It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Just Say NO to Fed Health Plan

page: 5
44
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by converge
 


Converge that was a very good reply there. Congress does reserve that power, and might I add that the police and fire department could be considered as an individual welfare department and yet we happily have those under our government. Folks would obviously argue that "police and the fire department are in the constitution" but that still doesnt ignore the fact these are departments catering to the welfare of each and every one of us and there for verymuch applies in the same way to healthcare.

Congress does reserve that power to ammend and add a public healthcare option for the general well being of the United states.


I agree SG, one could lead a long life and have no need for FD or PD -
But there are very few people in this first world who were not born in the presence of a doctor. So from day uno...


[edit on 23-12-2009 by Janky Red]

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Janky Red]




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna
The Congress has plenty of power to tax for health insurance. They've gone way further over the "constitutional line" on a great many other issues. This is hardly even debatable, unless you start with the more grievous constitutional offenses first.

I agree on that. They've been going over that line at least since Lincoln's term.


Originally posted by pirhanna
And, personally I agree that Congress has the exact same authority to tax for health care as they do for providing a military, under the clause quoted previously.

Well, the "provide for the common defense" is pretty clear-cut in it's meaning, but "promoting the general welfare" is pretty ambiguous in the face of two-party politics. Besides, since that phrase is in the Preamble, it's not a specific function of either the Executive or the Legislature to define it, but that's exactly what they're doing; The Judiciary was delegated the Power of Constitutional Interpretation.

With that much ambiguity in the issue, it should be left up to the States, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with the Feds setting common standards among the States & kicking back some of the State taxation to keep the programs within common standards. As it is now, I think a few States have reasonably working State-wide programs, funded by the States themselves; I've heard Rochchester, NY has (or had until recently, at least) a good coverage for everybody. As far as the Feds are doing now, the States would have to scrap whatever programs they have now & "toe the federal line."


Originally posted by pirhanna
That said, I hate the bill as it currently stands. It's just a big xmas present for the insurance giants. What most real Americans would like is a full public health care system.

I'm not against the idea of a fully usable, nation wide Health Care Plan...But this one is so full of holes that it's worse than useless; It's actually dangerous for the People.


Originally posted by pirhanna
Shall we have a public health care system: check yes or no. If no, then forget it. If yes, then let's get on it.

Something this complex should never be left to a simple "yes or no" to settle it. People must be well-informed about any proposals & have a chance to deliberate & express themselves to Congress...The whole point here is that some in Congress are simply "jury rigging" individual pieces to it in order to "get one more vote" in favor of it; The House version is very different to what the Senate voted on. Piecemeal jigsaw-puzzling at its worst & the trick is that the public is not getting any say about it. Is that the sign of a "representative government?"



Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Actually, it is YOU that shows ignorance regarding the Senate Bill. There are 48 stipulations regarding the expansion of Medicaid in this bill.
In case you weren't AWARE of it, MEDICAID IS A PUBLIC OPTION. Duh!

Have you checked to see what's left in the Social Security & Medicaid funds right now? It's already failed for the public...It's full of nothing but Congressional IOU's...It's empty...It was a Ponzi Scam (look it up) when it was created & it's a scam that's long-since bottomed out. The government has already spent it! And our Federal Taxes don't even go to any public funding either. It all goes towards paying the Federal Debt...And even that's not enough to even balance the interest charges.


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Converge that was a very good reply there. Congress does reserve that power, and might I add that the police and fire department could be considered as an individual welfare department and yet we happily have those under our government.

Actually, the local Police, Fire Departments, public schools & even road maintenance & State Militias are funded by your State taxes, not federal taxes. Of course, the Feds step in & "kick back" some of the taxes that the States pay to the Feds so that the Feds can have some influence over how the States run those organizations...

It is not, as you phrase it, "our government" & it hasn't been for over 100 years.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Congress does reserve that power to ammend and add a public healthcare option for the general well being of the United states.

Then, in accordance with Lawful Procedure, they should then table the current discussion & make the amendment first instead of performing some kind of "end run" around the Constitution...Don't you think? But the pundits in office now already recognize that they'd never be able to get enough votes to make a Lawful Quorum for that kind of Amendment.

This isn't the first time that some Branch or another of the government has pushed on one issue or another until something in the Constitution was broken. Was the Patriot Act legal? Hell, no! Congress was delegated the Power of Legislation, but they didn't even read the damn thing before being "terrorized" by Bush to vote it. Yes, I just called Bush a terrorist because he used terror-generating tactics to change the Lawful Procedures of Congress!

After all, don't they all have to swear/affirm to an Oath of Office to defend & uphold the Constitution? You bet they do! That's really their Contract of Employment under We the People! So why do they go to such lengths to continue violating it? Even more...Why do We the People continue to let them?

[edit on 23-12-2009 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
what irks me the most about this proposed "plan" is the fact they are willing to fine anyone who does not carry health insurance up to a $1000.
That is basically saying we are taxing you just for breathing
Thank god I didn't vote for anyone in the recent election
Why vote for crooks to represent you?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Does NO ONE here knwo the difference between the "United States" and the "united States of America"? Just like with "person" and "Naturally Born person". It's all word magic and if they do not define it correctly, what is included is all there is, what is excluded was intended to be excluded.




Expressio unius est exclusio alterius; A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100. Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition (emphasis mine)

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius; /inklũwzh(iy)ow yanáyəs ést əksklũwzh(iy)ow oltíriyəs/. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition (emphasis mine)


When, in any law or statute code or regulation, a reference is made to a “person” it is the exclusion of Natural and sovereign persons or people. This has been held to be truth and fact in all cases.



WE the PEOPLE are not within the "law society" so these "laws" or bills do not and can not be applied to us, just like the IRS code can not be applied to us as we are not "corporate" or artificial "persons".

What in the world have we forgotten here, MAN created government to SERVE MAN, not the other way round. The politicinas can not dictate WHAT laws apply to the public, only to the public WITHIN the United States and not the "united States of America". That is up to US as sovereign and free people. It's not anarchy if we all act like civilized people as we are. We are free to trade and barter for what we need. That's it.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
WE the PEOPLE are not within the "law society" so these "laws" or bills do not and can not be applied to us, just like the IRS code can not be applied to us as we are not "corporate" or artificial "persons".

That is the truth under Rule by Law, but you have to also take account that they have been enforcing those statutes as if they were law, outside of the limited statutory jurisdiction...That's the whole root of the crime they've perpetuated upon the Citizens.
There have been quite a few times I've already pointed out that difference in jurisdiction in ATS forums. Those statutory regulations are enforceable as law within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia...That is to include the small plots of land granted by the States (for military bases, post offices & such) & other "needful buildings" as described in Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress), Clause 13. They are also enforceable within US Territories & Possessions, such as Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.

Yes, many of us do see that difference & it's the primary cause of the growing civil unrest that's boiling up. One of these points of contention is that the Post Office has been regulated so as to not require the use of Zip Codes...If fact, those regulations even provide for punishment if the Post Office discriminates against the delivery of any mail that does not include Zip Codes. By some strange "coincidence" (?), the IRS uses Zip Codes to establish "jurisdictional identification codes." In short, if you use Zip Codes on your mail, the IRS takes that as "voluntary compliance" for establishing IRS jurisdiction on your address.

They also use your Birth Certificate against you as well. If your Birth Certificate was registered, instead of being recorded & filed in the Hall of Records (in the county where you were born), then you have entered into contract with the United States to be responsible for the National Debt & the Individual Income Tax; In essence, the (your name in all capital letters) is the "corporation" they're enforcing on, because your registered Birth Certificate winds up in the Federal Bureau of Commerce! Yeah, the Bureau of Commerce; this is what creates the "corporation" named on all official documentation that relates to you.

In short, the problem is that most people aren't aware of the difference between "me" & "ME" as it pertains to official documents...People aren't aware because the PTB don't want that info to become public knowledge.

The government's problem is that people are learning the difference & acting under the Due Process of Law to fix the problem, taking control of that "corporation in their names" back from government monopoly use on it! -- Praise the Lord & Free the Internet!
We the People can understand the Law if we can but access it!

Yet this Birth Certificate "contract," by its very nature, is fraudulent: Were your parents told this when someone on the hospital staff (not from their legal department, of course) shoved a bunch of papers in their faces & said, "here, you have to fill these out." No, they were not informed. This "contract" suffers under several problems, even under the Uniform Commercial Code! For one, unless the contract was offered by a certified legal representative, the contract suffers Misrepresentation. Next, Lack of Full Disclosure of All Terms & Conditions has been committed. Under UCC sections concerning Remedy & Recourse, either one of those problems is enough to void the contract right back to the time of entering...In short, the contract is not valid & never was valid. This is the root & nature of the crimes the government perpetuates on We the People. It's the accumulation over time of fraudulent contracts that the government "offers," all being based upon that original fraud of the Birth Contract.

This type of specific information, and much more, has already been discussed over in this thread. With cited & linked references included, it can really show how much the Feds have been violating laws against us for several generations. This so-called Health Care Reform is just another example, along with other numerous long-term, long-range examples that keep piling up day by day, year by year.


Originally posted by pookiemonster
That is basically saying we are taxing you just for breathing

They're not going to officially start the "Breathing Tax" until they can push their "Save the Environment Legislation" & start charging from a Standard of Carbon Emissions...But you can bet they're already planning & writing up the particulars on their Tax Charts.


It should be obvious by now that it's not the Health Reform Plan that should be denied to the government as another means of control...This thread is emphasizing that it's the FEDS that we should be saying "no" to. I agree that some kind of Health Care Reform should be accomplished...Just not by the FEDS! They're just planning for another fraudulent contract on top of an ever-growing mountain of fraudulent contracts that they fully intend to enforce unlawfully.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


HOLY WOW!!! That's incredible!! The birth certificate/registration case just opened my eyes. Thank you for the information.



new topics

top topics
 
44
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join