Government Health Care: Just say NO!

Posted: February 1, 2011 in Uncategorized

South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership

to Make Point About Health Law
Interesting twist on fighting Obamacare.. South Dakota created a bill, mandating anyone over the age of 21 (effective January 1, 2012) must purchase a gun, for their own self-defense. The created it with the expectation it will fail, to prove a point. But.. imagine if it passes? (They do include that the person must be legally qualified to own one).

Opt Out Bill: a step one in bringing down obamacare completely, but in the interim finding a way for states to opt out of the mandate and levels of coverage.

Draining California: Healthy people dropping insurance, unhealthy ones sucking the system dry. California also hosts the largest number of uninsured. Doctors who end up paying for and receiving less, opting for cash only patients.

 In California, insurance companies are not allowed rate regulation, so the insurance companies are playing beat the clock to raise rates before they have to publically justify those increases. But there is another reason for those increases… they are preparing for the “what-if” the health care bill will take effect (in 2014). That is just one state, the burden they are experiencing, the costs, the state financial issues.. yet the government wants to expand that infection to the rest of the country?

And as insurance companies gear up for the new federal health legislation to take effect in 2014, many expect they’ll continue to raise their rates, out of concern for how the rules might change in the future. That prospect has patients around the nation worried what that means for them.

 Why The Health Care Bill is being attacked? Here is a look back (December 2010)

In a setback to the Obama administration, U.S. district court judge Henry Hudson in Virginia knocked down the lynch pin of health reform, the individual mandate which forces taxpayers who don’t have insurance to buy health coverage, and if they don’t, pay a tax and/or face possibly jail time.

The federal judge said the mandate “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”

And in his ruling, Judge Hudson took the Democrats and the Administration to task for denying that the individual mandate penalty is a tax, as well as their backbreaking contortions around that argument.

Tax.. Penalty? They opted against the term tax basically as nothing more than a slight of hand. Since a “mandate tax” would be imposed on the middle class, and Obama needs to disguise any evidence of middle class taxes.

So what is the difference? Perhaps the government needs to review Merriam Webster. And yet while taxes feel like a punishment, there is a definite difference.

noun \ˈpe-nəl-tē\

plural pen·al·ties

Definition of PENALTY

1: the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense

2: the suffering or the sum to be forfeited to which a person agrees to be subjected in case of nonfulfillment of stipulations

2tax noun, often attributive

Definition of TAX

1a : a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b : a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses

Aside from the tax/penalty confusion the government suffers from, they need to also brush up on that old document the “US Constitution”. The fine would be because we did NOT BUY something. So where is the line drawn? That is the big question? If they can fully open this door, there really is no end to government power.

So is this try, try again? The Congressional Budget Office said no when Clinton tried to slip a health mandate through, back in 1994.

“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

… it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

Another great point in the article compares other economic situations, like World War II, people were not forced to buy war bonds, grow food, or build tanks.. to support the war. Yet the government is trying to force Americans to buy inflated insurance, to make up for others. Yet the government already sucks money from taxpayers to hand out in Welfare, do they not see the stone has no blood?

Here is another perfect example of how the government could abuse this power (unless Obamacare is kicked to the curb).

“Congress could require every American to buy a new Chevy Impala every year..because such purchases would stimulate commerce and help repay government loans.” Congress could also force taxpayer to buy, say, wheat bread to subsidize farmers, the three opine.

When I have had discussions about gov’t health care with those who are blind, deaf and dumb to the realities of it, they love to pull the auto-insurance argument. Yet.. auto insurance is state regulated. And, driving is not a right is a privilege, if you choose to drive, you need to protect yourself. And yes part of insurance protects others around you, but if you look closer, again that is still protecting you from some unscrupulous people! An additional point that article makes is the passengers of the car are not required to have auto-insurance.

Massachusetts has a mandate. But they claim it does not infringe on Constitutional rights because they have opt-out if you can prove you can’t afford it, or for religious reasons. Wow, what religion is that? The government adds criminals and personal hardships… also if you are a criminal, poor, or have a certain religion.. you are spared. Do you see a divided country being created from this? Soon there will be entire sections claiming some religion to avoid the grasp of government.

Likewise, federal reform backers can argue their legislation passes constitutional muster, too, as the proposed federal insurance mandate exempts taxpayers with income below 100% of the poverty line, as well as religious objectors, incarcerated individuals and anyone determined to have suffered a hardship regarding their capability to obtain coverage, as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Massachusetts won the only solid challenge to its law.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s