Everyone should not have to buy obamacare

Due to space I've had to ellipse some quotes. Brackets are edits to ensure sense. "Everyone is forced …" Again, a misunderstanding of what Obamacare does. I urge Pro to look up what the law is. The law mandates: "A shared responsibility requirement. .. requires. .. all individuals not covered by an"employer sponsored health plan . .. or . .. public insurance programs, [to] secure an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the"Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship. "[1] “If they don't use them as I have stated a penalty. ” Stating it doesn't make it so. There is no requirement to use the benefits, nor has Pro made the case that that is so. “. .. I stand firm on this infringing religious liberties look at Hobby Lobby” So, as far as this argument goes, follow its premises and ALL legislation that requires a business to do anything infringes on that business's religious liberties. That is patently ridiculous. “The company is facing . .. ” In the first place, the employer regulations were not stipulated in the original terms of this debate, which was "Everyone should not have to buy obamacare". In the second place: If Hobby Lobby said it was against their religion to abide by minimum wage laws, would forcing them to abide by them infringe their religious liberties? Or how about if hardhats were against a construction company's religion? These examples show that a business claiming rights infringement on religious grounds is invalid. If Hobby Lobby were a church, they would be exempt from the provisions. But they are not a church, they are a business engaged in interstate commerce. “With the exception of churches and houses of worship, PPACA's"contraceptive"coverage mandate applies to all employers and educational institutions. . .. Regulations made under PPACA rely on the recommendations of the"Institute of Medicine, which concluded that access to contraception is medically necessary "to ensure women's health and well-being. "”[1] “Second Obamacare . .. forc[es] people to use Obamacare, which intern makes the majority of people incapable to get the healthcare of your choice, and not to mention helps to put other healthcare companies out of business. .. ” Again, Pro seems to be confusing Obamacare with a "single payer" system. What is called Obamacare is a series of regulations on the health care industry. Folks are perfectly allowed to get the "healthcare of your choice". [1] “Lastly your two last sources are both wikipedia which are factually incorrect for the most part. .. ” This argument is nonsensical and dishonest. Questioning a source is fine, but Pro is being dishonest considering he cannot show anything about the source which is "factually incorrect for the most part". “I believe the constitution. .. ” Pro makes a good point about the constitution in general, however, has failed to show any reason that the legislation is question is against the constitution. “Closing: I should not have to buy/use/ purchase Obamacare. .. ” Pro unfortunately shows a lack of understanding about the subject at hand. He treats "Obamacare" as a single entity, as though it is a single-payer system, and does not understand that the constitution expressly allows the government to tax the people for the general welfare. He completely dropped the point I made about taxes earlier, where I pointed out that tax credits have long been issued to encourage the purchase of certain items (e. g. hybrid vehicles). That alone establishes the motion as incorrect, and by dropping the point I feel Pro has conceded the debate. In closing, you don't have to like the legislation to realize that it is constitutional, and you do not have to agree with the legislation to recognize that Pro has not made his case. I urge a vote for Con. Thank you. [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...