What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

10 million dollar ACA Bet: May mean Goodbye...or Hello-oh?


Constitutionalist / Universalist
Gold Supporting Member
Jan 21, 2010
Reaction score
National Freedmen's Town District
I got into a fight at work.

Two guys kept insisting ACA was the law of the land and wasn't going to change.
I said the Constitution was the law of the land, and ACA was in conflict with it.
I said I would bet 10 million dollars the Constitution would prevail over ACA mandates.

I argued that it was unconstitutional to mandate health insurance through federal govt because there were two different beliefs that split the vote almost evenly 50/50 in both Congress and in the Supreme Court 4-5:
1. the belief held by Democrats and liberals in the right to health care, even through federal govt over states' rights
2. the belief held by Republicans and conservatives in health care belonging under states' rights not federal govt

And both times the creed of one group was unconstitutionally imposed over the other;
instead of allowing the OPTION of govt health care through states which would have satisfied both.

I could have won a 10,000 bet that the fine for not having insurance was the HIGHER of 1% of one's salary* not 95.00. But I was kind and showed the healthcare.gov site stating this, *specifically portion of salary over 10,000.

I said if the mandate wasn't changed to VOLUNTARY by the end of the year, I would go on hunger strike.

I do not want to keep having this argument where I am HARASSED for my beliefs in the
Constitution protecting equal beliefs in states' rights as the beliefs in right to health care.

Those are Equal Creeds under the law by Constitutional principles
and I REFUSED to deny that. And as a Democrat I am ready
to ask Obama and the Supreme Court to recognize the "discrimination by creed" caused by imposing the mandates that exempted and represented the citizens and party holding one belief,
while depriving, penalizing and consequently HARASSING people like me of Constitutional beliefs (several cases: people who believe the mandates violate States' rights, people who believe they violate involuntary servitude without due process before depriving liberties, and people like me who believe that political beliefs are protected equally as religions or creeds by the First and Fourteenth Amendments).

I hold that the govt cannot force anyone like me to "change my beliefs" or pay an additional tax,
but participation in the ACA programs, mandates and regulations should be VOLUNTARY. (If the Democrats believe in mandatory participation, they can CHOOSE this as their beliefs, but cannot FORCE beliefs on others through govt except by CONSENT of those citizens.)

Only if people agree that such political beliefs can be adopted through the STATES
it may be possible. But must still respect the political beliefs of citizens and cannot impose
polices of one belief over the other, without consent of the people whose beliefs are at stake.

Please help me NOT to have to go on hunger strike over this.

If I am using knowledge of Constitutional laws that is taught in Eighth Grade History,
to understand that two conflicting political beliefs are at stake and both are protected equally by law, surely the President of the United States, members of Congress, and Justices of the Supreme Court who are supposed to uphold the Constitution should be competent enough to recognize political beliefs.

If this is not resolved by the end of the year, or by the time my work insurance expires and forces me to be liable for a tax penalty against my Constitutional beliefs, then I will go on hunger strike to protest this conflict.

I do not believe that Obama and the Democrats are that blind to the fact their partisan agenda constitutes a political belief. If they are that biased and have that much conflict of interest with the Constitution of the United States, that they cannot correct a simple error by simply changing the mandates to be voluntary, such officials should be removed from office.

Thank you.

I do not want to keep having this same fight and being harassed for defending
not only my beliefs, but the protection of other beliefs against federal infringements.

I was not able to explain that beliefs can only be overridden for govt sake IF THOSE PEOPLE AGREE VOLUNTARILY -- but cannot be forced or fined by govt for not changing their beliefs.
I even tried to explain that citizens cannot be deprived of liberty without due process, or forced into involuntary servitude unless convicted of a crime; but they didn't know, understand or believe in those laws; they believed if the govt mandated they pay taxes a certain way, that is the law of the land.

The problem is the proponents and supporters either do not have knowledge of Constitutional
principles and beliefs, or don't share the beliefs such Constitutional limits apply to federal govt.
Either way, by ignorance or by difference in beliefs, that CANNOT be used as justification
to violate, exclude, penalize or discriminate against my beliefs and others equally protected.

I would like to avoid going on hunger strike by correcting this breach as soon as possible.

Please help.
Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem

the 10 million dollar bet kept changing during our argument
It started as my betting that the Tea Party is NOT the same as Klan (who are Christ
Identity and believe in segregation of races) but the Tea Party are for the Constitution
vs. "the majority of members are Klan members 72% and the other 28% are fruitcakes"

But I was going to give a break on that bet and allow a second chance
that the health care bill will be corrected such as made optional by party
before the end of the year, or I would go on hunger strike if this isn't resolved.
Last edited:


Constitutionalist / Universalist
Gold Supporting Member
Jan 21, 2010
Reaction score
National Freedmen's Town District
Oh.....you poor thing.

Yep being the only liberal prochoice Democrat teaching people the Constitution
who have never read it and didn't know the federal govt was under any rules.

Friday February 20 (5 days after the previously set deadline)
was the first time anyone bothered to show them that the tax penalty
for not buying insurance was 1% of your income above 10,000
[rising to 2%, 3% and up for each consequent year]. They thought
the fine was 95.00

So they thought that anyone objecting to this mandate
has to be racist against Obama if the fine is only 95.00

One guy said no wonder the govt deducted so much.
His tax return was reduced from over 2000 to 900.

Poor me having to be the one to break the news to them that
1. the fines are higher than people are willing and can afford to pay
2. so the objection to this mandate that we didn't vote on isn't a race issue

I'm still working to explain and educate them on these two points
3. passing insurance laws on the state level allows us to vote and change laws directly
by only having to go through our state legislature in Austin 3 hours away. trying to change
insurance laws mandated on a federal level can take years, we don't have a direct vote, and
would have to depend on going through Washington with 49 other states all lobbying for
national issues that are competing for that attention. This is not the same, and that is why
there are Constitutional laws limiting what federal govt is authorized to regulate.
Liberals don't seem to teach this to fellow Democrats. So every meeting I go to ends up
being a lesson in Constitutional laws, the Bill of Rights, and why are conservatives protesting.

4. stereotypes are still wrong to misapply to the wrong people, whether these stereotypes are based on race or class. They objected to rejection and judgment based on race, but had no problem punishing people by assuming wealthy people should be forced to pay for health care federally by insurance or fines, instead of reserving liberty to choose. They had sympathy not to force poor people in prisons to pay fines or costs of health care for their crimes that sent people to the hospital, because those people didn't have money; but had no problem forcing noncriminals to pay costs because they have money and ability to pay. Why not go after the people racking up costs in prison and changing that; why just force mandates to get even more money out of the public already paying 50,000 a head for inmates and make us pay more for health care. Why not go after the crooks and make them pay their costs, instead of fining law abiding citizens just because the IRS can get money easier out of the working taxpayers.
Last edited:

USMB Server Goals

Total amount

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List