Freedom is defined by the right to suffer
Definition of FREEDOM
: the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous (freedom from care)
d : ease, facility (spoke the language with freedom)
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken (answered with freedom)
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use (gave him the freedom of their home)
a : a political right
b : franchise, privilege
Full Definition of SUFFER
a : to submit to or be forced to endure (suffer martyrdom)
b : to feel keenly : labor under (suffer thirst)
: undergo, experience
: to put up with especially as inevitable or unavoidable
: to allow especially by reason of indifference (the eagle suffers little birds to sing ó Shakespeare)
: to endure death, pain, or distress
: to sustain loss or damage
: to be subject to disability or handicap
To put it all together;
Suffering is not the definition of freedom it defines it. For instance. If you loose your ability or right to suffer the consequences of not working by someone giving you money for not working, you loose your freedom. This benefactor can now tell you how to live, or they will punish you in some way.
You exercise your freedom when you suffer. For instance. If you become ill you exercise your freedom to do something about it. You can suffer the effects of a cold or purchase a cold remedy which might be Chicken soup or perhaps medication, you choose what You want to do about it, not someone else.
So What Is the Issue Here?
Itís the mandates. The government does not have the constitutional right to mandate what a private company sells nor does it have the right to mandate that an individual purchase a particular product from a private company.
It does, however, have the right to establish itís own insurance program that people can purchase insurance from and have all the features in the HCA such as no lifetime limits or prior health condition exclusions.
It does not have the right to penalize people for not buying insurance. The Supreme Court violated the constitution by ruling that it (the government) does have the right to tax those who do not buy this insurance. Which they did by redefining the penalty clause in the HCA to be a Tax and not a Penalty. This re-definition would have required the Supreme Court to send the bill back to the Congress to be changed.
It should be noted that aprox 56 people out of 600 were able to do this without a single Republican voting for it. ALSO: Insurance is NOT health care.
What should have happened.
The government should have established a National Health Care Insurance Exchange that contains all the features outlined in the Affordable Health Care Act and left the insurance industry alone to do as it has been doing without imposing mandates as well as not having individual mandates.
This leaves individuals and businesses the choice of the NHCIE or the private insurance industry to purchase insurance from. The ability of individuals to get insurance due to pre existing conditions and the ability to get subsidized premiums at an affordable rate would have resulted in the 30 to 40 million uninsured flocking to the new exchange to get insurance. People who were happy with the private insurance they had would have been able to keep it. Also the existing doctors and hospitals would have not been disrupted. It would have left the choice to change if they wanted to.
The result would have been more competition and all would be according to the American Way.