Just wanted to know who else will actually stand up to this garbage with action, not just rhetoric.

As a self employed person, though I am eligible for full subsidies (read: handouts the bankrupt govt. cannot afford) I will not be signing up at all for this unconstitutional garbage.

Any other Americans out there?

(03-02-2014 06:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just wanted to know who will actually stand up to this garbage with action, not just rhetoric.

As a self employed person, though I am eligible for full subsidies (read: handouts the bankrupt govt. cannot afford) I will not be signing up at all for this unconstitutional garbage.

Any other Americans out there?

I'm sure there will be a few that go that route, but most people will get a policy of some kind. I just hope that all of those that take a stand on principle as you have will live up to their financial obligations should they find themselves in need of extensive medical care. Please don't walk away from debts to doctors and hospitals so that I and others have to carry you.

(03-02-2014 06:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just wanted to know who will actually stand up to this garbage with action, not just rhetoric.

As a self employed person, though I am eligible for full subsidies (read: handouts the bankrupt govt. cannot afford) I will not be signing up at all for this unconstitutional garbage.

Any other Americans out there?

I'm sure there will be a few that go that route, but most people will get a policy of some kind. I just hope that all of those that take a stand on principle as you have will live up to their financial obligations should they find themselves in need of extensive medical care. Please don't walk away from debts to doctors and hospitals so that I and others have to carry you.

what's the difference?...
if you opt out you might end up owing a doctor or a hospital if you get really sick.

If you take a subsidized plan, you are getting your health insurance paid for on the backs of other taxpayers so in essence you owe the taxpayers for their charity.

(03-02-2014 06:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just wanted to know who will actually stand up to this garbage with action, not just rhetoric.

As a self employed person, though I am eligible for full subsidies (read: handouts the bankrupt govt. cannot afford) I will not be signing up at all for this unconstitutional garbage.

Any other Americans out there?

I'm sure there will be a few that go that route, but most people will get a policy of some kind. I just hope that all of those that take a stand on principle as you have will live up to their financial obligations should they find themselves in need of extensive medical care. Please don't walk away from debts to doctors and hospitals so that I and others have to carry you.

what's the difference?...
if you opt out you might end up owing a doctor or a hospital if you get really sick.

If you take a subsidized plan, you are getting your health insurance paid for on the backs of other taxpayers so in essence you owe the taxpayers for their charity.

The fine TAX is the premium. So the obligation will have been paid.
If everyone did this, the entire thing (ACA) would crumble within only 1 year. People would then be free again to choose for themselves.

It is the very fear most people have in taking a stand and putting themselves on the line as the Founding Fathers did to create this country, that enables fools like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al to maintain their illusion of power.

So long as there are no real Americans who will take decisive and concrete action against this tyranny, the tyranny many on here complain about will stand.

(03-02-2014 06:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just wanted to know who will actually stand up to this garbage with action, not just rhetoric.

As a self employed person, though I am eligible for full subsidies (read: handouts the bankrupt govt. cannot afford) I will not be signing up at all for this unconstitutional garbage.

Any other Americans out there?

I'm sure there will be a few that go that route, but most people will get a policy of some kind. I just hope that all of those that take a stand on principle as you have will live up to their financial obligations should they find themselves in need of extensive medical care. Please don't walk away from debts to doctors and hospitals so that I and others have to carry you.

what's the difference?...
if you opt out you might end up owing a doctor or a hospital if you get really sick.

If you take a subsidized plan, you are getting your health insurance paid for on the backs of other taxpayers so in essence you owe the taxpayers for their charity.

That is a big stretch.

If you don't get coverage and GOD forbid, are involved in an auto accident, contract cancer or some other major illness you are very likely to accumulate bills well beyond your means to pay. Even if/when you recover you life will be negatively affected for years to come.

Whether you like the ACA or not, everyone should at least carry a minimal policy. To do otherwise is totally irresponsible.

(03-02-2014 07:02 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Whether you like the ACA or not, everyone should at least carry a minimal policy. To do otherwise is totally irresponsible.

You meant: "Whether you drink the tea or not, everyone should pay at least a minimal tea tax. To do otherwise is totally irresponsible to the crown and the King."

Seem to remember a few people about 241 years ago who felt the same in resisting that kind of thinking in these parts.

(03-02-2014 07:19 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 07:02 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Whether you like the ACA or not, everyone should at least carry a minimal policy. To do otherwise is totally irresponsible.

You meant: "Whether you drink the tea or not, everyone should pay at least a minimal tea tax. To do otherwise is totally irresponsible to the crown and the King."

Seem to remember a few people about 241 years ago who felt the same in resisting that kind of thinking in these parts.

You don't have representation in congress? It wasn't about the tax on tea, it was about taxation without representation. Technically, the Boston Tea Party was an effort to keep the boycott going after the East India Co. was given an exclusive contract to distribute tea in the colonies. The analogy doesn't work.

Didn't dumba$$ Keith Olbermann say he wouldn't buy insurance?

(03-02-2014 07:19 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 07:02 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Whether you like the ACA or not, everyone should at least carry a minimal policy. To do otherwise is totally irresponsible.

You meant: "Whether you drink the tea or not, everyone should pay at least a minimal tea tax. To do otherwise is totally irresponsible to the crown and the King."

Seem to remember a few people about 241 years ago who felt the same in resisting that kind of thinking in these parts.

But ignoring the flawed analogy I am curious about the possibility that you will go throughout the next year without even a bare bones health insurance policy. What if you get sick or in an accident? It could be awful for you financially.

(03-02-2014 07:02 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just wanted to know who will actually stand up to this garbage with action, not just rhetoric.

As a self employed person, though I am eligible for full subsidies (read: handouts the bankrupt govt. cannot afford) I will not be signing up at all for this unconstitutional garbage.

Any other Americans out there?

I'm sure there will be a few that go that route, but most people will get a policy of some kind. I just hope that all of those that take a stand on principle as you have will live up to their financial obligations should they find themselves in need of extensive medical care. Please don't walk away from debts to doctors and hospitals so that I and others have to carry you.

what's the difference?...
if you opt out you might end up owing a doctor or a hospital if you get really sick.

If you take a subsidized plan, you are getting your health insurance paid for on the backs of other taxpayers so in essence you owe the taxpayers for their charity.

That is a big stretch.

If you don't get coverage and GOD forbid, are involved in an auto accident, contract cancer or some other major illness you are very likely to accumulate bills well beyond your means to pay. Even if/when you recover you life will be negatively affected for years to come.

Whether you like the ACA or not, everyone should at least carry a minimal policy. To do otherwise is totally irresponsible.

So you are now trying to force responsible behavior.
This is a free country. No one is obligated to behave responsibly.

If you are so behind pushing responsible behavior, when are you going to start enforcing your responsible behavior belief by coming out against people having kids out of wedlock, against people living their lives on welfare, etc. When will you start pushing work requirements for those on welfare? Those are all acts of responsible behavior too.

I recommend that everyone drop their plans unless and until they get seriously ill, at which point the insurance companies are forced to accept them under the preexisting condition requirements. 10 or 12 million people doing that, and this whole thing goes splat in 6 months.

. . . sick people buying insurance aren't actually buying insurance. That demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what insurance actually is.

(03-02-2014 07:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You don't have representation in congress?

The ACA was passed on a single party basis, without a single Republican vote for it. Interestingly, 34 Democrats also voted against the passage of the ACA.

The idea of a constitution, written or not, being interpreted as banning the levying of taxes without proper representation is the very idea the Sons of Liberty used in their logic to protest the Tea Act. Going back to the Bill of Rights of 1689, which established that long-term taxes could not be levied without the legislative body (Parliament), and other precedents said that the legislative must actually represent the people it ruled over, in order to "count".

When you have a proposed law which is vehemently and unanimously opposed by a solid group representing their constituents, and it is passed by an opposing side which does not represent any of those same constituents, which is itself fractured against their own side (the 34 Democrats who voted AGAINST the ACA), and when you live in a State which is represented by those on the opposing side to the anachorous legislation, it ceases to "count."

Otherwise, why are we not still singing "God save the Queen"? The American Revolution itself, as well as the individual actions by many of the colonists, was considered illegal by the very legislative body (Parliament) that was being acted against. Their authority was no longer recognized as legitimate and binding by the American Revolutionaries. Of course, they did have to suffer and fight for their position, but all of us today owe a great debt of gratitude that they chose to do so, even at their own peril.

Many people also conveniently forget that there existed at the time a large plurality of American colonists who opposed the American revolution, both in principle and in deed, and instead supported the tyranny of the King. The debate and disagreement among the colonists was very real, and not as cut and dried and one-sided as many of today's history books would lead you to believe. Many felt that the American Revolution was breaking the "social compact" of the time. The Americans who won our freedom 9well, what we have left of it) had to fight not only the British, but also had to go against many of their fellow colonists who disagreed with them quite strongly as well.

(03-02-2014 07:41 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  So you are now trying to force responsible behavior.
This is a free country. No one is obligated to behave responsibly.

If you are so behind pushing responsible behavior, when are you going to start enforcing your responsible behavior belief by coming out against people having kids out of wedlock, against people living their lives on welfare, etc. When will you start pushing work requirements for those on welfare? Those are all acts of responsible behavior too.

You're getting warm!

(03-02-2014 07:48 PM)EagleX Wrote:  I recommend that everyone drop their plans unless and until they get seriously ill, at which point the insurance companies are forced to accept them under the preexisting condition requirements. 10 or 12 million people doing that, and this whole thing goes splat in 6 months.

. . . sick people buying insurance aren't actually buying insurance. That demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what insurance actually is.

You're getting warmer!

(03-02-2014 07:41 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  So you are now trying to force responsible behavior.
This is a free country. No one is obligated to behave responsibly.

If you are so behind pushing responsible behavior, when are you going to start enforcing your responsible behavior belief by coming out against people having kids out of wedlock, against people living their lives on welfare, etc. When will you start pushing work requirements for those on welfare? Those are all acts of responsible behavior too.

In reply, I'll say this: I'll trade participation in the ACA for banning all divorce, banning all kids out of wedlock, banning abortion, and banning people living on welfare. That seems like a fair trade of rights to me. Which is what the ACA does, it unilaterally and unconstitutionally removes rights. Otherwise, no deal.

And before you say: 'But the Supreme Court ruled that the ACA was constitutional' let me point out that the court ruled on the basis that the ACA was not in fact a fine as had been argued by those in favor ofthe flawed legislation, but that it was in fact a tax. And the Supreme Court of the United States is famous for already getting decisions completely wrong. I refer you to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 1857, in which the United Sates Supreme Court asserted firmly and unequivocally that there was no difference between Mr. Scott and a piece of furniture. Which is ludicrous, wrong, etc... but it was the law of the land for quite a while until some people got together to resist and overturn it. Same thing needs to happen here.

As to your "parade of horribles" argument about what happens when people do not participate in ACA (which is NOT insurance), I submit that neither George Washington, nor their ancestors who colonized this country, nor many generations of their descendants carried such, and our country seems to have survived and prospered reasonably well enough for more than 200 years.

(03-02-2014 06:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just wanted to know who will actually stand up to this garbage with action, not just rhetoric.

As a self employed person, though I am eligible for full subsidies (read: handouts the bankrupt govt. cannot afford) I will not be signing up at all for this unconstitutional garbage.

Any other Americans out there?

I'm sure there will be a few that go that route, but most people will get a policy of some kind. I just hope that all of those that take a stand on principle as you have will live up to their financial obligations should they find themselves in need of extensive medical care. Please don't walk away from debts to doctors and hospitals so that I and others have to carry you.

Subsidizing isn't carrying others?

(03-02-2014 07:41 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 07:02 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just wanted to know who will actually stand up to this garbage with action, not just rhetoric.

As a self employed person, though I am eligible for full subsidies (read: handouts the bankrupt govt. cannot afford) I will not be signing up at all for this unconstitutional garbage.

Any other Americans out there?

I'm sure there will be a few that go that route, but most people will get a policy of some kind. I just hope that all of those that take a stand on principle as you have will live up to their financial obligations should they find themselves in need of extensive medical care. Please don't walk away from debts to doctors and hospitals so that I and others have to carry you.

what's the difference?...
if you opt out you might end up owing a doctor or a hospital if you get really sick.

If you take a subsidized plan, you are getting your health insurance paid for on the backs of other taxpayers so in essence you owe the taxpayers for their charity.

That is a big stretch.

If you don't get coverage and GOD forbid, are involved in an auto accident, contract cancer or some other major illness you are very likely to accumulate bills well beyond your means to pay. Even if/when you recover you life will be negatively affected for years to come.

Whether you like the ACA or not, everyone should at least carry a minimal policy. To do otherwise is totally irresponsible.

So you are now trying to force responsible behavior.
This is a free country. No one is obligated to behave responsibly.

If you are so behind pushing responsible behavior, when are you going to start enforcing your responsible behavior belief by coming out against people having kids out of wedlock, against people living their lives on welfare, etc. When will you start pushing work requirements for those on welfare? Those are all acts of responsible behavior too.

I'm fully in favor of responsible behavior. I will say that emphatically. However, I would rather see out of wedlock births as opposed to abortions whenever possible. But I'd rather see the use of birth control in order to prevent both. Of course I favor abstaining until marriage if at all possible.

I support the SNAP, WICK, AFDC and unemployment insurance. But I also favor a vigorous effort to prevent abuse of those programs and programs and measures to break the cycle of poverty. There are work / education requirements in place but there is always room for improvement.

Now back to irresponsible behavior involving health insurance. If you want to be irresponsible then just pay the fine. It isn't nearly as much as you would pay in premiums. But I think people should except personal responsibility and not play Russia Roulette with their financial affairs by going uninsured.

(03-02-2014 08:17 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 07:41 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  So you are now trying to force responsible behavior.
This is a free country. No one is obligated to behave responsibly.

If you are so behind pushing responsible behavior, when are you going to start enforcing your responsible behavior belief by coming out against people having kids out of wedlock, against people living their lives on welfare, etc. When will you start pushing work requirements for those on welfare? Those are all acts of responsible behavior too.

In reply, I'll say this: I'll trade participation in the ACA for banning all divorce, banning all kids out of wedlock, and banning people living on welfare. That seems like a fair trade of rights to me. Which is what the ACA does, it unilaterally and unconstitutionally removes rights. Otherwise, no deal.

And before you say: 'But the Supreme Court ruled that the ACA was constitutional' let me point out that the court ruled on the basis that the ACA was not in fact a fine as had been argued by those in favor ofthe flawed legislation, but that it was in fact a tax. And the Supreme Court of the United States is famous for already getting decisions completely wrong. I refer you to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 1857, in which the United Sates Supreme Court asserted firmly and unequivocally that there was no difference between Mr. Scott and a piece of furniture. Which is ludicrous, wrong, etc... but it was the law of the land for quite a while until some people got together to resist and overturn it. Same thing needs to happen here.

As to your "parade of horribles" argument about what happens when people do not participate in ACA (which is NOT insurance), I submit that neither George Washington, nor their ancestors who colonized this country, nor many generations of their descendants carried such, and our country seems to have survived and prospered reasonably well enough for more than 200 years.

Forget the ACA for a minute. Are you saying that health insurance is unnecessary? There was health insurance before 2010 and most of us would die in the poor house years before our time without it.

(03-02-2014 07:48 PM)EagleX Wrote:  I recommend that everyone drop their plans unless and until they get seriously ill, at which point the insurance companies are forced to accept them under the preexisting condition requirements. 10 or 12 million people doing that, and this whole thing goes splat in 6 months.

. . . sick people buying insurance aren't actually buying insurance. That demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what insurance actually is.

That is why you have to sign up by March 31st. You can't just get sick and go buy a policy after the diagnosis. You would have to wait until the 2015 window opens up to buy a policy that would pay for your condition. Six months of Chemo can get very expensive. So can insulin vials if you suddenly discover you are diabetic.

(03-02-2014 07:02 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just wanted to know who will actually stand up to this garbage with action, not just rhetoric.

As a self employed person, though I am eligible for full subsidies (read: handouts the bankrupt govt. cannot afford) I will not be signing up at all for this unconstitutional garbage.

Any other Americans out there?

I'm sure there will be a few that go that route, but most people will get a policy of some kind. I just hope that all of those that take a stand on principle as you have will live up to their financial obligations should they find themselves in need of extensive medical care. Please don't walk away from debts to doctors and hospitals so that I and others have to carry you.

what's the difference?...
if you opt out you might end up owing a doctor or a hospital if you get really sick.

If you take a subsidized plan, you are getting your health insurance paid for on the backs of other taxpayers so in essence you owe the taxpayers for their charity.

That is a big stretch.

If you don't get coverage and GOD forbid, are involved in an auto accident, contract cancer or some other major illness you are very likely to accumulate bills well beyond your means to pay. Even if/when you recover you life will be negatively affected for years to come.

Whether you like the ACA or not, everyone should at least carry a minimal policy. To do otherwise is totally irresponsible.

I agree everyone should carry insurance. I am not though prepared to put a gun to my neighbors head and make him do so...or...extract the fruits of his labors to pay for others.