As an American, I refuse to buy mandatory health insurance...
Submitted by savingmykidsfuture on Tue, 01/05/2010 - 00:57
As an American, I refuse to buy mandatory health insurance that supports corrupt conventional medicine
(NaturalNews) Even if Obama's health care reform bill becomes law, mandating that all Americans buy health insurance policies for a failed system of "sick care", I will refuse to comply. I've read the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, and nowhere in that document do I find that the federal government has the power to force consumers to purchase for-profit insurance products from private companies.
cont.
http://www.naturalnews.com/027870_health_reform_insurance.html
Stop writing you congressman and senators
Start writing you state representatives and governors. The 10th amendment is where we are at. Explain that under their oaths to the constitution the tenth amendment is included and that they must pass legislation that nullifies any federal health-care program.
Good luck with that...
You'll have as much luck refusing to pay for Obamacare as you would fighting the illegal federal income tax or any other violation of the Constitution that the federal government has committed over the last several decades...
Amen to that
I've already told family and friends to make plans to visit me in jail.
I will not comply. I will not pay the IRS penalty. I will not run or hide.
Heck, even if my employer offers me an "acceptable" and "approved" insurance package, I will decline it out of principle.
Some commenters are noting that the courts will strike down the mandate. Maybe they will. But we cannot rely on the courts. We need individuals, organizations, states, etc., to stand up and be vocal that this is an illegal and (in my opinion) treasonous trampling of the rights of the people. We don't need to wait for the courts to declare this unacceptable. We should have states nullifying it. We should be rising up to remove the traitors in Congress who urinated on the Constitution and violated their oaths in voting for such abominations.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. - SCotUS, 1995
The mandatory provisions of the health care bill are DOA.
Our supreme court ain't good for much, but they will shoot down any mandatory provisions that force one to purchase health "insurance" for themselves. There is no interstate "nexus" here, not by any stretch or contortion of the Constitution. Mandatory auto insurance is one thing (because of the risk to others on the road) but health insurance is different. The mandatory provisions will be challenged immediately and will be overturned by the court. The exception may be that of insuring your minor children. You may scoff at what I just said, and that's OK. But if the make-up of the court doesn't change between passage of the bill and the first challenge, it will be shot down. You heard it here first. Write it down.
Paul.
No, here's the beauty....
The IRS will be the one to enforce this sh*t. They'll compel you to prove you have insurance and if you don't provide the proof, the cost will be tacked onto your tax bill/withholding.
How'd you like them apples?
Think these gunverment pudknockers don't know what they're doing? Don't you know they have us by the short curly ones?
So, good luck with your "refusal". Real Soon Now the only way out of this mire will be a real, outright wage and tax slave revolution.
Hear! Hear!
I could not agree with him more - very well stated!
betty
As a responsible human...
I already have major medical insurance for me and mine.
THE MORE I LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT
THE MORE I LOVE MY GUNS
FourWindsTradingPost
Arrogant and oversimplistic
As Vince argued below, not having coverage is not necessarily irresponsible.
Hell, your implication here is that it is irresponsible to not have "major medical insurance." I laugh at you, sir.
Maybe major medical is right for you. Maybe younger, healthier people are better served saving more of their money or investing it (e.g., buying a home).
Your arrogant little comment reeks of a one-size-fits-all, statist approach.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. - SCotUS, 1995
So not having it is
So not having it is irresponsible? To whom?
What he said!
http://www.tragedyandhope.com
http://www.im2moro.com
and as another responsible human here...
I refuse to support this business and choose cash to protect me and mine
If this thing passes and does
If this thing passes and does not bring on an organized tax revolt, I don't know what will.
Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.
"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,they both march in the same direction." - Paul Proctor
Yep yep...
Just like all the opposition for the 16th Amendment in 1909 through 1913 when the Revenue Act was passed. People were screaming about the 2-6% tax passed on them then.
Same year, same Woodrow that pushed through the Federal Reserve Act.
You see how that went... do you expect more ~opposition~ now?
~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~
You left out an important point-
They didn't have internet!
betty
Those examples make it
Those examples make it difficult to remain hopeful. In addition horror of the gold confiscation later and we find little record of real resistance, even the opposite with people turning in neighbors if they held out. Someone wrote recently using image of people switching places when Prohibition was repealed. The same day man with gold coin in his pocket became the criminal.
Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.
"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,they both march in the same direction." - Paul Proctor
But didn't they only get
But didn't they only get about 20-25% of the gold? I know a large majority of Americans did not comply.
What he said!
http://www.tragedyandhope.com
http://www.im2moro.com
Yes, most people refused to turn in their gold
At least according to the official statistics, that record that around 22% of the outstanding US gold coins were turned in. On the other hand, one could argue that most people would not have had more than $100 face value (around $2500 in today's money) of gold coins on hand during the middle of the Depression anyway, and that most of the gold that was not surrendered was owned by the wealthy and merely moved out of the country. It would be interesting to know the percentage of all the people who owned ANY gold who willingly surrendered their gold coins, but I have never seen any statistic or indication of this figure, and suspect that it would be almost impossible to really know, especially almost 80 years after the fact.
I agree
I understand from someone who is reading it, that those who are currently uninsured will have a 2% tax subtracted from their paycheck. This is enough to make me say fine, I retire right now. Haven't heard but they must have a way to get retirement income too.
Heathcare is a ripoff and
Corporatism is the reason- why do you think we pay three times more than Canadians. If we had a true free market we'd likely pay three time less than the socialistas
Government is supposed to protect our freedom, our property, our privacy, not invade it. Ron Paul 2007
the concept of insurance
starts out innocently enough-help when you need it. Then over time it morphs into major price inflator. Imagine if we had to insure our food supply how much groceries would cost.