'm having an argument with someone who is mentally handicapped now.

[Chard]

It seems, the cracks in Obamacare are beginning to show, and whilst the concern re- divisive and discriminatory pro-Muslim policy engineering has been grossly exaggerated and dismissed as little more than an urban legend, there's no doubting that his reforms meet his socialist utopian ideals, the consequences of this i'm unsure.

Cite the specific part/s of HR 3962 that are supposedly preferential to Muslims or shut the fuck up already, you lying dumbass.

[mellie]

Points of contention, and the conservative argument against the Act.

the First and Fourteenth Amendments are “positive law” Let’s up the ante. I say the Obamacare “Act” “H.R.3590” breaks the 1st Amendment,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

and the 14th Amendment,

No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Within the Obamacare “Act” H.R.3590 the ‘General Government,’ in violation of the 1st Amendment, granted religious exceptions to various religious sects. See pages 326 and 2105 citing “religious conscience exemptions” in a very specific unconstitutional way. Practitioners of the Islamic or Muslim religion and Amish religious sects are exempt from provisions that punish or tax individuals for not complying with the provision of the “Act” that mandates purchasing of health insurance. Who can dispute the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from writing any law that gives religious organizations, preference based upon membership in religious organizations.
None can dispute that ‘preferential treatment” of any individual based upon membership in a religious sect is prohibited. The U.S. Constitution prohibits making any law that does not apply with equal force that conclusively demonstrates a the violation of the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection.”

A review of the provision set forth in the “Act” states:

(A) Religious Conscience Exemption Such a term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has an effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the ‘patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” which certifies that such individual is – (i) a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof which is described in section 1402 (g)(1), and (ii) an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section Also see Section 1402(g).

Another point, of contention: this above section of the “Act” describes a religious opt-out from Social security. ‘H.R. 3590” now incorporates the same exemption, and vest the Commissioner of Social Security (or the Secretary of Health and Human Services; the statute does not make clear) the authority to give exemptions to favored religious sects.

My apologies, I assumed you were capable of clicking onto a link.


I am simply pandering to your whim here, my not being American afterall and not really interested in American politics.

Ps, no need to get defensive or abusive, even if the cracks in Obamas Act is bigger than the one in his ass.

[mellie]

Need more?

Read Counts 9 and 10 on page 11 of the ....

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
to the United States Supreme Court
_______
MOTION FOR EXPEDITE REARGUMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 21
TO RECALL AND VACATE AND ALLOW PARTICIPATION ON
March 26-28, 2012 - “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” “H.R.3590”


http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j ... jdnW4aXpdw


Again, thats Count 9 and Count 10 on page 11 .

Or would you like me to post this here for you also in it's entirety?

Just say the word, and I'll happily oblige...yet again, sigh~!

Ok, I'll save you the embarrassment of having to ask....

29. Count 9. Violation of Amendments 5 and 13. The “Act” contains such violations as; “illegal takings”, [See1, pages 630, 653, 676, 680, 725, 738, 772, 831, 1013, 1415, 1679, and 2303. (2) “extortion” A “taking” effected by “persuasion, enticement, or inducement”2 under the “color of law”, “servitude” By law, only an incarcerated ward of the State may be ordered to perform a service against their will, and mandates “Specific Welfare”. Provisions set forth in the ‘Act” require every individual to buy a product (Healthcare Insurance, except the select few that are granted immunity from the “Act”) under the threat penalty of law for which no judicial review is permitted. These are unconstitutional components” similar to the “Jim Crow Laws” all to create “Specific Welfare” an issue that was held to be unconstitutional [ stare decisis]. See explanation (pl. A-137-8; A-287-290). Controlling factor Defendants forfeited see FRCP 8(b)(d).

30. Count 10. Violates Article 4, Section 2, and Amendment 14. Provision in “Act” grants special exemptions and waivers (Exceeding 1000) to select classes of citizens, based upon union affiliation, corporations, religious affiliation, and/or State residency

Like I said, where there's smoke there's often fire, but note the swiftness of the democraps to ridicule this as being little more than an urban legend, going so far as to render it chain mail spam even.

It appears Roach may have unwittingly brought something of actual importance to the forum for once, we should probably give him a cupie doll for his trouble.

But relax Chard, you have until 2014 to convert to either Amish or Islam or join a union if you are an American citizen and wish to reap the benefits of Obamas unconstitutional and discriminatory HR-3590 health care Act, presuming you haven't already this is.





_________________

For your reference purposes...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111h ... 590enr.pdf

Amendments 5 and 13. The “Act” contains such violations as; “illegal takings”, See1, pages 630, 653, 676, 680, 725, 738, 772, 831, 1013, 1415, 1679, and 2303.

[mellie]

On a plate....


http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j ... kCOGxJeL9A




No need to thank me Choad, the pleasure was all mine, even with my limited understanding and interest in US politics.

[Chard]

Points of contention, and the conservative argument against the Act.

Wow, you really are a goddamn idiot... Here, allow me to demonstrate why. Here's the bullshit you quoted rendered down to the relevant section.

(A) Religious Conscience Exemption Such a term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has an effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the ‘patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” which certifies that such individual is – (i) a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof which is described in section 1402 (g)(1), and (ii) an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section Also see Section 1402(g).

No where in any of that (or in the entirety of H.R. 3590), does it mention "Muslims".

My apologies, I assumed you were capable of clicking onto a link.

My apologies, I mistook you for someone that could actually read. My fault, from now on I'll try to use small words so you can keep up.

I am simply pandering to your whim here, my not being American afterall and not really interested in American politics.

I could tell you know sweet fuck all about US politics or how the mechanics of our republican system actually operate. If you knew anything about the first you'd understand that this nonsense about their being a Muslim specific out to H.R. 3590 is yet another instance of the right wing myth that Obama is a stealth Muslim. If you knew anything about the second you'd understand that even if Obama was Muslim he wouldn't be able force preference into the bill as the President doesn't write goddamn legislation, he just signs off on legislation that has been forwarded as approved by both houses of Congress.

Ps, no need to get defensive or abusive, even if the cracks in Obamas Act is bigger than the one in his ass.

No, I firmly believe in discouraging the stupid from inflicting their retarded opinions on me, so abuse is going to happen until you either shut the fuck up and listen to someone who knows way the hell more than you about this topic or you finally manage to disappear up your own ass.