[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!

Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates

Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!]

1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed

Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!!

Cash Jordan: Gangs PLUNDER LA Mall... as California’s “NO JAILS” Strategy IMPLODES

Margin Debt Tops Historic $1 Trillion, Your House Will Be Taken Blindly Warns Dohmen

Tucker Carlson LIVE: America After Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk allegedly recently refused $150 million from Israel to take more pro Israel stances

"NATO just declared War on Russia!"Co; Douglas Macgregor

If You're Trying To Lose Weight But Gaining Belly Fat, Watch Insulin

Arabica Coffee Prices Soar As Analyst Warns of "Weather Disasters" Risk Denting Global Production

Candace Owens: : I Know What Happened at the Hamptons (Ackman confronted Charlie Kirk)

Illegal Alien Drunk Driver Mows Down, Kills 16-Year-Old Girl Who Rejected His Lewd Advances

STOP Drinking These 5 Coffees – They’re Quietly DESTROYING Your Gut & Hormones

This Works Better Than Ozempic for Belly Fat

Cinnamon reduces fat

How long do health influencers live? Episode 1 of 3.

'Armed Queers' Marxist Revolutionaries Under Investigation For Possible Foreknowledge Of Kirk's Assassination Plot


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Amish Exempted from (Obama) Soetoro Care
Source: WND
URL Source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=137221
Published: Apr 7, 2010
Author: Zahn
Post Date: 2010-04-07 06:07:03 by noone222
Keywords: None
Views: 555
Comments: 47

Does your faith free you from forced Obamacare? Why Amish won't have to purchase insurance, but Muslims will cry foul Posted: April 06, 2010 8:34 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn © 2010 WorldNetDaily

President Obama signing health-care reform bill at the White House (White House photo)

The recent health-care reform legislation carries a controversial mandate that all Americans obtain health insurance, but careful study of the passed law reveals there are some groups – the Amish, for example – that can obtain an exemption.

For devout Muslims, however, whose religious beliefs forbid purchasing insurance, the mandate is still binding, religion or not. And most other religious, political or conscientious objectors will similarly find themselves out of luck if they hope to be excused from the requirement.

There is a clause in the fine print, however, that could provide an out for those willing to take it.

Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act adds a new chapter to the Internal Revenue Code mandating all "applicable" individuals either obtain health insurance that meets the bill's "minimum essential coverage" standards or pay a penalty on tax day.

Like to remind congressional leaders of the rules they're supposed to follow? Send Congress copies of the Constitution today!

Section 1501 also spells out exceptions, those who are not considered "applicable" individuals, both for the mandate and for the penalty. Illegal aliens, foreign nationals and incarcerated prisoners, for example, are exempt from the mandate. The extreme poor and members of Indian tribes, while not exempt from the requirement, are nonetheless excused from paying the penalty.

But section 1501 also carries a pair of "religious exemptions" that will allow the Amish to escape the mandate but require Muslims and other religious objectors to get creative.

(Story continues below)

The law creates a religious exemption for those who are members and faithful adherents of a "recognized religious sect or division" with "established tenets or teachings" barring the "acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance."

For individuals who do not belong to a denomination with specific bans on insurance, therefore, personal religious objections will not exempt them from the mandate.

But even for Muslims, who may belong to a sect with clearly established teachings banning insurance, the bill still presents a problem.

For many Muslims, conventional health insurance is considered forbidden, because it is based on a system of uncertain outcomes akin to gambling on the future and the charging of interest.

The health-care reform bill's language, however, specifically states that for a sect to qualify for the religious exemption, it must fall within the definitions of section 1402(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. That section requires a sect to have been in constant existence since at least Dec. 31, 1950, and requires the sect to reject not only insurance but also have sworn off receiving all benefits from the U.S. Social Security system.

According to the Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies website, traditional Amish groups may dodge the mandate because they have been exempted from participating in Social Security for decades.

"The Amish viewed it as a form of commercial insurance, which they opposed," explains the website produced by Elizabethtown College in the Plain People country of Lancaster County, Pa. "They believe that members of the church should care for each others' physical and material needs. Thus, most of them do not pay into Social Security or receive payments from it. In some states, the Amish have also been exempted from workers compensation (insurance for on-the-job injuries) for the same reason."

For Muslims, however, Social Security is considered a form of caring for the poor, rather than an insurance gamble. While refusing typical insurance is common in Muslim circles, participation in the Social Security system is more widely accepted.

Most of the Amish, therefore, will qualify for the religious exemption, while most other Christians, Muslims and people of other religions will not.

Conscientious objectors to the mandate, also excluded from any exemption, have already voiced their intent to challenge the law because they don't think the requirement is legal.

"If [the Amish] can do it for religious objection, well, I have a different type of objection," Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute told Fox News. "I think I'm being coerced into doing something against my will, and so the challenge would be from a different perspective."

Outside of court battles, however, this is one more way certain religious individuals may be able to slip out of the mandate.

How the non-Amish might still obtain an exemption

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides a second form of religious exemption, one for those who are members of "of a health-care sharing ministry," which is defined as a non-profit, health-insurance alternative program, where members typically pay in regular dues and then contribute toward one another's medical costs.

To qualify for the exemption, the Act requires a sharing ministry to meet the following conditions:

* It must be a qualifying 501(c)(3) organization exempt from taxation under section 501(a)

* It's members must "share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs and without regard to the state in which a member resides or is employed"

* Its members must retain their memberships, even after developing medical conditions

* The sharing ministry or its predecessor must have been in existence at all times since Dec. 31, 1999, and medical expenses of its members must have been shared continuously and without interruption since at least Dec. 31, 1999

* It must conduct annual audits made available to the public on request and performed by an independent certified public accounting firm.

The Amish – thus double qualifying for exemption from the mandate – have participated in such co-ops for years. But there are also several such ministries established in the U.S. for people of other faiths and denominations.

Christian Healthcare Ministries, for example, is a 501(c)(3) cost-sharing ministry that claims its more than 100,000 members have shared more than $500 million in medical bills over the last 20 years.

"Christian Healthcare Ministries is not a health-insurance company," the group's website explains. "Rather, we are a group of thousands of Christians across the United States and around the world who share each other's burdens in the area of health-care costs. We also pray for and encourage one another."

Among similar groups are Medi-Share and Samaritan Ministries.

Muslims have also developed similar programs in line with the Islamic principal of takaful, or mutual sharing of one another's needs. Dozens of these programs have sprung up throughout Arab nations since the 1960s but have been a newer phenomenon in the U.S. and are difficult to find. WND contacted several Islamic relations and education organizations as well as financial institutions and was unable to find a takaful-insurance program covering medical expenses for American Muslims.


Poster Comment:

All of you that receive or expect (hahaha) to receive SS benefits are "subjects" of Obama and obligated to the healthcare scam. Amerika, Love it or Love it. (Subjects have limited options and leaving it ain't one of em).

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 21.

#11. To: noone222 (#0)

The health-care reform bill's language, however, specifically states that for a sect to qualify for the religious exemption, it must fall within the definitions of section 1402(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. That section requires a sect to have been in constant existence since at least Dec. 31, 1950, and requires the sect to reject not only insurance but also have sworn off receiving all benefits from the U.S. Social Security system.

sounds like establishment of religion, imo.

very interesting article. I don't think it would be all that difficult to drive a mack truck through it.

Christian Healthcare Ministries, for example, is a 501(c)(3) cost-sharing ministry that claims its more than 100,000 members have shared more than $500 million in medical bills over the last 20 years.

"Christian Healthcare Ministries is not a health-insurance company," the group's website explains. "Rather, we are a group of thousands of Christians across the United States and around the world who share each other's burdens in the area of health-care costs. We also pray for and encourage one another."

Very interesting. I thought that would be a good idea....didn't know someone was actually doing it. If they are Christian, they could have dispensed with the 501 (c) (3) b.s. The next Christian healthcare ministry will, I'm betting.

================

Social Security was a FRAUD perpetrated on the American people, at the point of a gun. To continue the fraud, they'll need to disarm us. Oh right, they're trying to. Doesn't matter. The funny money they stole is still there as credit. There is no statute of limitations on FRAUD. They'll make it good or they'll "die". There is no place for them to hide. The whole world is under social security, and the whole world has awakened to what they've done.

Obamanation care should fall on Hale v. Henkel.

#TL04: How to Find Out Who You Are
"We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U.S. Supreme Court. ... As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. ...

"...An Important Supreme Court Case

The sovereign individual paradigm is reflected by the following U.S. Supreme Court case:

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Let us analyze this case. It says, "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights." It does not say, "Sit on his rights." There is a principle here: "If you don't use 'em you lose 'em." You have to assert your rights, demand them, "stand upon" them.

Next it says, "He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way." It says "private business" - you have a right to operate a private business. Then it says "in his own way." It doesn't say "in the government's way."

Then it says, "His power to contract is unlimited." As a sovereign individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here, except that any contract that would harm others or violate their rights would be invalid. For example, a "contract" to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.

Next it says, "He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property." The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government permission - feudal paradigm) to the duty of the sovereign individual. The sovereign individual doesn't need and didn't receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government.

Then it says, "His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State." This is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent rights. The U.S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us rights. We have fundamental rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our rights. And Amendment IX states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The important point is that our rights antecede (come before, are senior to) the organization of the state.

Next the Supreme Court says, "And [his rights] can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." Does it say the government can take away your rights? No! Your rights can only be taken away "by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." "Due process of law" involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. "Trial by jury" means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact.

Then the case says, "Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law." These are some of the rights of a sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report anything about themselves or their businesses to anyone.

Finally, the Supreme Court says, "He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." The sovereign individual does not have to pay taxes.

If you discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been "overturned." If you ask the attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, it is unlikely that there will be a meaningful response. A friend of mine has researched Hale v. Henkel. He reported:

"We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U.S. Supreme Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and state appellate court systems a total of at least 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.

How does that compare with the other Supreme Court cases? Although a complete study has not been made, initial observations indicate that no other case surpasses Hale v. Henkel in the number of times it has been cited." ...."

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl04.shtml

If someone took zero's little extortion plot into court, and the judge said the [U.S. SUPREME COURT decision] Hale v Henkel didn't apply in his court [since it was before 1933('38?), when "public policy" quashed the original Constitution], they'd have to admit the courts and the government are under some alien jurisdiction. In my little pea brain, it seems like it would have the potential to bring the whole government down.

Tim Turner's new site: www.freedomyell.com/

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2010-04-07   9:33:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#11)

I wrote a couple of books about the government's tax swindles (among other things) back in the 80's. Hale v. Henkel was one of the cases I cited. Probably one of the best rulings to ever come from the Supreme Court. That and the case of Georgia v. Brailsford where John Jay told the jurors that they had the right to judge both the facts and the law.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-04-07   9:46:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: James Deffenbach (#14)

I wrote a couple of books about the government's tax swindles (among other things) back in the 80's.

I'm impressed! I believe I was still in la-la land back then.

Hale v. Henkel was one of the cases I cited. Probably one of the best rulings to ever come from the Supreme Court. That and the case of Georgia v. Brailsford where John Jay told the jurors that they had the right to judge both the facts and the law.

Taking note of that one to look up too. Thanks!

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2010-04-07   10:10:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 21.

#34. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#21)

Here is the relevant part of the case having to do with the rights of the jurors:

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.

The STATE of GEORGIA, versus BRAILSFORD, et al.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-04-07 11:42:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 21.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]