Obamacare sucks

Johnny Abruzzo

I, of course, wouldn't expect you to fact check yourselves.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/dhimmitude-and-the-muslim-exemption/

Q: Will Muslim Americans be exempt from the mandate to have health insurance?

A: The Muslim faith does not forbid purchasing health insurance, and no Muslim group has ever been considered exempt under the definitions used in the health care law.

FULL QUESTION

Are Muslims exempted from the new health care law? Is any of the following chain e-mail true?

Word of the Day: Dhimmitude

Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to islam.

The ObamaCare bill is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia muslim diktat in the United States . Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking" and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.

FULL ANSWER

In our article "More Malarkey About Health Care," we wrote that some religious groups may indeed be considered exempt from the requirement to have health insurance. The law defines exempt groups using the definition from 26 U.S. Code section 1402(g)(1), which describes the religious groups currently considered exempt from Social Security payroll taxes. Eligible sects must forbid any payout in the event of death, disability, old age or retirement, including Social Security and Medicare.

Since we posted our article, we’ve obtained a list through the Freedom of Information Act of all the groups that have successfully applied for exemptions from payroll taxes. (We have posted the Excel file here.) The overwhelming majority of them are explicitly Anabaptist — that is, Mennonite, Amish or Hutterite. Those that don’t specify their denomination are still explicitly Christian. Having gone through the list, we can say with certainty that no Muslim group, and indeed no non-Christian group, has ever qualified for an exemption under the statute used to define exempt religious groups in the health care law.

Nor are they likely to want to, says Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which opposes discrimination and defamation against Muslims. "I’ve never even heard it brought up as an issue," Hooper told us. "I have health insurance. We give health insurance to our employees. Every Muslim group I know of does the same thing." Hooper told us that he has seen some Muslims raise religious objections to life insurance, but not health insurance, and that, in fact, providing health coverage is very much in line with Islamic ideals of social justice.

As for "dhimmitude," it’s a politically charged academic concept, not a tenet of Muslim faith. The term was coined by scholar Bat Ye’or to describe the condition of the "dhimmis," protected non-Muslims living in Muslim empires starting in the 7th century. Dhimmi populations, Ye’or says, were allowed by their lands’ Muslim conquerors to keep property and practice their faith, as long as they paid a poll tax. It is Ye’or’s assertion that the condition of dhimmitude still persists in countries under shari’a law, and that, furthermore, it is spreading worldwide. In particular, she says, Europeans are accepting a state of dhimmitude and moving toward becoming "Eurabia." This position is controversial, and Ye’or is not secretive about her political commitments. For instance, she is a vocal supporter of Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who was once banned from the United Kingdom because of his inflammatory anti-Islam views. For the e-mail to present "dhimmitude" as an established Muslim value rather than a scholarly concept from an author with open political commitments is misleading.

Finally, the e-mail repeats one other claim we’ve debunked before. It says that "I … will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax." This is false. The House version of the bill left open the possibility of criminal penalties for deliberately evading a tax for not having health insurance, but the Senate version did not, nor did the final law.

– Jess Henig

EDIT: someone else beat me to it, but factcheck.org is always reliable.

Don't let your posts be dictated by fact checkers.

polaris_x

The Fixer wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

the thing also is that the entire political discourse has become so toxic that it's hard to take anything at face value ... a company may institute layoffs for political purposes under the guise of the tax ... if these companies are publicly traded - it would be interesting to see their financial statements ...

it should be quite simple ... is demand higher with the tax or not ...

you must have missed my OP, which states that Welch Allyn is a private company

you can't walk into any doctors office in the US without seeing something made by Welch Allyn

no ... i got that ... i was speaking in general terms as one company may have layoffs while others may hire ... all i'm saying is that without knowing what the actual results are - one can speculate on motivation ... would like to see the actual statements from companies ...

polaris_x

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

EDIT: someone else beat me to it, but factcheck.org is always reliable.

Don't let your posts be dictated by fact checkers.

like ... is brainwashed too strong here? ...

Johnny Abruzzo

polaris_x wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

EDIT: someone else beat me to it, but factcheck.org is always reliable.

Don't let your posts be dictated by fact checkers.

like ... is brainwashed too strong here? ...

But I got an e-mail from my uncle who's really smart and knows this stuff and it said that the Muslim passed this law that blah blah blah...

The Fixer

Cliffy6745 wrote:

And the Bloomberg editorial that the article above references

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-0 ... althy.html

I haven't spoken to analysts and am not going to claim to be an expert on the topic and medical devices may have a case if they are being taxed more than other healtcare verticals, but simple supply and demand would indicate this doesn't necessarily add up.

Dude, this article is 4 months old. Ie, published before all of these layoffs started

So, if you look at the projected layoffs and impact of moving overseas in the article...then compare it to the recent events in the med device industry...it looks to me like your article is dead wrong

Cosmo

usamamasan1 wrote:

Look what I found. I didn't fact check though.

...
Hint: Maybe you should have...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp

polaris_x

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

But I got an e-mail from my uncle who's really smart and knows this stuff and it said that the Muslim passed this law that blah blah blah...

like ... this whole muslim thing is so ridiculous ... it really shows how ignorant a large swath of the population really are ... the amount of time and energy wasted from his birth certificate to this kind of garbage is actually time one could spend educating themselves ...

polaris_x

sorry Fixer for the derail ...

i would say - let's see the whole story ... it's really fairly simple ... if there are more layoffs than hiring/sales ... then it clearly didn't work ... but we can't simply discount the political motivations of some companies ...

bellosjam

Medical device reps and pharmaceutical reps are way overpaid for what little training they have. These 6-figure employment opportunities are basically glorified sales positions which are universally commission driven, the end-game being increasing profits for both pharmaceutical and medical device companys. These inflated salaries are ultimately passed on to the patients through increased cost of services/products. If any pharmaceutical or medical device company decides to layoff workers because of cost cutting proposals included in Obamacare than that just tough luck for a small, essentially unskilled, portion of the work force that again was overcompensated for their knowledge base and skill level. And just to clarify, pharmaceutical and medical device representative layoffs began way before Obamacare was passed.

usamamasan1

Thanks for fact checking for me, I love this community.

Now I know and knowing is half the battle!
Carry on
Woot

The Fixer

polaris_x wrote:

sorry Fixer for the derail ...

i would say - let's see the whole story ... it's really fairly simple ... if there are more layoffs than hiring/sales ... then it clearly didn't work ... but we can't simply discount the political motivations of some companies ...

no problem, I'm as guilty of anyone of highjacking certain threads with my tangents.

I'm definitely biased on this issue as I have seen the immediate effects firsthand. It's a real shame for the hardworking people of upstate NY. There aren't many big companies up that way.

Everyone is entitled to their political opinion. Just figured I'd make a post to vent and make people aware of how certain policies are affecting innocent bystanders. Collateral damage epitomized

The Fixer

bellosjam wrote:

Medical device reps and pharmaceutical reps are way overpaid for what little training they have. These 6-figure employment opportunities are basically glorified sales positions which are universally commission driven, the end-game being increasing profits for both pharmaceutical and medical device companys. These inflated salaries are ultimately passed on to the patients through increased cost of services/products. If any pharmaceutical or medical device company decides to layoff workers because of cost cutting proposals included in Obamacare than that just tough luck for a small, essentially unskilled, portion of the work force that again was overcompensated for their knowledge base and skill level. And just to clarify, pharmaceutical and medical device representative layoffs began way before Obamacare was passed.

read the article again...no one mentioned an effect on sales reps

also, the plural of company is companies

thanks for wasting everyones time with your misguided post

Godfather.

polaris_x wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

Look what I found. I didn't fact check though.

Woot

The word "Dhimmitude" is found in the new health care bill;
so what does it mean?

Thought this was interesting and worth passing on.

Dhimmitude


Obama used it in the health care bill.
Now isn't this interesting?
It is also included in the health care law.

Dhimmitude -- I had never heard the word until now. Type it into
Google and start reading. Pretty interesting. It's on page 107 of the
healthcare bill.  I looked this up on Google and yep, it exists.  It is a
REAL word.


Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations
conquered through jihad (Holy War). Specifically, it is the TAXING of

non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive

means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.



ObamaCare allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim
diktat in the United States . Muslims are specifically exempted from
the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the
penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be
"gambling", "risk-taking", and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are
specifically granted exemption based on this.



How convenient. So I, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens
placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and
even accounts receivable, and will face hard prison time because I
refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis
Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health
insurance needs paid for by the de facto government insurance.
Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. This is Dhimmitude.

your post just made hate obama....I thought he was a usless piece of shit.


Godfather.

why do you folks continue to show your lack of independent thought? ... seriously, aren't you embarrassed every time you fall for one of these things?? ... you would think after the first dozen or so - you would take a step back and say - this sounds too absurd even tho I don't like Obama and check it ...

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/govern ... andate.htm

I checked it already but thanks for the link and several links infact.
embarrassed ? no way most of the good folks on here fall for or believe some kind of bullshit for days on end..this is the Train and it's all good.


Godfather.

bellosjam

The point of the post is that if a company decided to cut and run and ultimately out source jobs and production facilities it is driven strictly with attention to the "bottom line". These companies, regardless of being family owned and operated, are profit driven. Profits which have been quite strong over the last decade. Now in an effort to maintain that profit level these companies ultimately out source to preserve the bottom line. At other times in our country's history i.e. "the greatest generation" people sacrificed and got by with less in order to contribute to be collective good and well being of the country. That thinking has changed. Any sales rep who thinks their salary is not calculated into this bottom line is naïve. Medical spending, including that on medical devices and pharmaceuticals, was unsustainable. Now that things are being corrected people like to bitch about Obamacare but the problem has been around much longer than Obama has.

Cliffy6745

The Fixer wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

And the Bloomberg editorial that the article above references

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-0 ... althy.html

I haven't spoken to analysts and am not going to claim to be an expert on the topic and medical devices may have a case if they are being taxed more than other healtcare verticals, but simple supply and demand would indicate this doesn't necessarily add up.

Dude, this article is 4 months old. Ie, published before all of these layoffs started

So, if you look at the projected layoffs and impact of moving overseas in the article...then compare it to the recent events in the med device industry...it looks to me like your article is dead wrong

I get that but the point is, what are these layoffs really about? Like I said, it's simple supply and demand and it doesn't really add up. I don't think you or I really know the answers to why these layoffs are happening. I do know for a fact that one of the companies mentioned here who have laid off large numbers are not because of this.

Cosmo

The Fixer wrote:

read the article again...no one mentioned an effect on sales reps

also, the plural of company is companies

thanks for wasting everyones time with your misguided post

...
Please explain... because the way I saw it... this company is unwilling to take the hit in taxes to it's bottom line and will instead, hit it's employees in order to maintain the current bottom line... which includes moving its U.S. operations to Mexico.
So... what does that tell you about this company and its loyalty to the American worker?

g under p

Godfather. wrote:

your post just made hate obama....I thought he was a usless piece of shit.


Godfather.

Godfather. wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

why do you folks continue to show your lack of independent thought? ... seriously, aren't you embarrassed every time you fall for one of these things?? ... you would think after the first dozen or so - you would take a step back and say - this sounds too absurd even tho I don't like Obama and check it ...

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/govern ... andate.htm

I checked it already but thanks for the link and several links infact.
embarrassed ? no way most of the good folks on here fall for or believe some kind of bullshit for days on end..this is the Train and it's all good.


Godfather.

I think Godfather enjoyed the opportunity to call the President what he did more so than to give a quick check as if it was going to go unnoticed here on AMT. What do I know you probably call him a UPOS everyday anyway.

Peace

bellosjam

Still waiting for The Fixer to answer Cosmo's question... :roll: Maybe he's looking for another article rather than displaying some kind of independent thought on the matter.

Cliffy6745

The Fixer wrote:

Reading this article and firsthand seeing good people that I work with being let go so that 'free' healthcare can be given away to those who can't support themselves is flat out wrong.

I'll give an example of someone who "can't support themselves" who is going to be greatly helped out by this bill; my fiances mom. I never want to get personal on here but her husband died when she had 3 kids from ages 9-14. She was left to raise them on a city job, which left very little room for savings. She needed spinal surgery a little under 10 years ago and unfortunately, that surgery did not go well. She has had about 4 follow up surgeries, has very limited use of her hands due to nerve damage and is in constant pain, pain I could never imagine. She now needs open heart surgery, ironically enough, on election day.

Within the past year, she as cut off from her insurance because she hit her lifetime cap, which basically made it so she lost healthcare and prescriptions that allowed her to live a normal life. She is constantly in pain and it takes her hours to just get out of the house.

Now this woman is not some 17 year old with 4 kids getting free healthcare and welfare. She had done nothing but work her ass of to do the best to raise 3 kids on a very limited budget, and she did a damn good job, if I say so myself. She has been through more shit than anyone I know and didn't ask for any of it. How can a country that claims to care about their people so much do nothing to help this person? What happens if something like this happens to you, your mom, your wife or your kid? You want to talk about good people? Why is this good womans life ruined because we are one of the only civilized nations in the world to not take care of their people?

I completely understand where you are coming from and why you think the way you do. But I also think you have an incredibly simplistic and somewhat ignorant view on how the real world works.

The Fixer

bellosjam wrote:

The point of the post is that if a company decided to cut and run and ultimately out source jobs and production facilities it is driven strictly with attention to the "bottom line". These companies, regardless of being family owned and operated, are profit driven. Profits which have been quite strong over the last decade. Now in an effort to maintain that profit level these companies ultimately out source to preserve the bottom line. At other times in our country's history i.e. "the greatest generation" people sacrificed and got by with less in order to contribute to be collective good and well being of the country. That thinking has changed. Any sales rep who thinks their salary is not calculated into this bottom line is naïve. Medical spending, including that on medical devices and pharmaceuticals, was unsustainable. Now that things are being corrected people like to bitch about Obamacare but the problem has been around much longer than Obama has.

It's amazing how you know the bottom line of private companies such as Welch Allyn. If I send you my email address can you send me tonights' winning lottery numbers?

Your posts are full of false insinuations. Go troll a different thread