When th
e coercive power of government is combined with the money making power of business, corporatism is the ONLY possible result. If the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches of the US government are not willing to stop the Obamacare assault on the American public, we will do ourselves.
The only way to ensure our children will not live in a society in which the government possesses the right to impose a tax in order to force citizens to buy the products and services of corporations, it is necessary to amend the Constitution of the United States.
The proposed amendment language reads as as follows:
Congress shall make no law mandating the purchase of any product or service from a private company.
Simple, straight forward, common sense.
Why do this?
1. It builds off the obviously huge momentum right now in our country to do something about Obamacare.
2. It dispels without question the myth that the Tea Party, and capitalists in general, believes in corporate control over everything at any expense. Corporatism, not free markets, makes it easier for corporations to dominate
3. As it is worded , it is extremely hard to not support. Any politician that came out against the Mandate Amendment would immediately adopt all the aspects of crony capitalism that both the Democrats and Republican are supposed to hate.
4. It nullifies the most egregious parts of the Roberts' decision.
5. It is worth doing. What has ever been worth doing that was not difficult?
6. Even without success we win, and our legacy will be that of something profound and important.
7. If we do not do this now, the morality, philosophy, and systems of this ominous law will be woven into the fabric of our country. Dissolving it will be as attainable as removing all other socialized systems ingrained in our society today; nearly impossible.
Please join this effort on Facebook here.
Please sign on to receive email updates at the Mandate Amendment website.
Those who join this page agree to only support politicians willing to vote in favor of this 28th Amendment to the Constitution.
A repeal of the law is
not enough.
The precedent that has been set by the Supreme Court, Congress, and our President is immoral and disastrous. Without an amendment to our Constitution, any and all whims of government and the corporations that fund them will have the legal right to be imposed their will upon the public.
What needs to be done:
- A website had to be built
- People to Lobby their congress people
- Politicians to introduce and fight for this Amendment
Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE and true leader who lead the company during the time it could sustain a competitive edge without extorting money from every man, woman, and child in order to be profitable, said that only about 10% of the population are true change agents. This is a fact. I know most people who read this article will think the effort is too hard, too aggressive, too something. If you are not one of these people, you are one of the very few change agents.
Join this fight today.
Â
Join my RSS feed by clicking here:
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 53
The only solution is to STOP giving power to government, in fact limit it to only those powers that protect the equal rights of individuals. Equal rights. If you have a right to give a $1 to a politician, another person has a right to give a $10,000.
Big introduced a point on Gary's post that I also was wondering about, and Renee said you had explained it here so that's what brought me here now. The other thing that I was thinking about is that I don't think this amendment has much chance of passing, and I have chosen to place my late comment in this spot because Denise seems to be on the same wavelength with me on this and I will explain how.
The pharamceutical industry, for instance, is a huge lobby that has already infiltrated government mandates. For instance, any state that mandates vaccines is already making people buy a product by the manufacturer of that vaccine. So it's not as if this amendment is going to prevent the collusion of government and corporations before those entities had the opportunity to experience their profitability in exploitation of the populace. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find representatives in the House and Senate who have not profited in this way and would be amenable to voting in favor of the amendment.
Thank you for your very thoughtful comment, no problem in regard to timing.
The fact that the big pharmaceutical companies have a huge lobby that has already infiltrated government mandates is MORE the reason why this amendment must pass. For now at least, the government is still beholden to the people's vote. For how much longer? Who knows?
But to NOT do this because the precedent is more engrained in our society than we think is illogical.
We don't need the present stock of politicians on either side to agree with us. We need the public to wake the hell up. And that is what this Amendment does. It frames the argument as is must be framed - not in regard to how much money corporatism saves us (as Romney would have defended it, as Obama defends it today, and as so many others do every day), but in regard that it is in fact corporatism.
Please continue to ask your question, because I am sure there are many more thinking the same thing. But when you are done, if you see why this is needed, please help. We need it. A lot.
Well, I'm not saying it's not something to try to get passed, but I just don't have much hope that it can or will. It's sort of the same as when a lot of people were saying that Ron Paul was the fly in the ointment for why Romney would lose, the big spoiler. I kept telling them that Ron Paul didn't make any difference whatsoever because if Obama wanted this election, he was going to win this election no matter what. There was never any doubt in my mind that the whole election was a charade. Before the slaughter of those children and teachers and the blog space now taken up largely with gun issues, all we were seeing were blogs about how Obama stole the election, as if it were some big surprise. If Americans are as slow on the draw with their guns as they are with their minds, the gun issue is moot.
It seems like a nice amendment and probaby a needed one, although if I knew the law better, I would bet that some of this is already illegal but they just don't enforce what they don't want to enforce. You're fighting a leviathan, though. Pharamaceutical industry is really small potatoes when you start to think about the renewable energy lobby.
See, the problem with people like we are is that we're too damned honest, but we end up just looking stupid. We put the bill that sabotages their plans right in front of them and ask them to vote on it. What would they do? Well, they take something like health care and make it into a holy cause, make the bill huge, and let their ideas of amendment proposals ride through under the auspices of health care.
On our news last night it was said if Obamacare is a tax, then it's probably not valid at all. Why? Check out Article 1, Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as with other Bills.
That's not how this thing went down. Since it wasn't a tax, the Senate pushed through their version and declared it passed without another vote. It didn't originate from the House. Looks like the court did us a favor saying it's a tax, 'cause now it's not valid.
As a homeowner, I am also compelled to purchase homeowner's insurance. Since I live in Illinois, I am compelled to purchase a mine subsidence rider. Without proof of insurance it is impossible to buy a house. On the bright side, renter's are not required to buy insurance to rent, they can just eat the loss if something happens.
There are good parts to the individual mandate. The hospitals will be able to stop having to close money losing wards due to the uninsured people's usage. People may stop using the ER as their primary care source. Hospitals may or may not stop grossly overbilling those with insurance to cover those without, a practice that I've always thought morally reprehensible bordering on fraudulent.
Good luck with the amendment thingie. Amendments are hellishly difficult to get passed. I will be sorry to be returning to the days when one was just SOL should one be in a car wreck caused by an uninsured motorist.
The question is only that to of principle. Let's say Jeb Bush become president some day and claims that you have to buy oil from xyz oil company, or pay a fine. Are you okay with that Susan?
You cannot detest certain instances but adore the principle.
There wasn't always uninsured motorist coverage. You must be awfully young to think that. It did come to be offered as a solution to a problem then it too became mandatory to purchase.
If one does not believe in principle, then I guess yeah it is a moot point.
Not quite. Auto insurance is just a requirement to drive on the state-owned roads. You can decline to do so.
To use that as a parallel is basically to imply that the federal government owns us.
And you might as well, too; because that's exactly how they behave; as if they own us. How else to explain not only their assumption that they have some legitimate authority to compel us to purchase a product as a condition for existing within their jurisdiction, but also their assumjption that they have a right to arbitrarily dictate to us what we may or may not put into our bodies.
Check out Today, “better access” really means “easier leeching”
If you own your car outright, in many states, you can provide a liability bond, insuring your own vehicle is up to you.
I know many people that have never owned a car, because they choose to live in NYC, Chicago, SF, or some other area with plentiful bus, train, and cab service.
No one is forced to own a home, or to finance it.
You are not forced to have homeowner insurance, if you pay cash for it, or pay off your mortgage (it is the lender that requires it, not the state).
It is your own choices, that made you need insurance.
With ACA there is no choice made - you simply are forced to have it.
John, I take it then that you agree that women own their own bodies so I would like for you to support women's right to make their own medical decisions. Please pressure your congresspeople to stop legislating which medical procedures woman may receive. Also ask them to stop passing laws requiring unnecessary medical tests be performed on women. All people should have the right to make their own medical decisions with the advice of their doctor. Inserting the government into it is, as you yourself say, demented and un-American.
Says a lot about your morality. Congrats.
And yes, I am pro-choice and no person, man or woman, should be pressured (or forced) to undertake a medical procedure. Stupid and irresponsible people have stupid and irresponsible kids. No need for them to procreate. There is a reason why tigers naturally and innately eat their young.
First off, it will be administered by the IRS, so no one will be able to not "be caught", unless they are completely off the grid, with no social security number, no job, and own nothing. Good luck trying that if you are a citizen.
Saying you can pay a fine or get insured, is still costing you money.
It is like asking if you would rather be burned to death, or beaten to death. It si a choice - but not much of one.
You are stetching more than Pelosi's skin.
I have no problem with women controlling what tests or procedures they do, as long as it does not interfere with anothers persons choice.
The only area I know the government is involved, is with abortion - which is a denial off rights to either a female of male, depending on which gender the mother is carrying.
It is a baby - period. And it has rights to choose as well.
As far as panels determining our healthcare - just what do you think the health insurance companies did? They routinely denied treatments and medications the doctors recommended. We were a free country then and we are a free country now. The big difference is that we will get the care our doctors recommend. The whole death panel crap stemmed from a misunderstanding of what encouraging doctors to discuss end of life options with patients entails.
However, first of all, this is a wrong conception of Fascism which takes place when politicians take personal profits from corporations. We are very near from lobbying, indeed.
The problem is that the present law, as it went on with each European countries when instating the system (I feel France excepted) the governments were "scared" (mainly under Federalism) to be unable to handle it.
Therefore private insurances took the responsibility as providing a SERVICE (with about 10% profit) and the ability to call for funds from the created Federal Fund, based on the number of insured people.
However, a Federal service - a type of "ombudsman" - based on statistics succeeded in general to limit the intervention costs at the minimum; the discussion on agreed costs took place directly between the health care institutions and the insurances, under Federal supervision, in America this would mean about 3,000,000 new jobs.
The insurance company gets the premiums and keeps about 10% for its service. The balance is used to pay for health care but the ability to call for the taxpayer help is then limited if not nil.
But the minimum contract is universal and NO disease can be excepted. If someone would like a better coverage as private or semi-private rooming, special massages, homeopathic drugs, etc. this is another private contract.
As insurances are not interested in paying the maximum .... but they can't refuse any to pay for any disease even if it implies long time expenses (Schiavo, per ex.)
In some cases the system compelled the corporations to improve the security as in the mining industry. In other cases pollution was restricted as companies pouring heavy metals into the rivers.
You have a choice to drive or not drive. Auto insurance is a local issue.
100%, behind the back and blindfolded bullseye true. What an excellent venture.
:)
I agree completely, but goals have to be achievable. Consider the common sense legislation that was proposed to reform, not even repeal, Social Security. Just giving young people the option to not contribute if they wished was easily demonized by so many people.
If this amendment included government entities it would never pass. We have no choice but to make this smaller but essential step just to save our children from the hell this country will become when the precedent is set in stone that corporations and government can combine power to force them to do just about anything. Instead of moving future generations closer to the goal of freedom and equality under the law as this Amendment will do, we will be leaving them so far from the goal line that such a goal will be as achievable as reforming Social Security is today.
Please help with this effort in any way you can. Even by just signing up to receive the newsletter and then dispersing it as you see fit will help. Agreeing to advocate for it in your local area would be great. Anything . . . we need the help.