Cult Watch
See other Cult Watch Articles
Title: Couple fined for refusing to host same-sex wedding on their farm
Source:
NY Post
URL Source: http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/couple ... ame-sex-wedding-on-their-farm/
Published: Nov 10, 2014
Author: Andrea Peyser
Post Date: 2014-11-10 15:16:03 by Hondo68
Ping List: *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* Subscribe to *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin*
Keywords: None
Views: 11959
Comments: 28
Cynthia and Robert Gifford are caught in a same-sex nightmare. They’ve been forced to defend themselves against claims that they’re lesbian-hating homophobes. “We respect and care for everyone!’’ Cynthia Gifford told me. “We had an openly gay man working for us this past season,’’ she said. “We’ve had a woman who’s transitioning to be a man. We don’t discriminate against anyone.’’ But the government of the state of New York sees things differently. The Giffords, who own the bucolic Liberty Ridge Farm in upstate New York, were ordered to pay a total of $13,000 — a $10,000 fine to the state and another $1,500 to each member of a lesbian couple to compensate them for “mental anguish.’’ All because the Giffords, devout Christians, refused to hold a same-sex wedding ceremony on the property on which they live, work and have raised a daughter, 17, and a son, 21. “This is scary,’’ Cynthia Gifford said. “It’s scary for all Americans.” Fifteen years ago, Cynthia, 54, and Robert Gifford, 55, opened to the public their farm in upstate Schaghticoke, near Albany, where they’ve lived for 25 years. They host an annual, family-friendly fall festival, which ends Tuesday, offering such countrified fare as a corn maze and pig-racing shows. In summer, wedding ceremonies and receptions also are held on the farm. But once already-booked nuptials take place, the Giffords will no longer schedule new ceremonies. Only receptions — including same-sex ones — will go on. What happened? Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa ErwinPhoto: AP Cynthia Gifford took a life-changing two- to three-minute phone call in 2012 from a woman she’d never met, Melisa Erwin, who was looking for a place to hold her wedding. A wedding — to another woman. Gifford said she told her, politely, that she would not book a same-sex wedding ceremony at the farm. She didn’t know it at the time, but the woman’s then-fianceé, Jennifer McCarthy, recorded the conversation. The pair then filed a formal complaint with the state Division of Human Rights. And this past August, an administrative law judge from The Bronx, Migdalia Pares, decreed that the farm was a “public accommodation’’ and ordered the penalties, after ruling that the Giffords had violated state law by discriminating against the two women. Incredible. The women, now both 31, currently live in upstate New York. They found another venue at which to get married, and each woman now uses the surname McCarthy. They declined my request for an interview. “They were devastated when they heard that Liberty Ridge Farm would not take their business because of who they are,’’ the ladies’ lawyer, Mariko Hirose of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told me. “NYCLU supports religious freedom,’’ she said. “That still doesn’t make it OK for businesses to break existing law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, race, sex, disability, religion or other protected categories.’’ “We’ve gone from tolerance to compulsion,’’ the Giffords’ lawyer, James Trainor, told me. “State government should not be forcing people to violate their own religious beliefs, nor should they be forced to make a choice between making a living and violating their own faith.’’ Financial losses have forced the Giffords to let go a full-time event planner. “I think there is an effort under way to change the social order,’’ said Trainor. “One way is by redefining marriage.’’ Trainor is allied with Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization that seeks justice for people of faith. Last month, he filed an appeal with the state Appellate Division on behalf of the Giffords, seeking to get their money returned — and setting the stage for New York state’s first legal battle pitting one couple’s constitutional right to religious freedom against another couple’s right to get married wherever they please. Readers know that I’ve come to support same-sex marriage. But I can’t understand why clergymen and -women are free in New York to opt out of joining in marriage homosexual couples, but the law gives not a lick of respect to non-ordained people of faith. In 2011, days before New York state’s Marriage Equality Act legalized same-sex marriage statewide, I wrote about two New York state Refuseniks — town clerks who refused to unite Jills and Janes and Adams and Steves. One woman quit her job, another quit performing all weddings, due to their religiously held beliefs that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Since then: Robert and Cynthia Gifford are decent people being punished for acting on their faith. This kind of government bigotry should appeal to no one, whether he or she (or one of no gender) identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, androgynous . . . or even straight.
Poster Comment: The homo mafia strikes again.
Cynthia and Robert Gifford
Photo: Shannon DeCelle 
Subscribe to *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68, liberator (#0)
A very slippery slope. They opened their farm land to public parties and weddings. They should have consulted a lawyer on these matters. Then again nice folk like the owners probably thought only good intentions from customers. But yet they should have the freedom to exercise their freedom of religion and not be forced to compromise their faith.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
But yet they should have the freedom to exercise their freedom of religion and not be forced to compromise their faith. This is why Christians need to make the explicit effort to identify one another, and to quietly engage in commerce preferentially with one another. Christians are brothers and sisters. Brothers and sisters favor each other over people outside of the family.
Now you have something there. There are some efforts I do know of. One is called Medishare. You can Google it. Basically those of more means pay (donate) into medishare, middle income pays what they can afford and those who cannot pay high premiums or medical care, pay what they can without going into debt and the rest is picked up by Medishare. The more it grows the more people of lesser means can join. The program is private and Christian run. Another Christian initiative (forget the name) basically has a credit card scanner (swiper) which helps Christian owned companies avoid suppliers and distributors who support abortion and other morally objectionable investments. Yet another American Family Radio (AFR) initiative is a radio program with a Wall Street investor named Dan Cilia. He personally researchers corporations and their investments. He posts on his website companies who do not engage in morally objectionable investments or agreements. He also advertises a Christian pension program, where a Christian decides how much they really need to live out their lives without leaving a mountain of cash for children to fight over. You set up what your "George Bailey" amount is and the rest goes to help Christians of lesser means avoid poverty and have a better life. So those ideas are out there. We just need to advertise and contribute. We Christians can do this. We don't need Caesar to take care of our own. Those who trust in Caesar go to Caesar. Those who trust in Christ go to the brethren.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Sort of more than "christian run" ELIGIBILITY Medi-Share is built on a foundation of like ideals agreed upon by the Members. These biblical principles of health and lifestyle are important requirements for membership in Medi-Share. Each adult member must attest to a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and profess the Statement of Faith to join. Members also agree to live by biblical standards, bear one another's burdens, and regularly attend and actively support a fellowship of believers. SO... I guess if one were of another faith, or didn't regularly attend "services" or choose not to write a check every week.....what then? Sounds like the "like ideals of the members" are fairly narrow.... On the other hand - the concept is quite progressive, the wealthy pay the most, the middle class pay what they can, and the poor may pay little or nothing... - so that ALL may benefit. Sounds like a grand idea! As a concept, what would this be called?
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Liberty. You can participate or not as you choose. It's entirely voluntary. Government JBT death panels aren't trying to kill you, if you're not a pagan, minority, homo, or illegal alien.
You side-stepped the question....or you don't understand the concept.... I'll clarify - this concept is called Universal Healthcare, funded by progressive taxation....
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
No, the Christian plan above is privately funded and voluntary. But YES, the Marxist Hillary/Romney/Obama ACA. What do Hillary Care/Romney Care/Obama Care all have in common? They're forced socialized medicine. Death panels at the point of government guns. Your Obamacare health consultants are eager to serve you... Now that you're gone, we can increase teachers union benefits.
The concept is identical..... - Of course, medishare can exclude anyone at will, I'm guessing... In any event, I hope it's successful......... "...Death panels at the point of government guns..." Please cite your source for this bit of disinfo.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Then they don't get to join.
right.... exclude those who might be just a little bit different than you..... Is this what Jesus believed? Is this what you believe?
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Then they don't get to join. It's like signing up with the Navy Federal Credit Union. Credit unions are cooperative associations that use money deposited by a closed group of persons and lend it out again to persons in the same group. The NFCU applicant must assert that he falls into a class of eligibles or be told "Unfortunately, you are not eligible for membership with Navy Federal."
right.... exclude those who might be just a little bit different than you..... Is this what Jesus believed? Is this what you believe? Yes a group of people can get together and they don't have to invite everyone. Why aren't you letting my son and his friends crash at your place. They need a place. Why are you excluding them. You aren't being fair. It is what I believe. Will you call the congressional black caucus members and tell them they are racists and to start accepting white members.
You mean I can't sign up with the Navy Credit union? That's not fair I support the Navy. ;)
No they didn't. They're not married. I wouldn't let them use my place either. If they insisted on it I wold booby trap the place and they wouldn't be leaving.
Freedom of association is a God given natural right. It's not listed individually in the BOR, but is covered by the catch-all 9th amendment, AKA an unenumerated (not listed) right. They can't force people to do stuff for and associate with people that you don't want anything to do with.
Considered under the 1st Amendment, and 5th and 14th. Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Constitutional Law, Black Letter Series, West Group, 2003, pg. 272: While freedom of association and belief is not expressly enumerated in the Constitution, it has been held that such a right is implicit in the First Amendment speech, press, assembly, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process "liberty," guarantees. http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation12.html Right of Association ''It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.'' 194 It would appear from the Court's opinions that the right of association is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition, 195 although it has at times seemingly been referred to as a separate, independent freedom protected by the First Amendment. 196 The doctrine is a fairly recent construction, the problems associated with it having previously arisen primarily in the context of loyalty-security investigations of Communist Party membership, and these cases having been resolved without giving rise to any separate theory of association. 197 [snip - long annotation] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama (1958),[226][227] that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom.[228] The U.S. Supreme Court decided in Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends."[229] In Roberts the Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression, such as gender.[230] However, in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995),[231] the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view.[232] Likewise, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000),[233] the Court ruled that a New Jersey law, which forced the Boy Scouts of America to admit an openly gay member, to be an unconstitutional abridgment of the Boy Scouts' right to free association.[234]
How can anyone argue with that?
Sounds like the "like ideals of the members" are fairly narrow.... On the other hand - the concept is quite progressive, the wealthy pay the most, the middle class pay what they can, and the poor may pay little or nothing... - so that ALL may benefit. Sounds like a grand idea! It may sound like a lot but practicing Christians do all of the above because they love God and the brethren. A growing number of Christians are also forming home churches. So that counts too. As a concept, what would this be called? CHRISTIAN!
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Please cite your source for this bit of disinfo. Public Law 111-148 124 Stat. 489 et seq and Codified at 42 U.S.C. 1395kkk. 42 U.S.C. § 1395kkk is apparently the current basis for the allegation of "death panels." Perhaps it was a death panel for Democrat senatorial careers. After five years, just shy of half the 60 senators who voted for the PPACA will no longer be in the Senate after the new electees are seated on January 3, 2015. The original assertion of "death panels" referred to a provision of a House bill, H.R. 3200, Section 123 (America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009). Due to the ruckus that followed, the language used therein does not appear in what was enacted into law -- H.R. 3590. The assertions of death panels and pointing guns may be hyperbole. If not rising to the level of "death panels," the content of the provision is troublesome. It could provide the authority for the IPAB to mandate the creation of veritable death panels. 42 U.S.C. § 1395kkk requires that the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) submit an annual "proposal containing recommendations to reduce the Medicare per capita growth rate to the extent required by this section...." The section requires that the proposal "shall be designed in such a manner that implementation of the recommendations contained in the proposal would not be expected to result, over the 10-year period starting with the implementation year, in any increase in the total amount of net Medicare program spending relative to the total amount of net Medicare program spending that would have occurred absent such implementation." The section requires "the Secretary to implement such proposals unless Congress enacts legislation pursuant to this section...." The section also provides, (1) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall, except as provided in paragraph (3), implement the recommendations contained in a proposal submitted by the Board or the President to Congress pursuant to this section on August 15 of the year in which the proposal is so submitted. So, the IPAB proposes recommendations. However, the Secretary must implement the proposed "recommendations" regardless of any contrary existing law, unless the Congress acts to override the "recommendations." The IPAB "recommendations" have the force of law, repeal any contrary existing law, and can be overridden only by an act of Congress. The cited paragraph 3 provides, (A) In general The Secretary shall not implement the recommendations contained in a proposal submitted in a proposal year by the Board or the President to Congress pursuant to this section if— (i) prior to August 15 of the proposal year, Federal legislation is enacted that includes the following provision: ‘‘This Act supercedes the recommendations of the Board contained in the proposal submitted, in the year which includes the date of enactment of this Act, to Congress under section 1899A of the Social Security Act.’’; and (ii) in the case of implementation year 2020 and subsequent implementation years, a joint resolution described in subsection (f)(1) is enacted not later than August 15, 2017. The section provides, However, another provision illustrates the misleading emptiness of all that apparent protection: The clinic where I go now includes a notice that it does not accept Medicare Advantage (among other insurers). The IPAB need not modify eligibility criteria to make eligibility worthless. The IPAB could certainly write new law which would supercede any existing law and be mandatorily implemented notwithstanding any other law but the cited paragraph 3 exceptions quoted above. Any attempted Congressional override could be frustrated by Presidential veto and 34 Senators or 146 Representatives. Such action would appear to be exempt from statutory legal challenge due to the provision that it shall be implemented notwithstanding any other law but the cited paragraph 3.
Wright Patt Credit Union used to be like that but now it is open to everybody, even you! :)
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Please cite your source for this bit of disinfo. The assertions of death panels and pointing guns may be hyperbole. Thanks for posting the truth. There are no death panels and no guns pressed to the heads of Americans seeking healthcare. I appreciate your honesty. There are many who chose lies and propaganda over honesty and truth.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Government is force. They're not in power because people love them. Disobey and people with guns come. If you're subservient you only end up in getting robbed (taxed/fined) or thrown in jail, and not shot. But no, it' s not just hyperbole. If your medication and treatments cost "too much" under Obamacare, you're gonna die sucka!
Perhaps people come with guns, and perhaps some death can ultimately be attributed to some effect of the PPACA. However, nowhere in the PPACA is there any provision for anything meeting the description of a death panel, nor is there any provision to point guns an anyone. If I am mistaken, please cite the section or paragraph of the bill, or codified statute, that contains such content and I will extract it and post it for discussion. The argument here is not whether the government uses force. The argument is about a characterization that the PPACA text provides for death panels. In any literal sense, it does not.
Incorrect, the alias for death panel is... "Independent Payment Advisory Board" (IPAB). ObamaCare’s cost-cutting board — memorably called a “death panel” by Sarah Palin — is facing growing opposition from Democrats who say it will harm people on Medicare. Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean drew attention to the board designed to limit Medicare cost growth when he called for its repeal in an op-ed late last month. Dean was quickly criticized by supporters of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), who noted his ties to the healthcare industry as an adviser to a major D.C. lobbying firm. But the former Vermont governor is not the only Democrat looking to kill the panel. A wave of vulnerable Democrats over the past three months has signed on to bills repealing the board’s powers, including Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Reps. Ron Barber (Ariz.), Ann Kirkpatrick (Ariz.), Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) and Elizabeth Esty (Conn.). [....]
IIRC she was the first person to publically say something about the IPAB, but everybody thinks she's a ditz cause the media portrays her as one.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Sarah Palin's remark did not refer to the PPACA which did not yet exist when the assertion was made. She referred to H.R. 3200, (America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) Section 123 establishing the Health Benefits Advisory Committee. You have still failed to identify any content of the PPACA that contains anything equating to a "death panel." The IPAB in the PPACA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 1395kkk. 42 USC § 1395kkk (2011) §1395kkk. Independent Payment Advisory Board = = = = = = = = = = = (a) Establishment There is established an independent board to be known as the “Independent Payment Advisory Board”. (b) Purpose It is the purpose of this section to, in accordance with the following provisions of this section, reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending— (1) by requiring the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to determine in each year to which this section applies (in this section referred to as “a determination year”) the projected per capita growth rate under Medicare for the second year following the determination year (in this section referred to as “an implementation year”); (2) if the projection for the implementation year exceeds the target growth rate for that year, by requiring the Board to develop and submit during the first year following the determination year (in this section referred to as “a proposal year”) a proposal containing recommendations to reduce the Medicare per capita growth rate to the extent required by this section; and (3) by requiring the Secretary to implement such proposals unless Congress enacts legislation pursuant to this section. (c) Board proposals (1) Development (A) In general The Board shall develop detailed and specific proposals related to the Medicare program in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section. (B) Advisory reports Beginning January 15, 2014, the Board may develop and submit to Congress advisory reports on matters related to the Medicare program, regardless of whether or not the Board submitted a proposal for such year. Such a report may, for years prior to 2020, include recommendations regarding improvements to payment systems for providers of services and suppliers who are not otherwise subject to the scope of the Board's recommendations in a proposal under this section. Any advisory report submitted under this subparagraph shall not be subject to the rules for congressional consideration under subsection (d). In any year (beginning with 2014) that the Board is not required to submit a proposal under this section, the Board shall submit to Congress an advisory report on matters related to the Medicare program. (2) Proposals (A) Requirements Each proposal submitted under this section in a proposal year shall meet each of the following requirements: (i) If the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has made a determination under paragraph (7)(A) in the determination year, the proposal shall include recommendations so that the proposal as a whole (after taking into account recommendations under clause (v)) will result in a net reduction in total Medicare program spending in the implementation year that is at least equal to the applicable savings target established under paragraph (7)(B) for such implementation year. In determining whether a proposal meets the requirement of the preceding sentence, reductions in Medicare program spending during the 3-month period immediately preceding the implementation year shall be counted to the extent that such reductions are a result of the implementation of recommendations contained in the proposal for a change in the payment rate for an item or service that was effective during such period pursuant to subsection (e)(2)(A). (ii) The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1395i–2, 1395i–2a, or 1395r of this title, increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria. (iii) In the case of proposals submitted prior to December 31, 2018, the proposal shall not include any recommendation that would reduce payment rates for items and services furnished, prior to December 31, 2019, by providers of services (as defined in section 1395x(u) of this title) and suppliers (as defined in section 1395x(d) of this title) scheduled, pursuant to the amendments made by section 3401 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to receive a reduction to the inflationary payment updates of such providers of services and suppliers in excess of a reduction due to productivity in a year in which such recommendations would take effect. (iv) As appropriate, the proposal shall include recommendations to reduce Medicare payments under parts C and D, such as reductions in direct subsidy payments to Medicare Advantage and prescription drug plans specified under paragraph 1 (1) and (2) of section 1395w–115(a) of this title that are related to administrative expenses (including profits) for basic coverage, denying high bids or removing high bids for prescription drug coverage from the calculation of the national average monthly bid amount under section 1395w–113(a)(4) of this title, and reductions in payments to Medicare Advantage plans under clauses (i) and (ii) of section 1395w–23(a)(1)(B) of this title that are related to administrative expenses (including profits) and performance bonuses for Medicare Advantage plans under section 1395w–23(n) 2 of this title. Any such recommendation shall not affect the base beneficiary premium percentage specified under 1395w–113(a) 3 of this title or the full premium subsidy under section 1395w–114(a) of this title. (v) The proposal shall include recommendations with respect to administrative funding for the Secretary to carry out the recommendations contained in the proposal. (vi) The proposal shall only include recommendations related to the Medicare program. (vii) If the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has made a determination described in subsection (e)(3)(B)(i)(II) in the determination year, the proposal shall be designed to help reduce the growth rate described in paragraph (8) while maintaining or enhancing beneficiary access to quality care under this subchapter. (B) Additional considerations In developing and submitting each proposal under this section in a proposal year, the Board shall, to the extent feasible— (i) give priority to recommendations that extend Medicare solvency; (ii) include recommendations that— (I) improve the health care delivery system and health outcomes, including by promoting integrated care, care coordination, prevention and wellness, and quality and efficiency improvement; and (II) protect and improve Medicare beneficiaries’ access to necessary and evidence-based items and services, including in rural and frontier areas; (iii) include recommendations that target reductions in Medicare program spending to sources of excess cost growth; (iv) consider the effects on Medicare beneficiaries of changes in payments to providers of services (as defined in section 1395x(u) of this title) and suppliers (as defined in section 1395x(d) of this title); (v) consider the effects of the recommendations on providers of services and suppliers with actual or projected negative cost margins or payment updates; (vi) consider the unique needs of Medicare beneficiaries who are dually eligible for Medicare and the Medicaid program under subchapter XIX; and (vii) take into account the data and findings contained in the annual reports under subsection (n) in order to develop proposals that can most effectively promote the delivery of efficient, high quality care to Medicare beneficiaries. (C) No increase in total Medicare program spending Each proposal submitted under this section shall be designed in such a manner that implementation of the recommendations contained in the proposal would not be expected to result, over the 10-year period starting with the implementation year, in any increase in the total amount of net Medicare program spending relative to the total amount of net Medicare program spending that would have occurred absent such implementation. (D) Consultation with MEDPAC The Board shall submit a draft copy of each proposal to be submitted under this section to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission established under section 1395b–6 of this title for its review. The Board shall submit such draft copy by not later than September 1 of the determination year. (E) Review and comment by the Secretary The Board shall submit a draft copy of each proposal to be submitted to Congress under this section to the Secretary for the Secretary's review and comment. The Board shall submit such draft copy by not later than September 1 of the determination year. Not later than March 1 of the submission year, the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the results of such review, unless the Secretary submits a proposal under paragraph (5)(A) in that year. (F) Consultations In carrying out its duties under this section, the Board shall engage in regular consultations with the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission under section 1396 of this title. [snip] Where is the "Death Panel" in the PPACA?
They take all military, family members and Veterans of all services.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
File under, "DEAR WHITEY. YOU. ARE. NOW. OBSOLETE."
#2. To: redleghunter (#1)
A very slippery slope. They opened their farm land to public parties and weddings. They should have consulted a lawyer on these matters. Then again nice folk like the owners probably thought only good intentions from customers.
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
This is why Christians need to make the explicit effort to identify one another, and to quietly engage in commerce preferentially with one another.
#4. To: redleghunter (#3)
One is called Medishare. You can Google it. Basically those of more means pay (donate) into medishare, middle income pays what they can afford and those who cannot pay high premiums or medical care, pay what they can without going into debt and the rest is picked up by Medishare. The more it grows the more people of lesser means can join. The program is private and Christian run.
#5. To: Jameson, *Liberal Rehab Staff* (#4)
(Edited)
As a concept, what would this be called?
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#6. To: hondo68 (#5)
Liberty. You can participate or not as you choose. It's entirely voluntary.
#7. To: Jameson, *Arab Spring Jihad* (#6)
(Edited)
funded by progressive taxation....
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#8. To: hondo68 (#7)
No, the Christian plan above is privately funded and voluntary.
#9. To: Jameson (#4)
SO... I guess if one were of another faith, or didn't regularly attend "services" or choose not to write a check every week.....what then?
#10. To: A K A Stone (#9)
Then they don't get to join.
#11. To: A K A Stone, Jameson (#9)
SO... I guess if one were of another faith, or didn't regularly attend "services" or choose not to write a check every week.....what then?
#12. To: Jameson (#10)
Then they don't get to join.
#13. To: nolu chan (#11)
#14. To: hondo68, Jameson (#0)
They found another venue at which to get married, and each woman now uses the surname McCarthy.
#15. To: A K A Stone (#14)
(Edited)
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#16. To: hondo68, A K A Stone (#15)
Freedom of association is a God given natural right. It's not listed individually in the BOR, but is covered by the catch-all 9th amendment, AKA an unenumerated (not listed) right.
B. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND BELIEF
Annotation 12 - First Amendment
Freedom of association
#17. To: nolu chan, Jameson (#16)
''It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.'' 194 It would appear from the Court's opinions that the right of association is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition, 195 although it has at times seemingly been referred to as a separate, independent freedom protected by the First Amendment. 196 The doctrine is a fairly recent construction, the problems associated with it having previously arisen primarily in the context of loyalty-security investigations of Communist Party membership, and these cases having been resolved without giving rise to any separate theory of association. 197
#18. To: Jameson (#4)
SO... I guess if one were of another faith, or didn't regularly attend "services" or choose not to write a check every week.....what then?
#19. To: Jameson, hondo68, A K A Stone (#8)
"...Death panels at the point of government guns..."
124 Stat. 952 (e) Implementation of proposal
(3) Exceptions
The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1395i–2, 1395i–2a, or 1395r of this title, increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.
As appropriate, the proposal shall include recommendations to reduce Medicare payments under parts C and D, such as reductions in direct subsidy payments to Medicare Advantage and prescription drug plans specified under paragraph 1 (1) and (2) of section 1395w–115(a) of this title that are related to administrative expenses (including profits) for basic coverage....
#20. To: A K A Stone (#13)
You mean I can't sign up with the Navy Credit union? That's not fair I support the Navy. ;)
#21. To: nolu chan (#19)
"...Death panels at the point of government guns..."
#22. To: Jameson, nolu chan, *Liberal Rehab Staff* (#21)
(Edited)
The assertions of death panels and pointing guns may be hyperbole.
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#23. To: hondo68, Jameson (#22)
Disobey and people with guns come.
#24. To: nolu chan, *Extended Clip Progressives* (#23)
nowhere in the PPACA is there any provision for anything meeting the description of a death panel
ObamaCare ‘death panel’ faces growing opposition from Democrats
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#25. To: hondo68 (#24)
ObamaCare’s cost-cutting board — memorably called a “death panel” by Sarah Palin
#26. To: hondo68 (#24)
ObamaCare’s cost-cutting board — memorably called a “death panel” by Sarah Palin
2011 US Code
Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
Chapter 7 - SOCIAL SECURITY (§§ 301 - 1397mm)
Subchapter XVIII - HEALTH INSURANCE FOR AGED AND DISABLED (§§
1395 - 1395kkk-1) Part E - Miscellaneous Provisions (§§ 1395x - 1395kkk-1)
Section 1395kkk - Independent Payment Advisory Board
#27. To: A K A Stone (#13)
#28. To: nolu chan (#26)
Where is the "Death Panel" in the PPACA?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]