Tuesday 10 December 2013

“IRS Threat Drives Millions to Healthcare.gov”

Mr. President; Mr. “Constitutional Law Professor”; Mr. “If you like your plan you can keep it, period”; It's time for you to learn the meaning of the word “coercion” and to take full cognizance it is not synonymous with “volition”:


1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.” -- http://dictionary.reference.com/.

Even in Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary we find:

COERCION, noun Restraint, check, particularly by law or authority; compulsion; force.” -- http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Home?word=Coercion.

Restraint?...Again per Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

1. The act or operation of holding back or hindering from motion, in any manner; hinderance of the will, or of any action, physical, moral or mental.

2. Abridgment of liberty; as the restraint of a man by imprisonment or by duress.

3. Prohibition. The commands of God should be effectual restraints upon our evil passions.

4. Limitation; restriction.

If all were granted, yet it must be maintained, within any bold restraints, far otherwise than it is received.

5. That which restrains, hinders or represses. The laws are restraints upon injustice.” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Home?word=Restraint.

Can of worms? I think not, “Liberty,” in pertinent part for brevity, to aid you, and, more importantly My fellow Americans, in appreciating your performance as President of the United States:

1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.

2. Natural liberty consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.

3. Civil liberty is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. “civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty

The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.

In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty

4. Political liberty is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe.

5. Religious liberty is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control.

6. liberty in metaphysics, as opposed to necessity, is the power of an agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, by which either is preferred to the other.

Freedom of the will; exemption from compulsion or restraint in willing or volition...” -- Italics in original, all other emphasis mine, and typos as displayed on website, may be from original, http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Home?word=Liberty.

And a quick 1828 definition of “Volition”

1. The act of willing the act of determining choice, or forming a purpose. There is a great difference between actual volition and approbation of judgment.

Volition is the actual exercise of the power which the mind has of considering or forbearing to consider an idea.

2. The power of willing or determining.” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Home?word=Volition.

So, your Progressive “Obama of Narcissism” Majesty, I implore you to cease from claiming approbation for your Progressive-ideology-driven-government-growth-based healthcare agenda, and instead TELL THE TRUTH: “1 million people who fear becoming flagged by the IRS have been perfectly leveraged by the threatened use of government force that will take money from them to coerce them to seek out getting health insurance, many of which are doing so after my law caused their Right of Contract in their pre-Obamacare health insurance policy to expire prematurely.”

And let us add also that this priceless extra cost of Obamacare (and government coercion) is the now known abuse of the personal identifying healthcare sign-up information provided to exchanges, such as was done in California (See http://www.latimes.com/business/. Note what is reported under the photo, “Covered California Executive Director Peter Lee acknowledged that consumers did not ask to be contacted by the state or its certified insurance agents. But he said the outreach program complies with privacy laws.” Peter Lee exemplifies what is wrong with government bureaucracy, and further illustrates what is wrong with Obamacare (as well as “States Rights” movements), “certified insurance agents” should be a hint at Obamacare's lessening of choice as well.

The Constitutions of the States, even after the Civil War, only set up 3 branches of government. But, alas, a silent and unaccountable to anyone 4th branch has embedded itself with separate powers, and now, with a new healthcare agency of little political capital almost immediately, upon question of its actions, asserts sole authority, opining as though their final ruling is the unequivocal and unchallengeable truth of their actions, to which Peter Lee is just as immediately the Poster Child of Arrogance.

By what authority whatsoever, I mean, did someone die and leave Peter Lee in charge of legal determinations for everyone else or what Constitution was amended, as the case would have to be, to grant authority to one person at the head of California's health exchange agency to decide the privacy intrusion caused by California's exchange upon each person who applied at Covered California is acceptable, and what is or is not a violation of their privacy rights irrespective of the law!? Is Mr. Lee, even for a New York minute, suggesting that the privacy laws, in this age of ever-growing identity theft, protect our privacy so much that they bar any assertion of our reasonable expectation of privacy when submitting very specific identifying information all together in one location to a database online? Is he the only one that doesn't see that the healthcare websites are like hacker-turkey-bacon, the smell alone draws them to try to find a way to get as many records as possible from the database, or, to poison it with as many fake ones as possible to assure they have benefits to sell to others, under the fake ID of course.

To be clear: These are data banks of your most identifying information being given away solely because some bureaucratic “government” agency decided it's in their best interest to do so, to promote their agenda! The photo caption in the story features their ready legal argument (that suggestion we're barred from asserting a reasonable expectation of privacy), “the outreach program complies with privacy laws.” It is as though Covered California's Director authorized this, it appears, unlawful dissemination of information, if not betrayal of trust and undermining of the integrity of the already demonstrably incompetent design of the Obamacare exchange system, and was prepared with a response to public outcry in any event they'd be caught.

Thus, instead of Peter Lee explaining (and this goes to my coercion point), “it is wrong of Covered California to disseminate information that people are compelled to provide to us by the Individual Mandate Provision of Obamacare to use the exchange to assure they are insured by January 1, 2014. This information is not a public record, and should never leave our system and control,” and they might also include an actual apology along the lines of, “I am sorry we violated your trust in us, and I can promise you it will never happen again.” Nope, no acceptance of responsibility, no scintilla of suggestion that what Covered California did is wrong in any way, just a summary denial of the notion that anyone's rights were violated, while identity theft runs rampant and everyone is well aware of it!

Are we really this stupid? It's not whether they think we are, Director Lee's claim of compliance with privacy laws shows the blatant disregard for even the idea that people coming to the site may have genuinely believed that their information is confidential even in the era of the NSA compiling “metadata” and 70 years after the BRUSA agreement (that gave us “Echelon,” http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.249). Oh, and also after the IRS shared data outside its agency, as well as took on a specific policy to vet those entities applying for political exemption. We're to trust a government that used government coercion to assure a lack of legal status -- failing to process particular applications in a timely manner (some still waiting after 3 years for approval of their legal status) resulting in these entities inability to publicize they are eligible to be claimed as a non-profit donation which stifles fund raising. If these entities were to publicize they are non profit without successful completion of IRS processing of their application the entities and those trying to form them could easily find themselves subject to criminal liabilities – the very reason they applied and expect the IRS to objectively process their application. Taking this history into account it is easy to see how Covered California Director Peter Lee arrived at his arrogant, presumptive, and dis-compassionate statement without any regard for the sensitivity of the public to his brand new agency's violation of the integrity of the public trust placed in him regarding the personal identifying information Californians provided to Covered California and may very well be why Director Lee added a ready legal argument in his public statement at the same time.

So I say to you, especially Californians whose information was used this way, search your State government's website, for “administrative claim” (I believe it'll be located under “State Board of Control”) These are usually in Adobe .pdf format, (some other States may want you to fill them out over the web,) fill it in as a draft, DO NOT SUBMIT IT, print out and seek out an attorney to assist you. In California look for one well versed in California Administrative Procedure Act, California Constitution, and Civil Rights Law. I'd also suggest they are well capable of Civil Writ process and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well to aid you should the State's overbearing power (when backed also by the National government, ala Obamacare, is brought to bear against you).

God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman

P.S. My friend Dave (https://twitter.com/antikommie)reminds me what I left out, “The impetus for 'Healthcare reform' (in quotes because we all know it has nothing to do with healthcare other than using healthcare as a marketing tool, a mere vehicle for the larger Progressive agenda) is the claim of 10s of millions of people losing their coverage or not covered to begin with. I remember a Mark Levin show back in’09 featuring research done on this and the # was a far cry from 40 million Americans without healthcare. I believe it was around 8000 people in the category of “taking free rides,” meaning those we actually had to pay for who had used our emergency rooms and had no insurance or means to pay for their healthcare. This goes right to your point because it shows that, after you remove the “invincibles” (18-30) who choose not to have healthcare – acting on their own volition -- and remove those who choose to pay on the spot out of pocket for what service they use, the total pool of people that has any affect on healthcare costs or services is very low. I think Obama pulled that “we each pay $1,000 per year for these people already” out of thin air that he brought up in some speech, I think it was the 2009 State of the Union.

Now, another thing I need to look into more, because it has received such scant attention, is those people losing their insurance because they are losing their jobs, and this appears, from what reports I can get a hold of, to be due to Obama's HHS administrative policies…Maybe I'll open that can of worms once I have more to back it up.

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

News Categories