Congress has rightly set out to both expand insurance coverage and reduce health-care costs for all Americans. But without an effective and enforceable individual mandate that guarantees the participation of everyone, neither goal is attainable. [More]I don't see anything in there about where the feds get their Constitutional authority to do this--it's certainly not a delegated enumerated power, and the Founders would roll over in their graves and ask us why we haven't horsewhipped any "official" who would dare to suggest the Commerce Clause gives them that power.
This naked usurpation and presumption of new and unprecedented powers into the central government is a lot more unhealthy for citizens than any supposed "reforms," especially when you consider the cost of insurance is a direct result of innumerable government restrictions, and there really is no "free market" with innovative competition.
On top of that, feeling sorry for the "less fortunate" notwithstanding, in so many cases it is really those of us who have made responsible choices and sacrifices paying for those who have not been responsible and made choices to satisfy their impulse of the moment. All enabled by "social policy," which is paid for by the private sector through forced "wealth redistribution."
I would love to find people willing to enter into a contract with me where I had the power to unilaterally change the terms and conditions in my favor. That, in essence, is what happens whenever we allow government to give itself new powers that are outside the scope of what they have lawfully been delegated. That's what's happening here.
To paraphrase Daniel Webster and John Marshall, the power to tax is the power to destroy. Arguing that "fines" are too low presupposes there are not people who don't recognize that truth. Some do, and they are willing to defy. And then the retaliatory measures ratchet up. And resolve either breaks or fortifies the commitment to resistance. Push people who have had it far enough, and all kinds of unintended "health care" consequences could result...
Economic fascism beneficiary-and-thus-cheerleader Janet Trautwein would just be astonished. As will everyone who thinks debates forever remain academic, and that history is not continually being established, and/or something that only happen to other people.
Also see:
24 comments:
I will not comply. So say we all!
David, the direct cost of higher insurance policies is not due to restrictions but to federal government shot paying health care providers. For every dollar billed by health care providers to Medicare the federal government pays, 94 cents on the dollar. For Medicad its 83 cents on the dollar. The billing is fixed by a standard scale for charges. So in order for the health care providers to make up that loss they bill private insurance $1.30 for each dollar of services. If the federal government paid their bills in full like the rest of us do. Than we would have a 30 percent reduction in health care cost for buying insurance. Millions more would be able to affort health insurance. So it pretty much comes down to, the federal government has made health care insurance too costly and now they are here to save us.
Zach makes a statement that I'm hearing a lot of. I'm sure many will buy insurance because they do anyway. However if this insurance is too costly and out of reach. I don't see people willing losing their homes to pay for a $250K fine and holding out their hands to be cuffed to be taking to a federal prison for five years. The way this is written is the fine is $250K for a misdemeanor and a felony both but the felony has five years of prison with it. So no matter what, people lose everything they own and maybe their freedom for five years to become a felon on top of it.
The people running the show know this, believe me. So in order to pull this off they must disarm the American people. This will be done sooner than later and my hunch is it will be done through a treaty of some kind. Don't think for a second that Hillary isn't in on this setting all of this up for Obama to sign such a treaty.
Bottom line: The show has just started so keep your eyes open now more than ever.
It doesn't matter how they get the "law" on the books, AvgJoe, they will still need to send people out to enforce the law because many, like myself, WILL NOT DISARM.
When us otherwise peaceable armed folks are being murdered by enforcers of a void, illegal, and unconstitutional law, that's when the next civil war will begin, and under Bill Clinton's rules of warfare this time.
I don't think we should do anything about it, like we have always not done anything before.
One thing came to mind about this insurance that people must have. Reminds me of child support that many men must pay or go to jail. Many times a man makes X amount of money and may lose his job because of RIF's or what have you. The child support does not get lowered. The government doesn't care if the man lives in a tent in a friend's backyard. This will be the same demeanor the judges will have when people can not buy this mandated insurance. They will look down their noese at the citizens from the lofty power seats and put the screws to them. Watch and see.
..must... erect... control grid... before dollar completely collapses....
AvjJoe said "If the federal government paid their bills in full like the rest of us do."
Where do you think that extra money comes from. The tax payers have to "cough" it up one way or another. Either we pay more in taxes or more in premiums. Whats the dif.?
AvgJoe,
The health insurance companies only pay 50cents on the dollar. This obviously caused the usual and customary charges to double a while back.
The cost of my and my wife's COBRA coverage (we both lost our jobs in May) is $200 more per month out of our pocket than OUR HOUSE PAYMENT.
We're letting it lapse in December and going to pay-as-we-go.
With $60 BILLION in proposed health care taxes, Obamacare will be as expensive.
I don't do "mandatory."
Their move.
Excuse me, *$600* Billion. The mind rebels.
Will my new Republican governor stand between me and the Healthcare Fine Police?
Ha.
I come from the opposite perspective on healthcare, I'm an advocate for Single Payer - a system more like those adopted by virtually every other country in the world.
At least we all agree this new healthcare system is ridiculous, but more importantly, very dangerous.
I think Joe G nails it on the head.
I hate to tell you this, David, but something you and Mike V. have wrong is "no more Ft. Sumters". Your sentiments are correct but your logic is flawed.
Ft. Sumter is ours, we are the masters, the troops, the corps of service that maintain and own Ft. Sumter.
Ft. Sumter has just been fired upon. Not by us, by those who have no right nor legitimate power to attack a bastion of liberty, country, and nationhood. Just like the first time.
Ft. Sumter has been fired upon. We citizens are not the outsiders, nor the rebels wishing to capture it. We are its defenders and we are under fire.
As I have said before, any more Ft. Sumters would not be up to us to initiate. As you can now see, it was not.
I don't know about anybody but me and maybe Sean, but I am sharpening my aggressive instincts. Defenders always lose, unless they wrest the inititiative from the aggressors.
Defenders always fight to "not lose", which guarantees defeat. Fighting to win puts the aggressor on defense, and remember, defenders always lose.
SA- "Defenders always lose."
Me- Tell them that:
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/default.aspx
I personally have defended myself on a few occasions. But even more than that, I have used my physical presence and demeanor to deter an attack and cause potential aggressors to back off.
More than one way to skin a cat, SA, and you know me: No one size fits all.
You were not a pure defender or you would have lost. A pure defender only offers retaliation and/or correction after he has been hit. Robert E. Lee, never learned that. When he could have won the war he elected the "moral high ground" to show that the Confederacy's action were purely defensive. After the south was bled white from staving off attack after attack and no longer could field a winning effort he finally ventured north to Gettysburg where he had his ass handed to him. That happened because he did not wrest the initiative from his enemies when he would have been able to do so.
History is replete with examples of beseiged defenders being defeated by always allowing the enemy to set the time, place, and tone of the engagements.
I understand what you are saying about defending yourself, but your perception of it, in my opinion, is wrong. At some point when you successfully defended yourself, you either became a threat to or was perceived to be a threat by your aggressors. If you had not done so you would have lost.
To maintain the purity of the "moral high ground" you would think it foolish to let a mugger, rapist, robber, or homicidally bent opponent to shoot at you first, and then and only then would you take steps to defend yourself. It would be foolish. Once the intent is known and harm is imminent, it behooves a defender to get there the "fustest with the mostest", with all the aggression he can muster.
As I am sure you must have done on those occassions when you successfully defended you and yours.
A defender is obligated to himself and society at large to repel and punish attacks against himself and others when those attacks are unwarranted. He does not lose his defender status because he denies the attacker control of the situation. He can only cease to be a defender when he initiates the aggression. After initiation of the attack, he had better get the Hell out of the mindset that says "I can only return blow for blow", or he will lose.
I hope that clarifies what I meant by "defenders always lose." As for "no Ft. Sumters", we are looking at it as though we are the attackers or would-be attackers on the Fort. That is not really the case. We are the possessors of Ft. Sumter, and it has already been fired upon.
I'm not sure why in contravention of everything we have stated and believe so clearly that in this we willingly ascribe to ourselves the role of usurper, when it is so obviously not so. We have not attacked their house, they have attacked ours. But, somehow, it has come to be accepted, by us, that to disallow it puts us in the role of the unjustified aggressor.
No, I am not encouraging anyone to engage in violence, but we must get over the idea that to do so when the trespasses become intolerable places us in the wrong. We have watched for decades while government gathered unto itself power it is disallowed, and now we seem to be of the opinion that opposition to it places us in the wrong.
Is there a magic circumstance that would change that perception? Would the mass killing of scores of people by government be the trigger? It wasn't at Waco. Would it take the killing or incarceration of thousands of people for the sin of peacefully living their own lives and making decisions that only they have the right to make? I don't know.
But I do know that should the latter come to pass, and our mindset remain the same, we will accept it.
That is terrible to contemplate.
I completely disagree that defenders always lose. A good defense can decide many a team sport game. Our forefathers won against incredible odds *defending* this country. Defense, true, noble, self dedicated defense, has the highest chance of winning of anything.
"Now in this case the Lamanites did fight exceedingly; yea, never had the Lamanites been known to fight with such exceedingly great strength and courage, no, not even from the beginning. ... Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church." We have the greater motivation, the greater inspiration. We don't have to go preemptive and lose our high ground. The fire laws at us, we fire laws back (or refusal to obey) When they imprison ours, we should imprison them! When they kill or injure one of ours for refusing to obey these laws, then we shall take up arms!!
The next verse is too good to leave out, sorry. "And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies."
You mistake history. The British attacked or attempted to attack in Massachusetts in order to confiscate arms. That made them the aggressor.
We won the war because we wrested the initiative from them. We lost many a battle and were seriously overmatched. But Trenton and Yorktown offensives by us destroyed the British chances of victory. We were not defending Trenton nor Yorktown, we were attacking them. The defenders lost, as they always do.
The above is a very brief encapsulation of the entire war, but it was our offensives that beat them, not our waiting for them to set all the conditions of battle. They had all but one advantage and we still beat them, because we took the initiative from them.
There is no moral high ground in war. There is only victory or defeat. Morality is the first casualty of war and it is sacrificed on the altar of ambitions of the original aggressor.
But we didn't *start* the war. Once they attacked they became the enemy, war was declared, yada yada. The WAR was defensive, doesn't mean every battle has to be. That is all.
I notice you fell back on "yada yada" once your position had taken a direct hit to which you couldn't realistically reply. You lost, defender. That is all.
Really? Because of two words I 'lose'? (whatever that means) OK how about this.
But we didn't *start* the war. Once they attacked they became the enemy and war was declared, etc. The WAR was defensive, doesn't mean every battle has to be. That is all.
BTW I'm actually agreeing with you so far as any battle need not be 'defensive'. But each battle must be relevant to the war being waged and the war itself must be defensive.
straigharrow, somehow I missed your longer comment clarifying your 'defenders always lose' idea. I must say well put indeed.
Ok, I thought your comments were denying what I had said after the clarifications, and obviously I thought you were wrong. We may be on the same page after all.
Post a Comment