Since my day job ends in September, which allowed me to comply with insurance requirements, the cost to "keep my insurance" will rise from 30 a month to 300. I am already struggling to pay 300 a month to cover the Van that the local Democratic Chair of Precinct 30 uses for nonprofit services to the youth and elderly in our national historic district destroyed by Democrat abuses of govt funds. I have been saddled with paying thousand of dollars over the years to help the nonprofits serving two low income communities decimated under Democrat administrations that gave millions of taxes to corporate interests to destroy these communities while denying equal protections, much less funds, to the nonprofits which I funded. These loans have built up on my credit cards which I have been making monthly payments on, using salaries from two jobs since 2008, when this ACA mandate was passed adding the insurance requirement to avoid a tax fine I cannot afford either. My question to francoHFW was how can he not see the impact of the ACA mandates on me as a taxpayer who cannot afford to either pay for the insurance or pay the fine off my salary. My 300 a month from my night job barely covers the van or the nonprofit will lose the ability to serve the youth and elderly. I won't be able to pay for both the Van and the insurance as required by this law. My salary covers the monthly payments on several credit card loans from saving nonprofit groups from losing their centers after being deliberately denied funds in order for govt agencies to take over those districts instead of support local groups doing the work to support those communities. I offered to either sue or petition * Nancy Pelosi * President Obama * Justice Roberts to look at my case, and to ask for an executive order declaring the mandates to be optional, and only required for people who BELIEVE in this approach to health care, which I do not (and I listed several options I BELIEVE work better that should be the choice of the taxpayer to support); or for people who have committed a crime or violation for which they have undergone due process before being deprived of liberty, and/or who owe restitution for costs incurred to the public. If Pelosi, Roberts or Obama can PROVE this insurance mandate is the only way to pay for health care, then it isn't a faith-based govt mandate. If not, it remains FAITH-based and should be a free choice to fund or not. I have been paying costs incurred to the public due to abuses of govt authority and funds. So I want to challenge francoHFW to show how is this constitutional to declare insurance the only way to provide for health care to avoid a tax penalty. Why is it fair to tax me without my consent or representation, especially when I am already paying thousands beyond my share to cover damages caused by corruption, abuse or ineptitude in govt. Why don't other means of reducing costs of health care to cover more people count as options to invest in (and I listed some for franco * spiritual healing * investing in prison reform to cut costs and hold convicts accountable instead of charging law abiding citizens who didn't commit any crimes to lose liberties for especially without due process also * investing directly into health care programs and internships instead of insurance as the only option Why do these other alternatives "have to be proven first" before they are counted, but the ACA mandates didn't have to be proven to work before REQUIRING people to fund those -- which I argue are FAITH based and unconstitutionally required by govt if they are not proven and agreed to first. While this issue of ACA mandates is debated as constitutional or not, and I argue they are not because they rely on political beliefs not all people share, I argue that either Pelosi, Obama, Roberts or other supporters of ACA such as francoHFW should be held responsible for the cost of compliance until this is proven as the only or best way to cover the most people for health care. And if better ways are proven to be more effective and/or more constitutional/ethical, then the supporters of ACA should be held to the cost of this experiment that proved otherwise. If the program works better, they should be paid back by the people who agree it works better. But I do not believe anyone can force me or others to pay for an unproven mandate on faith-based arguments. That is like forcing people to pay for Christian programs against their will instead of procuring consent in advance. if NOBODY else in the Democratic Party will admit that this bill involves pushing political BELIEFS through govt and is discriminating by CREED, that is where I offered to go on a hunger strike to protest that denial of equal civil rights. I apologize but I have no tolerance for people who will put their political partisan agenda above equal Constitutional rights of other people of other creeds. I don't have to agree with creeds to defend them under the Constitution. But if NONE of my fellow Democrats agree to push to declare this mandate OPTIONAL in order to be Constitutional, I will ask for help to sue so I don't have to go on hunger strike to make my point and protest this whole ACA mandate as Unconstitutional on the basis of enforcing political beliefs that discriminate and penalize citizens with opposing creeds.