Bull Ring Hunger Strike against ACA mandates (unless francoHFW agrees to pay 300 a month for me to comply)

Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by emilynghiem, Aug 6, 2015.

?

Does francoHFW or anyone else support ACA enough to pay the cost of compliance

Poll closed Feb 2, 2016.
  1. Yes, I support ACA and agree to help pay or raise funds to cover compliance because this works

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. I support ACA but believe other people including opponents should pay for it

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. NO, I don't support ACA and don't agree to fund it or be forced to pay for it

    1 vote(s)
    100.0%
  4. I believe ACA should be optional, only people who support it are required to fund it

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Other please specify

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,553
    Thanks Received:
    2,703
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,022
    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.
     
  2. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,553
    Thanks Received:
    2,703
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,022
    Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

    Here is another point made with francoHFW

    francoHFW seems to justify ACA as a good law because it is a good start and will produce even better results in the future

    I reply that in the case of forcing someone to marry you
    and raping them to start a family, no matter how wonderful the
    children and family are that come from the relationship,
    if it isn't based on mutual consent it is RAPE.

    the outcome of producing good results from the marriage
    does not justify the RAPE which is still a crime against that person's humanity and will

    I happen to know at least one mother who has lovely children
    she cherished to her last day. but she totally resented the
    things forced on her to have a family. That is still wrongful
    and caused permanent suffering and damage she never totally healed from,
    although all her children are lovely and they make the world a better place.

    That does not justify abusing the mother and forcing her against her will.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page