43 votes

Conscripted Into Obamacare, I Conscientiously Object

I have been trying to work out why I am so upset about Obamacare.

We already live in a social democratic state that forcibly takes my money through taxes for things that I don't think anyone's money should be taken for. I may feel there is a better way to build the roads than have the government pay for them through massively redistributive taxation, collected essentially by force, but I don't get angry about using them every day.

So isn't there a prima facie case to be made that if we are stuck with a huge state, taxing and spending to the tune of about a third of the economy, then at least the attempt to save lives and maintain health through this questionable system is better than the funding of secret agencies to spy on us and otherwise eliminate our basic civil rights, the deployment of massive military capability that makes more enemies rather than eliminating any immediate threat, or the transfer of the hard earned wealth of working Americans to already privileged financiers?

How can Obamacare possibly be as bad as that litany, and why do I find myself angry about it, even as I find deeply hypocritical the objections of many Republicans whose party was actually responsible for designing the ACA that they now decry?

I am one of those whose healthcare coverage was cancelled. The nearest equivalent policy from the same insurer would have cost me 67% more than that the one I lost. A slightly worse policy (which I have purchased) costs me 20% more - presumably somewhat "subsidized" on account of my modest income. Ironically, the 67% increase would have been enough to price me out of health insurance, which has become for me much less affordable under the ironically named Affordable Care Act.

What could possibly justify cancelling my healthcare plan, and forcing me to replace it with a more expensive plan that covers drug addiction treatment that I shall never use because I do not take drugs, maternity care that I shall never use because I am male, and pediatric dental coverage that I shall never use because I don't have children and have no plans to have any?

The answer is, I suppose, the pragmatic and superficially humane notion, which most advanced societies have arrived at, that a wealthy, civilized society does not let its own suffer from bad health, and that since no one knowingly brings physical harm upon themselves, it would be wrong not to socialize resources to save lives and prevent suffering. After all, goes one argument, we accept taxation and the socialization of resources for much less necessary ends, so why would we not socialize for this? (There is also an implied (and much more tenuous) State and societal interest in reproduction, to justify my paying for the medical expenses incurred by someone else who chooses to have a child, even while I cannot afford to have my own child.)

You may agree or disagree with the above justification of Obamacare, but when it is used to justify a legal takeover one seventh of the American economy by the State, you end up with the greatest single move toward a communistic (used advisedly) society since the New Deal. Whether that is a step that America wants to make is for America to decide, but it is a step so large that it demands honest and extensive debate that can only legitimately end in informed consent (to borrow another idea from the field of healthcare that carries far too little respect among our political class) or dissent. And if the social democrats were successful in persuading the rest of us that we really wanted to change our culture and politics so massively as to socialize all healthcare, then we would have either to change the Constitution or to agree on some interpretation of it under which the socialization of healthcare is justified as the Constitutional protection of life, liberty and/or pursuit of happiness. (While many of my readers might find that latter notion incredible, just imagine how much more honest, comprehensive and principled a debate we would be having if anyone were to try even to make that case.)

America has not had that debate because Obamacare is not what we were told it was. The continued involvement of insurance companies in the healthcare industry provides the illusion of continuity, of the operation of a market, and of free contract and choice. The ultimate decision by social democrats not to advocate for the single-payer system that most directly and visibly realizes the changes they are trying to make gives the appearance that individuals will continue to be responsible for their poor health choices - not that they will be paid for by their fellow Americans. The ACA hurts some Americans very much more than others - something else no one told us to expect. (The worst case was that we could keep our coverage, remember, so there wasn't to be a downside. (Yes, I know it's laughable when you see it written down.))

There is at least something "honest" about the single-payer system: government as sole provider of, and payer for, universal healthcare is the most direct implementation of the socialistic purpose that drives it. Single-payer doesn't t pretend to individualism by having "individual mandates" (isn't all taxation for public welfare a mandate on the individuals who pay it?) or the involvement of insurance corporations as potential scapegoats for the State and/or the public - corporations who now received legally extorted (again used advisedly) business.

But even Hillary Clinton, who a decade ago did extensive work from the Left, as it were, on Healthcare reform, could see that Americans didn't want such a single-payer system: it was, in fact, rejected so comprehensively that even Obama, with all the political capital he won in a landslide swing against the Republicans in 2008, didn't try to push it. Rather, Obama's Democrats adopted a Republican plan that the GOP now hypocritically decries.

A single-payer system would be funded, presumably, out of our familiar progressive taxation system. While many conservatives and libertarians have no love for that idea or direct taxation, itself, even they would much rather be forced to pay for something that the country had honestly chosen after a proper national debate in which they had a chance to propose alternatives and lost. I know that because I polled the question among 14,000 liberty-curious and libertarian Americans, leaning from liberal to conservative, and an overwhelming majority said they'd take a single-payer system over the current Republicrat (I am not letting the Republicans off the hook for this) Affordable Care Act.

Obamacare is funded by doing disproportionate harm to a few - of which I am one. If I knew that the country had broadly and consciously consented to the deeply socialistic principles on which the system of healthcare that I was being forced to finance was based, I would swallow it and pay up, like I do with all my taxes. But clearly, it did not. The individual mandate, the involvement of the insurance industry, the use of taxation to compel me to enter contracts against my will, are all means by which the political class has hid its purpose from the people.

But there is something even worse: the ACA forces me into a new degree of supplication to the state. It essentially forces individuals like me to take hand-outs.

Although I have a modest income, I declare every penny I make and I pay my share of taxes. I have never taken a penny in welfare from this or any other country - and that is important to me. Of course, I use those things that I have to use to conduct a modern life, even if they are funded through taxation - such as roads, the air-traffic control system etc., and I accept the fact that I live in a nation where too many goods are deemed to be public goods and paid for accordingly.

But paying taxes and using public goods is rather different from what the ACA makes me do: it essentially blackmails me: it damages me financially by increasing the cost of something it tells me I must buy (but was buying anyway) and then forces me to accept a government subsidy as an individual to undo the damage. I resent that deeply. I resent it in the way I would resent a more blatant violation of my first amendment right to live by my own beliefs as long as I harm no one else.

It is all the more offensive because I am sure that if the nation had been honestly told this was to happen, the nation would not have allowed me or anyone else to be put in this position. In short, Obamacare feels like a massively personal and covert impingement.

Now some may say the ACA subsidy is ultimately no different from any other tax rebate - after all, all taxes and subsidies go into and out of the same pot - so my feeling is unwarranted. To which I ask, if that is the case, then why aren't we funding this whole thing from the tax system we already have in place without the need for any rebates at all: why don't we have the single-payer system? The answer, as we've seen, is that the nation rejected that system, so the ACA, which punts in decidedly the same direction, could only be (mis)sold to us with all this smoke and all these mirrors.

I am not a partisan. I am as sick of the Republican repetitions of the need to repeal the ACA that they mostly designed - without offering a principled alternative reform - as I am of the way the Democrats bounced us into this. As usual, a pox on both their houses.

But I have been conscripted into a rather covert attack on some simple American values and preferences. And as a conscript, I conscientiously object.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

When the Dollar Collapses

Doctors will be paid with chickens or eggs.

Your family and friends will be your social security.

Food will be your medicine.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

as it should be


"without offering a principled alternative reform " Really??

Because you just need the government involved in medicine so badly? I DESPISE COMMUNISM!!! I don't want a principled reform, I want freedom. I want freedom when R is in control as bad as I want it when D is in control. The government has no business whatsoever in even requesting that I buy something, much less demanding it. No principled reform is going to get them off my back which is all I desire. I'm sorry for "conservative" communists it has to be a strange feeling.

Single-Payer System Cometh...

...whether you like it or not. That is the design. People will be crying for a single payer system when they realize the scam that Obamacare is.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
- President John F. Kennedy

Imo, the following type of complacency is what nourishes...

an incremental imposition of tyranny.

"If I knew that the country had broadly and consciously consented to the deeply socialistic principles on which the system of healthcare that I was being forced to finance was based, I would swallow it and pay up, like I do with all my taxes."

The tyranny of a majority is still tyranny. No matter how big the gang is or by what name it calls itself, it has no legitimate right to rob or injure me in any way.

The prevalence of the above attitude is how We've arrived in Our current predicament.

Not necessarily.

("The prevalence of the above attitude is how We've arrived in Our current predicament.") It might be part of it, but it's also exaggerations or lies told to Congress and the American people to motivate action that wouldn't otherwise be taken; fear mongering such as with the debt ceiling; a U.S. Supreme Court with more power than ever intended and a misguided court such as, for one, to grant human rights to corporations - helping to make corporations more powerful than intended - all this power taken *from* the states or people; it's an agenda on the part of the msm [read: corporations] such that by design, for example, there was misrepresen-tative coverage of primary results, unfair time at debates, and virtually no coverage of Ron Paul's events, leading many to believe he'd dropped out; crooked political parties as exemplified also, for example, how Ron Paul and delegates were treated; it's also lobbyists and corporations funding the elections of our Congressmen and President, creating major conflicts of interest; also increased executive branch power, with all these agencies and powerful czars, plus "executive orders," such that gave President Obama the chutzpah to blithely announce, "Where Congress is not willing to act, we're going to go ahead and do it ourselves" - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/14/obama_wher...

I agree that the democratic process (voting) could result in legislation that the minority might consider tyranny - not that I have any idea better than voting if there were a problem requiring a solution and multiple solutions offered. In any event, the country is in a predicament, but I'd say we've arrived where we are for myriad different reasons.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Diamond Dog's picture

You're not alone

Obamacare Young Adult Enrollees Way Below Target

This is going to be a mess.

The Diamond Dog is a real cool cat. | Reporting on the world from an altitude of 420.

Americans didn't want it

As a whole, Americans wanted a single-payer plan. It is the politicians who would not put forth a single-payer plan. I guess we know who they really work for.

Personally I think they avoided the real issues. Why do we need it? Health care costs too much and the average person doesn't make enough. Fix that and then the rest would go away. But they avoided that.

One thing you should consider is the option to not have insurance. Pay for what you need and live and die in a natural way. I would be in the exact same boat as you but so far my plan is still grandfathered in despite not meeting the requirements.

It's not a question of which plan is "better"

There should be no plan.

State influence should be removed from healthcare altogether. There is no "good" or "better" plan. State intervention is destined to always work against the best interests of the consumers.

psnow's picture

State influence..

Pardon me for taking this off subject - but the analogy of the State run education system came to mind when I read this. Again - The good Doctor Ron Paul is proven right again. Just eliminate all those departments of 'this, that or the other'. Wow, what a mess !! Simple, isn't it? Guess that's why I'm here.

"I just want to live in a free country" - Dr. Ron Paul

There is an alternative!

Christian Heathcare Cost Sharing ---- it is EXTREMELY affordable and as a member you are exempt from the ACA fine :)


too bad I am not a Christian!

I always liked YAHOO - you always have other options. and thankfully that is true for all of us.

I recently

saw the liberals complaining that the youth are not signing up to Obama Care. Why do you think??

We work at crappy jobs.. if any... then have to pay a college a 100 thousand plus dollars, worry about our phones and cars, yet these scumbags want me to pay a fine for health care too?

Withdraw consent

My only suggestion is that you withdraw your consent and your resources. I know that you have the option of keeping all of your hard earned dollars based on how you file your tax forms for your employer. Do not give anyone any authorization to remove funds from your paycheck. In addition do not pay the fine. These goons have absolutely no right to force anything on you. Finally, to comply with a criminal system is to be complicit in its crimes. So doing your "civic duty" by supporting terrorist regimes like federal, state and local governments you are a criminal. Let me repeat that. To comply is to be a criminal. Facts and reality are the best proofs for this argument. It doesn't matter what is on the books when criminals run your bureaucracy.

Don't Comply | Pay the Fine

All you guys who refuse to submit to government healthcare can calculate your Obamacare "tax" at http://obamacarefee.com which I found to be accurate. My fine is going to be around $855 and I'm reading up on not having a tax refund in order to avoid it.


Obama Care.

I also will not comply with ACA

Perhaps more relevantly though, here is a new Party which endorses the prerogative of choice concerning public domain (inc. funding hospitals and schools, or not), while reserving the right to withdraw from abuse (ex. abolishing taxation and mandates)


scawarren's picture

They did not force you to

They did not force you to take a handout; you had a choice. You could have opted out so why did you comply?

To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting.
e.e. cummings

Taxes And What You Don't Know.

You are not being forced to pay federal income taxes. You failed to research the law to determine if your earnings are "federal income".
I know- I'm a conspiracy nut, so stop reading, call me names and continue pissing and moaning about how taxation isn't fair...blah blah blah.
You, through ignorance of the law, assume it is a direct tax imposed on your earnings and permitted bu the 16th amendment. (forgive me for the assumption about what you know and believe, but this is the normal case.)
Fact: The income tax is an indirect, excise tax. (Supreme Court concurs)
Fact: an indirect, excise tax can be avoided. "Avoiding" is different from "evading."

When third parties report that you made "Federal" income, the IRS accepts that as a statement of fact unless and until that info is rebutted by someone who knows the law-(that someone could be you if you educate yourself. It certainly is not some payroll clerk who has never seen a law library,)
Now, if you agree, especially on a 1040 form, that your earnings are "federal income" and you swear to that under penalty of perjury, What is the IRS left to do- except take your money?
Now? suppose, instead of sending the IRS the erroneous w2's made out by an ignorant clerk, you send substitute form 4852 that corrects info sent by others and is supplied by the IRS for that purpose??
They (IRS) first argue, and threaten, but eventually they refund all withholdings.
Now. Would you rather know what you are talking about, or do you prefer to pis and moan that the government is not fair...etc. Maybe you want to march on Washington and beat drums and shout inane slogans and accomplish less than nothing.
On the other hand, you could force the government to follow their OWN laws and demand your earnings be returned to you. Isn't an act of civil OBEDIENCE preferable to an act of civil dis-obedience? And so much more satisfying.
Now ask yourself? Where did I get the notion that the income tax was a direct un-apportioned tax, and my earnings absolutely and automatically subject to withholding and confiscation? Did the IRS tell me that, or did I tell the IRS??

I'll be on radio tonight.(Monday evenings) Call in # 856-696-0092 The Shields Report 9:00 PM EST. 92.1 in Philly/NJ or gallantly streaming on WVLT.COM

“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

Looks good on paper but...

unless you can provide real evidence that it's been used successfully, it's not worth the paper it's written on. Like Bible scripture, man's laws are interpreted differently in as many ways as there are men to interpret them.

I'm not saying you haven't, I hope you have, but it would be great if you could wake-up all of us with a step-by-step detailed replay of how you have been successful winning all your withholdings.

Show us the evidence.

Again, On Taxes

>>> unless you can provide real evidence that it's been used successfully, it's not worth the paper it's written on. Like Bible scripture, man's laws are interpreted differently as there are men to interpret them.<<<

I can provide real evidence the law as written has been "used" successfully to protect my property and thousands of others. (I know not the exact number, but I believe "thousands" is accurate.) respectfully, until you know what I know, meaning you have done the research, and you know how and why your "interpretation/belief is correct, you will understand why the IRS is sending you your money back. (as they have sent back mine.)
This isn't like fire-walking, where someone convinces you that your feet didn't burn because your mind overcame the physics involved (when in reality the surface area of the hot coals has cooled enough to not burn your skin.) This is the total de-bunking of a legal fiction using judge made law (supreme Court and other court decisions)and black letter law (written statutes)and ONLY THE LAW.
When I was trained in legal research (not that credentials are needed here) I was taught to cast aside pre-conceived notions about what the law will say when I find it. I applied that concept to the tax code (Title 26) and I made a few presentations to my classes at Widener University. None of the professors faulted either my research skills or my conclusions. (none went as far as endorsing it whole-heartedly, but that was not their reason for being there.)

“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

So, there must be cases that we can review...

???? vs. The IRS.

In your research and presentation, you must have cited these cases.

Will you list a few here?


Brushaber v Union Pacific RR 240 Us1, 21 1915
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 103 (1916)
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 US 107 (1911)
Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 574 (1895)
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, (1920)

“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man



But how many...

....Have also gone to jail attempting what you are talking about?
I'm not making any assumptions, but I have seen plenty of people try to exercise their rights. (Sovereign movement, etc) And seen many of these people STILL go to jail.
What I'm getting at is, what good is it to do this if the powers that be decide they just don't give a rats a-- about whether you're correct or not and throw you behind bars anyway?

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

As has been posted on this

As has been posted on this site many times by many people other than myself, the truth can be found along with many explicit examples of successful filings at www.losthorizons.com and, yes, everything he said is absolutely correct. Pete has even made his book (Cracking the Code) available for free now so there's really no reason anyone should be confused about the nature of income tax.

Obamacare only applies if you make more than 40k "income". You probably have 0 income or very little at best. You are already exempted from Obamacare and don't know it. That's why Roberts found it constitutional, because it's voluntary.

To ehartle

Thank you. Knowledge is power.

“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

Have you done this personally?


"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison


WE (at our house) are ready to join you.


it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

as for me and my house

we do not consent and we will not comply.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

I'm going to bookmark this . . .

but I hope someone keeps this thread up, so that we can have support when things get more complicated--

IF the internet is still going--

good grief; I sound dire!!!

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--