"Dhimmitude" in Obamacare..maybe.

I had never heard of dhimmitude until today. My dad brought it up to me as he had just heard about it and was completely taken back by it. He explained that he had learned that Muslims were not subject to the taxes to pay for the new health care plan. I was skeptical because usually when someone tells you something that wild it screams republican (well tea party actually)/glen beck. Nonetheless after I looked up what dhimmitude is I was interested. After that I looked for the reason why they were saying it was applied in Obamacare. Seems I'm probably right about it being overblown, incorrect, and the conservatives had just learned a word and found a place they could apply it (if the smudged the corners of the definition a bit). However I may be wrong, I'm still reading on it so any help is welcome.

OK So first off dhimmitude:
en.wikipedia.org...

In layman's terms it's basically a word coined that means to appease Muslims so the radical ones don't go jihad on you.

Now I personally don't think the word truly applies based on the small amount of investigating I've done, but I'm still reading more on it. The reason it was even tossed around is because, yes, there is in fact an option for Muslims to opt out of Obamacare (at least parts), but (and here's what the people who are going to be shouting DHIMMITUDE from the rooftops wont mention) Muslims aren't the only ones given this option. Scientologists, Amish, Native Americans (on reserves I think), and other very small minorities, religions are also given the option to opt out while the majority of Christians and Jews are not. I figure though there is a good explanation for this though. The first part of the explanation is that those religions with the option are religions that may have "reservations" about insurance (thus the inclusion of christian scientists) the second part is that if Christians and Jews could opt out that would be the majority of the country and the system wouldn't work.

So here is my question that I am looking for the answer to so I can make my final opinion: If Muslims and etc opt out of the tax I assume the are also opting out of benefiting from the new health care. Does anyone know if that is fact because if they can opt out of the tax, but still get the health care I wouldn't call it dhimmitude, but I would call it a problem.

Also does anyone have an argument I overlooked as to why people are considering this dhimmitude.
Below I'm posting some links arguing that it is, and a snopes link.

dhimmitude from the roofs:www.freerepublic.com...
Snopes says meh: www.snopes.com...

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


There is a document that makes all legislation that the government enacts, to not apply if there are those that do not believe in the legislation.

www.constitutionallibertarian.co.cc...

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

There are three branches of government in the US federal government. The executive, the legislative and the judicial. Any three branches can make any legislation null and void. There is precedent for this. The legislature could pass the legislation and the judicial could declare it unConstitutional. The executive could decide not to enforce it. Also, if there is a change in the legislature, the following election cycle can repeal the law or just fail to fund it. This last one I think you will see be used if the courts do not find this takeover to be unConstitutional, which it is IMO. The previous two have happened before and will happen again.

There is another one that many do not realize. The people can ignore the legislation. This also has historic precedent. The great republic of Wisconsin did this. Before the Civil War, legislation was passed that stated that individual Republics like Wisconsin were required to return runaway slaves. Wisconsinites told the Federal government to take a flying leap.

We are not subjects of our government, we are the government.

Look into jury nullification also.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Thanks for the reply. I do know how the government works though haha. I didn't know that bit of Wisconsin history though. It's interesting, I'm gonna read about it. However.. you and I both know things are so different today. Government by the people, us in control has become an illusion. Hopefully that's just temporary though.

There is a religious opt out in the bill and according to the language used it does not apply to any particular religion at all but leaves to door open for religious objections from any religion recognized by US tax code. No reason to assume Muslims have any more exemption than Christian Scientists do.

Originally posted by Curiousisall
There is a religious opt out in the bill and according to the language used it does not apply to any particular religion at all but leaves to door open for religious objections from any religion recognized by US tax code. No reason to assume Muslims have any more exemption than Christian Scientists do.

They way I understood it is that Muslims don't have more than any of the other groups that are given the option which is why I'm saying I don't think it's dhimmitude. I'm just trying to preempt the possible incoming threads calling it such and trying to learn a little bit more about it because it's interesting.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I know.
I was trying to help.

Haha.. also I've apparently been conducting an ATS experiment in which the result based on the few threads I've begun is: I need to be much more sensationalist and irrational with my thread titles.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I am certain had you gone with "Muslims can opt out of Obamacare" the thread would have been swamped. Had you even opened with one of the talking heads already spreading this story, this place would be going crazy. Unfortunately, this last week of watching people insist that unsourced rumors are more credible than common sesne or any named official anywhere, when they do eventually get here they are just going to believe whatever the most inflamatory version of the story they heard was.

Originally posted by Curiousisall
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

I know.
I was trying to help.

Ah.. yeah, I knew we were on the same page. I didn't mean it to sound any other way.
I'm trying to find some other sources about this and find out if there is an actual outline of who can opt out, if they can opt out entirely, and if they are still able to benefit from the tax dollars of people who don't have the choice of opting out.

Originally posted by Curiousisall
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

I am certain had you gone with "Muslims can opt out of Obamacare" the thread would have been swamped. Had you even opened with one of the talking heads already spreading this story, this place would be going crazy. Unfortunately, this last week of watching people insist that unsourced rumors are more credible than common sesne or any named official anywhere, when they do eventually get here they are just going to believe whatever the most inflamatory version of the story they heard was.

Haha yeah, that's exactly what I heard that made me research into it. It's my personal mission to try and spread some common sense around. This site is full of people that are open to new ideas, but they grab them from the wrong end. They tend to work their way inward instead of outward, so if they stop somewhere they usually stop somewhere on the edge of sheer lunacy. There are some people here that are on top of it though.

This quickly turned into one of the most rational threads I've seen all week...I may even flag it for the content, but not necessarily the OP.

reply to post by links234


Thanks. Despite that I'm kinda derailing my own thread, I think we need to work to bring this site back around. We should be learning more about the OP's of every thread as they progress. Lately the stuff I've been seeing is sub par compared to what made me join the site.

Also of interest:
"The health care reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama Tuesday requires members of Congress and their office staffs to buy insurance through the state-run exchanges it creates – but it may exempt staffers who work for congressional committees or for party leaders in the House and Senate.

Staffers and members on both sides of the aisle call it an “inequity” and an “outrage” – a loophole that exempts the staffers most involved in writing and passing the bill from one of its key requirements. "

www.politico.com...

Word of the day (see: dhimmitude) it ain't, but completely wrong it definitely is.

Here are the sections of the HCR act related to the OP.

Section 1311 (d) (4) (H) concerns the "Exchanges"

subject to section 1411, grant a certification attesting that, for purposes of the
individual responsibility penalty under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
an individual is exempt from the individual requirement or from the penalty imposed by such
section because -

(ii) the individual meets the requirements for any other such exemption from the
individual responsibility requirement or penalty

The "Exemptions" from the penalties and from mandatory participation in the "exchanges" begins to be explained
in Section 1411. PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR EXCHANGE PARTICIPATION, PREMIUM TAX CREDITS AND REDUCED COST-SHARING, AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY EXEMPTIONS, which establishes the requirements for applying for the "exemption".

(b) (5) (A) In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individual's status as a
member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry,
as an Indian, or as an individual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the
Secretary shall prescribe.

Getting down to the heart of it, Chapter 48 Section 5000A "REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN ESSENTIAL COVERAGE"

(d) (2) "RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS"

(A) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION. Such term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious
sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings
of such sect or division as described in such section.
(B) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY.

All previous excerpts are from democrats.senate.gov...

The HCSM is further defined, but isn't relevant to this thread. What is relevant, is what is supposed to be contained in Section 1402, which actually defines all who are exempt and who have "Special Rules" applied.

I said supposed to be, because Section 1402(g)(1) doesn't exist! At least not in the HCR act. It may be that someone left out that the cited title is meant to refer one to that section of the Internal Revenue Code, which was amended to give the IRS the authority to enforce the mandate of "maintaining essential minimum coverage".

Well, here's that text..... www.law.cornell.edu...

(g) Members of certain religious faiths
(1) Exemption
Any individual may file an application (in such form and manner, and with such official, as may be prescribed by regulations under this chapter) for an exemption from the tax imposed by this chapter if he is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof and is an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division by reason of which he is conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act). Such exemption may be granted only if the application contains or is accompanied by—
(A) such evidence of such individual’s membership in, and adherence to the tenets or teachings of, the sect or division thereof as the Secretary may require for purposes of determining such individual’s compliance with the preceding sentence, and
(B) his waiver of all benefits and other payments under titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act on the basis of his wages and self-employment income as well as all such benefits and other payments to him on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of any other person,
and only if the Commissioner of Social Security finds that—
(C) such sect or division thereof has the established tenets or teachings referred to in the preceding sentence,
(D) it is the practice, and has been for a period of time which he deems to be substantial, for members of such sect or division thereof to make provision for their dependent members which in his judgment is reasonable in view of their general level of living, and
(E) such sect or division thereof has been in existence at all times since December 31, 1950

So, is there evidence of "Dhimmitude"? That would be hard to prove, since it is easy to make the claim that the exemptions are a facet of the "separation of Church and State". (Though that could also be argued) However, how many religions have "established tenets and teachings" which are "...opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care..."? Determining that proved to be a difficult task. But, it does appear to be limited to Islam.

And, since Christians are not exempted due to their opposition to funding abortions, the "separation" claim is weak.

Aside from the issue of "dhimmitude", what is of more importance to me, is the fact that, though this HCR monstrosity was/is purported to be the be all end all to the healthcare and health insurance problems, exemptions abound. Since passing the bill, with all of the stated exemptions, the Administration has issued "waivers" and "exemptions" in at least 30 cases. Why? I thought this thing was supposed to be "good" for us? www.usatoday.com...

This is the result of lawmakers not reading legislation. Remember Pelosi saying "But we have to pass this bill so you can find out what is in it". So, what now Nancy?

Originally posted by WTFover
The HCSM is further defined, but isn't relevant to this thread. What is relevant, is what is supposed to be contained in Section 1402, which actually defines all who are exempt and who have "Special Rules" applied.

I said supposed to be, because Section 1402(g)(1) doesn't exist! At least not in the HCR act. It may be that someone left out that the cited title is meant to refer one to that section of the Internal Revenue Code, which was amended to give the IRS the authority to enforce the mandate of "maintaining essential minimum coverage".

Just trying to help out here.

Originally posted by Curiousisall
There is a religious opt out in the bill and according to the language used it does not apply to any particular religion at all but leaves to door open for religious objections from any religion recognized by US tax code. No reason to assume Muslims have any more exemption than Christian Scientists do.

That was how I read it. Now it seems that is also what you are concluding. I am not sure what you read but yeah, the religions are defined by tax code and not the health care bill.

reply to post by WTFover


Yeah. This bill has such an affect and is of such importance to so many Americans (possibly all Americans if they had been more open about it) that it should have been very accessible and public. Our government isn't working for us anymore or they would help us achieve what we need. Lots of countries have great universal healthcare why was our attempt so poorly executed? Hopefully another can be produced, one that was more appealing and without all the unnecessary veiling.

Also, thanks for the links. I'm scoping them out now.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


It was and still is accessible to the public. The problem's we faced were with speculation on what was in it or what wasn't in it. Hence the infamous quote, "We need to pass the bill to see what's in it."

Once it's passed all the speculation goes out the window and you're left with nothing but facts. As I said earlier, I would flag this for the content alone, but the OP speculation that something 'might' be in the bill is absurd because the bill is now law and available for all to see.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

It was and still is accessible to the public. The problem's we faced were with speculation on what was in it or what wasn't in it. Hence the infamous quote, "We need to pass the bill to see what's in it."

Once it's passed all the speculation goes out the window and you're left with nothing but facts. As I said earlier, I would flag this for the content alone, but the OP speculation that something 'might' be in the bill is absurd because the bill is now law and available for all to see.

I meant public prior to passing..
And I have to disagree, it isn't absurd if that something is subjective. It's an idea. The maybe was a joke.It's in there but whether or not IT is what people are claiming it is, that's still a might or a maybe. It depends on who you talk to. No offense intended, but I think you are kind of missing my point.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

It was and still is accessible to the public. The problem's we faced were with speculation on what was in it or what wasn't in it. Hence the infamous quote, "We need to pass the bill to see what's in it."

Once it's passed all the speculation goes out the window and you're left with nothing but facts. As I said earlier, I would flag this for the content alone, but the OP speculation that something 'might' be in the bill is absurd because the bill is now law and available for all to see.

To test what you say then I ask, based on what is actually available now as the bill is public is the exemption the appeasement of Muslims as some people claim, or is everything fair. That's why I'm saying it MIGHT be in there because a philosophy can be veiled.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Also, legislative action such as the Obama Care tax bill is not law. It is legislation. It does not matter if the wording is not exactly in the bill to begin with.

When it passed, the legislation went to the Medicare and Medicaid Services. This is where the Health Care Czar, Donald Berwick and a team of lawyers get together and codify the legislation. This is where all the intents of the bill gets written into law.

What I find ironic and very dictatorship like, is the waivers that are being bandied about. So, instead of having actual law now, we have a dictator type government saying who has to follow the law and who doesn't.

Does ANYONE have a problem with that? How about all the excemptions for the unions, government officials, religious components, etc?

We have gone down the path where we have a feudal system again. That is my opinion. Some people call it crony capitalism, it is more like the feudal systems of the past.