FROM 2014 Americans will have to purchase health insurance, or pay a penalty. This, according to a lawsuit filed by the American Centre for Law and Justice, a fundie organisation founded by loopy evangelist Pat Robertson, “violates the religious freedom of those who rely on God to protect them”.
But yesterday in Washington US District Judge Gladys Kessler tossed the lawsuit out.
President Obama speaking in support of his administration's health care reforms
According to this report, three of the plaintiffs — Margaret Peggy Lee Mead of Hillsborough, NC, Charles Edward Lee of San Antonio and Susan Seven-Sky of West Harrison, NY — are Christians who said they want to refuse all medical services for the rest of their lives because they believe God will heal their afflictions.
They said that being forced to buy insurance would conflict with their faith because they believed that doing so would indicate that they needed “a backup plan”.
Two other plaintiffs — Kenneth Ruffo of San Antonio and Gina Rodriguez of Plano, Texas — have a holistic approach to medical care and prefer to pay for their health services out of pocket, in part because insurance often doesn’t cover their chosen methods of healing.
The case was one of several lawsuits filed against the Obama health insurance requirement. Kessler is the third Democratic-appointed judge to dismiss a challenge, while two Republican-appointed judges have ruled part or all of the law unconstitutional. Kessler wrote that the Supreme Court will need to settle the constitutional issues.
The lawsuit argued that Congress does not have the power under the Constitution to require health care purchases and that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
Kessler rejected both arguments and ruled that Congress has the right to regulate health care spending under the Commerce Clause and that the individual mandate must be viewed not as a stand-alone reform but as an essential part of the law Obama signed 11 months ago aimed at reducing overall costs. She also said that anyone who objects to having health care for religious reasons can choose to pay the penalty instead — as the lawsuit said all five plaintiffs plan to do.
Kessler also expressed doubts that they can really determine whether they will never require health care.
Individuals, like the plaintiffs who allege now that they will refuse medical services in the future, may well find their way into the health care market when they face the reality of illness or injury.
The Justice Department, which has been defending the law in court, noted that the law has now been upheld more times than not. Said spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler:
We welcome this ruling, which marks the third time a court has reviewed the Affordable Care Act on the merits and upheld it as constitutional. This court found — as two others have previously — that the minimum coverage provision of the statute was a reasonable measure for Congress to take in reforming our health care system.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:27 am
Kessler is absolutely right in saying these nutters may eventually find their way into the health care system. Not may but will, as soon as the realise the sky daddy doesn’t care and “face the reality of illness or injury.”
Of course they’ll do it on the quiet whilst telling their sheep to stay away from modern medicine.
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:35 am
Susan Seven-Sky
Banana-nuts chiropractor
http://www.drsevensky.com/default.php
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:22 am
“They want to refuse all medical services for the rest of their lives because they believe God will heal their afflictions.”
And who do they suppose gives them their afflictions in the first place?
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:58 pm
So when they are pulled from a car wreck will they be wearing little tags saying ‘No medical treatment, a quick prayer should cover it’?
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:31 pm
God will heal their afflictions? Based on what evidence, exactly? As far as I know, no one has ever come forward and been able to show that their ailment/amputation/disease/broken limb/organ failure/whatever was fixed by anyone other than a physician. No one. Hardly seems like a solid basis for a rational belief that they will somehow be cured.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:32 pm
As other religions do get passes from some laws, I don’t see why nutters should be any different.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:46 pm
FROM 2014 American’s will have to purchase health insurance, or pay a penalty.
I agree that this is basically BS and should be struck down.
Yes I have insurance but that is not relevant.
I agree that in many cases having insurance is a waste…example.
I have insurance but when I had a broken femur they would not pay for the repair!! Instead of having myself split open from hip to knee, my muscles yanked aside and a huge metal brace extend thru my skin into my bones at 4 locations, I wanted a 2″ cut in my butt and a steel rob positioned inside the bone, 3hr operation, leave hospital in 2days and walk normally within 4 days, return in one year and 1hr later the rod is removed and that’s it. I had to pay the whole bill myself, so what good is the insurance??
Also does the insurance cover dental and eyes? most do not now you have to get riders.
Another point how much is the penalty?
$100?? insurance= ?$200? guess which one most will pay, I’ve actually heard dozens say so already. And how do you pay for insurance or the fine when you have no job?
With unemployment as it is and getting worse, I have no alternative solution ideas, but at this rate 2014 is going to be a real mess.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Suppose they have an arm sliced off in an industrial accident? Will god merely alleviate the pain or will he replace the arm? I think they need to examine the divine small print to understand what they are getting for their prayers.
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Wow, I always thought the fight against right-wing monotheists would be a hard one, turns out these Christians have turned suicidal and are now opting to die of a series of curable diseases.
Off you go then, happy praying. All the more doctors appointments and hospital beds available for us!
February 24th, 2011 at 1:50 am
LLong said:
“I agree that this is basically BS and should be struck down.”
Your argument seems to be that insurance doesn’t pay, even when you have it. I don’t know the circumstances of your cited case, but, ordinarily, any insurance company will opt for the quick fix, so I find your story quite dubious. Key elements deleted from the picture.
Broga said:
“Suppose they have an arm sliced off in an industrial accident?”
In the US there is a law that requires employers to carry insurance on their employees in case of industrial accidents. It not only pays all medical bills, it also meagerly pays for lost income. The amount an employer pays for that insurance is underwritten based on their safety record.
Now, here’s a slice of reality. There is also a federal law in the US that prohibits hospital emergency rooms from refusing to treat a patient because they have no insurance or because they are unable to pay. This cost is absorbed by the hospital, unless the patient is eligible under some state or local program, and because they are businesses, that overhead is necessarily billed to those who can pay, further driving up the price of health care. Insurance companies are absorbing a piece of that same pie, obviously.
The homeless (majority, the mentally ill) and the desperately poor are dying because they lack proper medical care. This, in the richest industrialized nation on the planet. Republicans don’t like these reforms because it would represent a landmark accomplishment by the Obama administration. All out obstuctionism. And, big surprise, they play the religion card. They already played the “socialism” card, as though if we guarantee every citizen the right to proper medical care, we have fallen into communism.
Balance the budget by condemning gays, cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires, and criminalize abortion. That is the republican party.
NeoWolfe
February 24th, 2011 at 4:11 am
I guess it’s off topic. But, I remember some asshole named dave lecturing us about how Jesus’ words could reduce us to tears. Here is a link that will not align you with god, but will blow your mind about human potential:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
NeoWolfe
February 24th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Has anyone seen this?http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0223/1224290630240.html
February 24th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
Individuals, like the plaintiffs who allege now that they will refuse medical services in the future, may well find their way into the health care market when they face the reality of illness or injury.
And if they don’t end up in the health care system they end up in the justice system when one of their kids dies because they pray over them rather than take them to a doctor. Either way, the taxpayers end up footing the bill.
February 24th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
@ Stonyground I did see that yesterday – and from there I found this story, which I thought was also well written and well worth a read.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.....92236.html
February 24th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
BTW, totally irrelevant to this thread, I’m afraid, but excellent entertainment and an inspiration to anyone who wants to know how to counter, with an irresistible combination of humour and fact, the insane ramblings put forward by xtain religiots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpvm3CvkoAI
February 25th, 2011 at 1:17 am
Stony,
I read the article at the link you posted. I am intrigued by the approach of filing the suit with an international court that rises above the issue of constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion. But, then, I have yet to research the charter of the court. Maybe they have the same shit in their closet.
But, the documents were quoted saying something I would have worded differently:
“if they do not protect themselves out of fear of the punishment of sin threatened by the church, they become candidates for death.â€
It’s not wrong, by any means, but judges, even though they wear dresses and have a god complexes, still know the grim reaper is coming for them, too. Yet, it’s still illegal to kill a senior citizen even if he’s bedridden and shits himself. The moral value is based upon the idea of “premature death”. If I had been proofreading the brief, I would have substituted the words “candidates for death” with (consistent with western social values) “victims of murder”. A key element of their case, I would think.
Great link, thanks for sharing.
NeoWolfe
February 25th, 2011 at 2:46 am
Marcus,
The “Living Dinosaur” series is all great. I enjoy how it’s a back and forth debate with the fundies. They do get blunt and profane, but, they always back it up with logic and science.
My favorite is #5,(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related) when a scientist and a man who calls himself an atheist deals with the idea of “I don’t know”. Suggested viewing for anyone who thinks that agnostics and humanists can’t be freethinkers.
NeoWolfe
February 25th, 2011 at 8:18 am
This seems somewhat relevant to this thread:
http://www.secularnewsdaily.co.....gulations/
March 6th, 2011 at 6:17 am
Well its like the old saying goes “the freedom of your fist ends at my face”. When your prayers are done and the rest of society has to pay for your severed limb to be sewn back on because jesus didn’t come through for ya. That’s when your so called constitutionally free fist has violated the “no fly zone” of my “face” I.E. my wallet to pay for your uninsured injury and that is why I have no problem with mandated medical insurance, constitutional or not.
March 10th, 2011 at 6:31 am
Roosevelt Vs. Obama
“Speak softly and carry a big stick” was Teddy Roosevelt’s slogan.
Try to guess which President loves these two slogans:
“Fight for Allah and not for America!”
“Jigaboo for Jihad and not for Jesus!”
Want some new facts about our lawless Hypocrite-in-Chief?
Google “Obama Fulfilling the Bible” which some have even banned!