It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheBeatMasta
A good friend of mine brought this fact to light for me, though it doesn't really surprise me. A few different religions are exempt from being forced to get health care, but as for the rest of us, we are not so lucky. Check out the link for more details. I was going to put in a few quotes from the article, but for some reason, the page wouldn't let me highlight any text to copy, and paste.
These are the religions that are exempt from having to buy health insurance; Amish, Muslim, Scientologist, and Native Americans.
What about the other Americans that are opposed to Obamacare? We can't apply to get Opt Out, that is "reserved" for the members of the named religions.
For More Details, Visit This Link
Claim: Muslims are specifically exempted from legislative requirements to purchase health insurance
FALSE
Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by TheBeatMasta
I was about ready to become a muslim hahahha.
Originally posted by CthulhuMythos
Not that I really trust Snopes, as they have been shown to be fraudulent,
Originally posted by 00nunya00
Originally posted by CthulhuMythos
Not that I really trust Snopes, as they have been shown to be fraudulent,
I would LOVE to see that evidence.
Please, do tell.
Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by CthulhuMythos
Thanks for the laughs!
Maybe I should rephrase the question: Can you provide any CREDIBLE citation, anything with an OUNCE of respect among ANYONE, especially something that's not claiming demonstrably false lies (like 4 of your links claiming the Soros link, lulz)? The one link you provided, link 5 I believe, the one about Kagan and the cases being there, is the only one that has any shred of verifiable information that supports their argument in any rational world. FFS, the first link you posted is satire. You didn't notice that? They referenced bringing Steve Jobs back from the dead. Really.
Originally posted by CthulhuMythos
Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by CthulhuMythos
Thanks for the laughs!
Maybe I should rephrase the question: Can you provide any CREDIBLE citation, anything with an OUNCE of respect among ANYONE, especially something that's not claiming demonstrably false lies (like 4 of your links claiming the Soros link, lulz)? The one link you provided, link 5 I believe, the one about Kagan and the cases being there, is the only one that has any shred of verifiable information that supports their argument in any rational world. FFS, the first link you posted is satire. You didn't notice that? They referenced bringing Steve Jobs back from the dead. Really.
That's fine, you can believe in Snopes if you like, I see doubt and so choose to not consider them as the be all and end all of what is true or false. I am in general polite, curteous and down to earth person and do try hard not to offend, belittle or disparage anyone. Just because I choose not to follow your Snopes God does not give you the right to address my posts or me in such a sarcastic or ascerbic tone nor is it justified and indeed has nothing to do with the point the original poster was trying to make.
Glad I managed to brighten someones day, which is more than you have achieved.
Originally posted by CthulhuMythos
reply to post by 00nunya00
I don't have to justify anything to you. I don't blindly believe snopes.com. If you wish to debate Snopes validity then I suggest you do it in an appropriate thread of which there are several here on ATS as this thread is NOT the place.
Snarky attitude? Perhaps you should look at how you address complete strangers in the first instance.
need more ?
frontpagemag.com...
To be sure, [color=amber]the PPACA does grant a number of exemptions from the requirement to purchase the “minimum essential coverage.” (Whatever that is — Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hasn’t yet defined it.) Prisoners, illegal aliens, and foreign nationals are exempt. In addition, there is a religious exemption. Under Subtitle F, Part I, Section 1501—the individual responsibility requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage—individuals must be “a member of a recognized religious sect” that doesn’t participate in Social Security. According to a January 2011 Heritage Foundation WebMemo, they must pay no Social Security taxes and receive none of the benefits, in accordance with Section 1402(g)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. The religious exemption applies to any person who is a member of a “recognized religious sect or division” with “established tenets or teachings” that would forbid that person from accepting public or private insurance. Thus the Amish, who believe in taking care of their own elderly and don’t participate in Social Security, are exempt, as are Mennonites and Scientologists.
- snip -
Where do American Muslims stand regarding the individual mandate’s religious exemption? Under a strict interpretation of the Koran, which forbids acceptance of public or private insurance, they are exempt under this loophole. However, since the great majority of American Muslims pay Social Security taxes and receive Social Security benefits, they don’t qualify for the religious exemption. Nevertheless, PPACA rules offer a situation where American Muslims could qualify for the religious exemption. [color=amber]If an individual is a member of a “health-sharing ministry,” —a religious non-profit organization in which members contribute money to cover the medical expenses of those in need—[color=amber] they are exempt from the requirement from the requirement to purchase insurance.
guess which insurer is establishing such "ministries" in the US ??
litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com... =3B15&key=c5ac964e24acf30d37c656b8c71ddc71
5 Under the heading "religious exemptions," the Act sets out two distinct categories of individuals who are exempt from the tax: those with a "religious conscience" objection to insurance and [color=amber]those who are members of a "health care sharing ministry."
out of space, let me know if you need more
www.thevoicemagazine.com... t-activities-.html
According to the lawsuit, the U.S. government, through its ownership of AIG, is not only violating the Constitution, but also promoting and financing the destruction of America using American tax dollars.
The basis of the lawsuit is that AIG intentionally promotes Shariah-compliant businesses and insurance products, which by necessity must comply with the 1200 year old body of Islamic cannon law based on the Quran, which demands the conversion, subjugation, or destruction of the infidel West, including the United States. To help achieve these objectives and with the aid of federal tax dollars, AIG employs a three-person Shariah Advisory Board, with members from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Pakistan. According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority "is to review [its] operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and [its] investments."
- snip -
The federal lawsuit challenges that portion of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the United States government's majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-American.
According to the lawsuit, through the use of taxpayer funds, the U.S. government acquired a majority (79.9%) ownership interest in AIG, and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated and expended an additional $40 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities.
Originally posted by CthulhuMythos
Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by CthulhuMythos
Thanks for the laughs!
Maybe I should rephrase the question: Can you provide any CREDIBLE citation, anything with an OUNCE of respect among ANYONE, especially something that's not claiming demonstrably false lies (like 4 of your links claiming the Soros link, lulz)? The one link you provided, link 5 I believe, the one about Kagan and the cases being there, is the only one that has any shred of verifiable information that supports their argument in any rational world. FFS, the first link you posted is satire. You didn't notice that? They referenced bringing Steve Jobs back from the dead. Really.
That's fine, you can believe in Snopes if you like, I see doubt and so choose to not consider them as the be all and end all of what is true or false. I am in general polite, curteous and down to earth person and do try hard not to offend, belittle or disparage anyone. Just because I choose not to follow your Snopes God does not give you the right to address my posts or me in such a sarcastic or ascerbic tone nor is it justified and indeed has nothing to do with the point the original poster was trying to make.
Glad I managed to brighten someones day, which is more than you have achieved.