CONSERVATIVE VOWS THAT HE WILL GO TO JAIL RATHER THAN BUY HEALTH INSURANCE OR PAY FINE

Of the many, many things about this process and the final bill that disgust me, high on the list is the requirement that Americans buy insurance or be fined - and if you don't pay the fine, face imprisonment.

I will not here issue a discourse about how we got here. Anyone who knows me knows how hard it is for me to refrain from that discourse. You can learn more by going to my blog and intelligently using the search tool in the right column.

Having pondered what I can do as a private citizen that could possibly have any effect, I hereby issue this declaration:

"When it seems as though this bill shall actually be enforceable regarding the requirement to obtain insurance or face a fine and possible incarceration, I will withdraw from the health insurance plan that I am currently part of and serve notice to the appropriate agencies that I will not seek or obtain health insurance. At such time that they issue the fine, I will serve notice that I will not pay it. I will, at that time, present myself to authorities to be arrested. Upon arrest and conviction, I will appeal the matter to the highest courts."

I will not passively abide this despicable act of tyranny that so flatly contravenes the Constitution of the United States. We are seeing treason in action and this seems to be the only way that I personally can combat it. I believe that this can have even greater effect if hundreds, thousands, or even millions of Americans join me. Let them put us all in jail and then we can put the question to the American people: Is this what you wanted? Is this the 'hope' and 'change' you were looking for?

It is one thing to require insurance for driving an automobile. In theory at least you could walk or ride your bike. For this bill to apply, you need only be alive. Simply by existing in the United States you will be compelled to make a purchase of a certain sort, or pay a price. Outrageous.

In order to pursue this course of action I will need legal representation. I would be happy if someone can point me in the direction of an attorney or two who can help me- and maybe hundreds of others- who can represent me in this endeavor.

If you support me in this personal quest, I would welcome your email which you can send to director@athanatosministries.org. If you would like to join me in this quest, you may contact me the same way. Abusive emails will be ignored.

Your prayers are coveted: for perseverance, tenacity, good outcomes, and since I won't have insurance, for good health.

Anthony Horvath is a Christian apologist and the author of the Birth Pangs series- a series about an America where our worst fears for it have been realized.

Post A Comment

* Indicates required information

Comments

40 comments for this article

<< < 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 > >>

Reverse Comment Order

Added: April 24, 2010. 05:04 PM CST

More like you pick and choose what you want focused on and confirmed, Z-dog. As evidence by your claim that ObamaCare isn't "remotely comparable" to genocide. The arguements for Universal Health Care can indeed be the same case for genocide (or any form of oppression). Germany was in a depression, getting rid of 'undesirables' contributed greatly to getting Germany out of it's depression. They got rid of the socially disabled and less fortunate with the same sentimentality of "helping" the less fortunate that is being used to promote ObamaCare. That's all unbiased facts with only the end result in mind (something you should appreciate). And doesn't even mention how easily ObamaCare can be used for funding abortions which many consider a modern day genocide. Plus as evidence by other countries use of Universal Health Care where citizens aren't permitted or even knowledgible of certain kinds of treatments (the UK's NHS and NICE come readily to mind) the result of being "herded" is a rather apt description.

Also further evidence of your narrow range of focus by me providing direct quotes of officials who live in the industrialized countries with universal health care, yet you assert I've provided no evidence to support that they are collapsing. Also as evidence by the fact we already had a lengthy debate about how universal health care is no different than universal food distribution, which you've never really addressed nor even the simple challange of whether you have a personal responsibility to take care of the simple scope of your neighboorhood in the same way you do your kids.

Also shown by the fact that polls such as the Rasmussen Report shows 54% oppose ObamaCare, and 55% for Fox News. Sadly for your arguement that a majority of Democrats are supportive means little if the nation isn't composed primarily of democrats. And it was the opposition to ObamaCare that showed bi-partisanship.

Frankly Zander, your arguement is nothing but highly questionable data taken as Gospel, an unwillingness to follow your "ends justifies the means" attitude, and a lot of blatant dismissal. If you focus on any "facts" it's just those you are willing to accept. I told you I opposed Universal Health Care and the reason/s why, yet you continued to rant and generally act like a little kid. You can call me on my unwillingness to have my mind changed on the issue. I'll happily agree, but don't kid yourself that your any different or that your acting on anything more than your fundamental beliefs of what government should be good for.

End Bringer

Alert a moderator

Added: April 23, 2010. 06:58 AM CST

Yes, we have different ideologies, and our "guts" therefore respond in different ways.

The difference is that I then go out and see whether the facts confirm my gut feeling or falsify it; whereas you simply declare facts irrelevant if they conflict with your gut feeling. That makes you look foolish.

You have no evidence that Obamacare is remotely comparable to genocide. All we've got is that Obamacare would make some people buy something you don't want them to be required by the federal government to buy, and would help them to pay for it if they can't afford its full cost. How is that analogous to being, say, herded into a death camp and gassed in an oven?

You have no evidence that any socialized healthcare system is "collapsing", or that they provide worse care than the American system does. You simply keep asserting that they are collapsing and hoping that people will believe you just on your say-so.

You have no evidence to show that Obamacare is morally different from any Constitutional system of taxation. But the frustrating thing is that you don't bother to try to show me why it is. You just assert it, expect me to agree with you, and get angry with me when I ask for evidence.

most of the nation is angry over ObamaCare

Most of the Tea Party is angry over Obamacare, End-Bringer. But in the most recent Pew poll, only 21% of a national sample described themselves as being angry at the federal government. Most Democrats are actually pretty happy with Obamacare, and there are a lot of us.

I'd ask you for evidence that it's most of the nation that is angry, but I won't bother, because I realize now that you aren't actually interested in whether what you say is factually true or false.

I guess I just have to accept that, unbelievable as it is, and stop trying to talk reason to the guy with fingers in his ears.

Zander

Alert a moderator

Added: April 22, 2010. 02:56 PM CST

Actually most of your arguement is rather flippant dismissals of "it's not perfect but it works" or to that effect. Frankly one can support genocide under the same arguements you give, Zander, and I guess it wouldn't be "murder" if the government does it "legally". Universal Health Care is stealing, and stealing is wrong.

You may not think so, but it's been clear for awhile and by your discussions in other posts that we don't opperate under the same basic ideological views. Your free to go with your 'gut' in supporting ObamaCare as I and others are free to oppose it. The flip side to your flippant dismissal is that nobody has to pay attention to your 'gut' support either. And judging by how most of the nation is angry over ObamaCare, I'd say it's that same attitude of not paying attention to the majority of Americans before one has no choice that's precisely why many politicians are going to be kicked out come November. Call it a 'gut' feeling. ;)

End Bringer

Alert a moderator

Added: April 22, 2010. 12:58 PM CST

I'm only flippant when your arguments are bad, End-Bringer. I'm much more sober when you actually try.

"Legal" or otherwise universal health care is still stealing. It's stealing from people who have earned their bread and forcibly taking it away. That's the simple unvarnished fact. As such I will always oppose it.

The fact that you oppose it doesn't make it wrong, End-Bringer. Individuals living in a representative democracy often have their government pass things that some other individuals don't like. It has happened to me plenty of times. That just means that I work to have those things changed or repealed.

What if, for example, I told you that my paying taxes for the common defense of the nation was unconstitutional and stealing, and that my hard-earned money was being taken away and spent on guns and bombs and suchlike that I don't approve of? Would you go, "Yes, you're right", or would you, rightly, call me a waahmbulance and tell me to suck it up?

You are of course at liberty to feel in your gut that something, anything is unconstitutional. Water fluoridation, vaccination programs, requiring your kids to attend school, anything. But nobody has to pay any attention to your gut until you get a court to agree with you.

The same goes for Obamacare. Come back when a court agrees with you, and I'll pay it some mind. Till then, your assertion has no more weight than the assertion that water fluoridation is unconstitutional.

Zander

Alert a moderator

Added: April 21, 2010. 04:38 PM CST

Heh. Your flippantly dismissive attitude doesn't change the facts Zander. I don't really care how Universal Health Care is implemented at it's core - it's stealing. Now we see you yourself aren't above picking and choosing what facts you will accept. Here is what the word stealing means in Merriam-Webster:

intransitive verb
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base

You'll notice "legality" doesn't really come up. As such the government can indeed "legally" steal from it's citizens. Dictators have done so for centuries through "legal" means. As such I'd suggest you get your basic definitions checked, and think beyond that if something is "legal" that makes something "right". Frankly, as evidence by your arguements I'd suggest you simply start thinking for yourself all together than depending on others to do it for you. The determination of what the Constitution means is not exclusive to the judicial system. It is in fact something all people who have passed basic reading are able to do. If even half the laws that were being passed in recent times followed Constitutional procedure - two-thirds vote, three-fourths state approval - or just simply putting it to the citizens for vote, rather than the decisions of an exclusive few, you'd find a lot less people upset over things like health care.

"Legal" or otherwise universal health care is still stealing. It's stealing from people who have earned their bread and forcibly taking it away. That's the simple unvarnished fact. As such I will always oppose it.

End Bringer

Alert a moderator

Added: April 21, 2010. 01:36 PM CST

Facts? OK here it is - Universal Health Care in any form is stealing.

Oh, End Bringer, End Bringer. You just can't distinguish between what your gut tells you and a verifiable fact, can you?

Stealing is taking something illegally. This is not stealing.

I mean, by all means argue that it should be illegal if you want to, and work to elect people who will declare it so; but the fact remains that it is not illegal.

As for your glib recital of constitutional clauses: your gut can assert that Obamacare violates the Constitution all it likes, but till an actual court agrees with your gut, then our Constitutional system says that you are factually wrong.

I felt a similar pain to what you feel with the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which removed my right to a fair trial if I were accused of terrorism by the government. I felt it was unconstitutional, and I was vindicated a couple of years later when the courts overturned most of it.

It is the courts that determine what the Constitution means, what is Constitutional and what is not, and all laws passed are presumptively Constitutional until they rule.

If you love the Constitution so much, have an iota of respect for how it works.

Zander

Alert a moderator

Added: April 20, 2010. 07:27 PM CST

If, as I suspect, there's nothing in the Constitution that does back you up on that distinction, then you're simply deciding arbitrarily that the federal government has the power only to order people to buy things that you approve of.

Seems we're back at the Pot calling the Kettle issue. Regardless ObamaCare does indeed violate the Commerce Clause, and 4th, 5th and 10th Amendment.

Facts, End Bringer, facts.

Facts? OK here it is - Universal Health Care in any form is stealing. That's a fact that I hold a head above any ends it may produce, just as getting rid of "undesirables" produced favorable economic ends for Germany (as well as others depending on what you consider "good"). As such I oppose such means in any and all forms.

End Bringer

Alert a moderator

Added: April 20, 2010. 11:35 AM CST

The issue is I don't regard statistics in general to report facts accurately or at minimum have the whole picture.

The issue is not whether statistics are perfect, End-Bringer. The issue is whether they are likely to offer the general public a more accurate picture than your gut or my gut will.

Some nations don't register an infant as "alive" unless they're a certain weight, or mass, or whatever other criteria besides being out of the womb and breathing, one can see how the truth can be clouded further.

Which nations? Tell me, and I will happily exclude them from the OECD nations I'm comparing the US to.

Facts such as the Act was passed when the US was young and in constent danger of invasion.

I see. So a legal precedent doesn't count if it's from the early years of the Republic? What court would endorse that perspective?

Facts such as the Act wasn't a mandate for buying guns simply for being alive, but was mandated for being drafted and enrolled in the militia between the age of 18 to 45 as a direct provision for the National Defense.

It was a mandate to buy guns and other things for men born between two particular times. I don't see how the purpose has anything to do with it, because we're talking about whether the federal government Constitutionally has the power to order people to buy things at all.

Now, if your argument is that the federal government has that power for purposes of defense but not for purposes of health, I'd be interested to see what part of the Constitution backs you up.

If, as I suspect, there's nothing in the Constitution that does back you up on that distinction, then you're simply deciding arbitrarily that the federal government has the power only to order people to buy things that you approve of.

???? It's been violated before yet it hasn't been violate???

Let me explain more clearly.

If this did violate the Constitution as you say, then it seems to be a violation that the federal government has repeatedly made, without anybody even alleging until this year that it was a violation, let alone having a court rule in their favor.

Under our Constitution, like it or not, it is the courts that determine what is and is not Constitutional, so their lack of action on prior "violations" suggests that similar actions are presumptively Constitutional. Only the Supreme Court can say otherwise. If they don't rule it unconstitutional, then it is Constitutional, whether you like it or not.

Has the Supreme Court made mistakes? Of course it has. But the Dred Scott decision contributed to the starting of the Civil War, which gives you an idea of where we end up if we put our own guts above what the courts decide.

Things are getting progressively worse for such developed countries as Canada and France to the point they're becoming more open to privatized health care the only factor that's debatable is how long can the ship keep from sinking.

Facts, End Bringer, facts. Enough with the glib assertions. I already asked you by what measures you felt the Canadian system was collapsing. You gave me the measures, and it appeared that by the measures you chose, it was not collapsing.

If you want to make assertions like this, tell me the basis on which you're making them; otherwise we're just talking about your gut again.

Sure, stealing can last for quite awhile if you steal a little at a time and the people being robbed from have plenty to take from (and earn more than is being taken), but eventually/inevitably it all runs out. And that's a fact that will never go away.

Ayn Rand and End Bringer up a tree! K I S S I N G!

This is about the clearest example of the fixed-pie fallacy that I've seen in a long time.

Zander

Alert a moderator

Added: April 19, 2010. 04:32 PM CST

I'm more than willing to pay attention to facts, Zander. The issue is I don't regard statistics in general to report facts accurately or at minimum have the whole picture. Life expectancy? Easily blurred by including/excluding death rates by causes unrelated to any health care system. Infant mortality? Seeing how some nations don't register an infant as "alive" unless they're a certain weight, or mass, or whatever other criteria besides being out of the womb and breathing, one can see how the truth can be clouded further. You pointed out that you are using OCED instead of WHO, but on these issues the source doesn't matter (though I believe OCED has admitted to the problems and have tried to minimise them). This is just the nature of statistics in general.

Yes, they have, End Bringer. The Second Militia Act of 1796 is only one example. But that's a fact, and you're not interested in those, because you care about the freedom.

Indeed I do. I care deeply about the facts surrounding the Second Militia Act of 1792. Facts such as the Act was passed when the US was young and in constent danger of invasion. Facts such as the Act wasn't a mandate for buying guns simply for being alive, but was mandated for being drafted and enrolled in the militia between the age of 18 to 45 as a direct provision for the National Defense. As such the comparison that enrolled soldiers be armed and all citizens buy something whether they want it or not (and only what the govenrment allows) is a tad insispid. That's why it pays to have all the facts. ;)

It's you who's arguing that this has never been violated before. It's been violated before because it's not a constitutional principle. The prior violations weren't ruled unconstitutional, and neither will this be.

???? It's been violated before yet it hasn't been violate???

Regardless we'll just have to wait for the courts to decide. Considering they're as loose as a "lady" in Vegas one can't really say for certain. Not that it matters to the issue of actually being violated or not, as Dred Scott showed the courts aren't always rational.

See, End-Bringer, that's an assertion about facts. And I think that the fact that the socialized systems in all other developed countries were established in between 40 and 100 years ago, and still appear to function, would have a bearing on that assertion - and in fact would undermine it considerably.

Heh. Not really. As things are getting progressively worse for such developed countries as Canada and France to the point they're becoming more open to privatized health care the only factor that's debatable is how long can the ship keep from sinking. Sure, stealing can last for quite awhile if you steal a little at a time and the people being robbed from have plenty to take from (and earn more than is being taken), but eventually/inevitably it all runs out. And that's a fact that will never go away.

End Bringer

Alert a moderator

Added: April 19, 2010. 07:31 AM CST

If we don't pay attention to what the facts are, End Bringer, then we're doomed to just shout past one another.

Obama's plans will produce a deficit of eleventy billion katrillajiggilion! What? They won't? Statistics mean nothing to me, man. I care about the freedom!

the federal government has never before required it's citizens to purchase things for the sole reason of being alive.

Yes, they have, End Bringer. The Second Militia Act of 1796 is only one example. But that's a fact, and you're not interested in those, because you care about the freedom.

Pointing to debatably past violations doesn't excuse present ones.

It's you who's arguing that this has never been violated before. It's been violated before because it's not a constitutional principle. The prior violations weren't ruled unconstitutional, and neither will this be.

Yes, it's possible for taxes to be too high, but there is nothing in the Constitution about when that point might be reached. Perhaps you see it in the "penumbra"? :-)

Universal health care will never work for long.

See, End-Bringer, that's an assertion about facts. And I think that the fact that the socialized systems in all other developed countries were established in between 40 and 100 years ago, and still appear to function, would have a bearing on that assertion - and in fact would undermine it considerably.

It must be so easy being you, and just not giving a hoot about any facts that conflict with your worldview. But don't expect me to respect your cavalier disregard of facts just because you toss the word "freedom" around a lot.

Zander

Alert a moderator

Reverse Comment Order

<< < 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 > >>