The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

If The Government Can Force Mandatory Health Care, What About Food?

[picapp align="none" wrap="false" link="term=worms&iid=262828" src="" width="500" height="334" /]

These little vermin are everywhere.  Remembering November can bring their extermination.

A while back we showed you how the Mandatory and Universal Health Care law wasn't nearly so universal or mandatory.  Some of the cruel realities are: There are waivers available.  Muslims and certain religious groups are exempt, illegals are exempt, an end to personal choice of health care.

But, I would like to focus on the small distric judge's ruling that defended the ObamaCare mandate as constitutional under interstate commerce laws.

If you click on, I will show you how we should now be eligible for free food!

The recent ruling by District Judge Steeh has shown once again that our politics-based judicial system is broken, corrupted, and itself operating unconstitutionally.

A recent ruling on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy by the Department of Defense only adds more fuel to this fire.

Looking past the Steeh ruling that ObamaCare's forced health care mandate is constitutional, I would like to take it at face value.  What if this judge's ruling was true and valid?

This small judge ruled that the government has the right to mandate that everyone pay the government for their health care insurance because it is just a manner of "how" people make that economic decision to pay for their ever-present health care.  We all participate in health care commerce.  Our choice is only how we pay for that.  Thus, that choice on how to pay for that right is able to be governed under interstate commerce legislation. 

The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. Indeed, the opposite is nearly always true. The question is how participants in the health care market pay for medical expenses - through insurance, or through an attempt to pay out of pocket with a backstop of uncompensated care funded by third parties.

The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings, who do not oppose medical services on religious grounds, they cannot opt out of this market. As inseparable and integral members of the health care services market, plaintiffs have made a choice regarding the method of payment for the services they expect to receive. The government makes the apropos analogy of paying by credit card rather than by check. How participants in the health care services market pay for such services has a documented impact on interstate commerce. Obviously, this market reality forms the rational basis for Congressional action designed to reduce the number of uninsureds.

You can not opt out of the commerce of Health Care.  If a judge and a government can stretch logic to that conclusion, then can we also stretch that logic to the purchase of food??

Here is the insane conclusion of that judge's ruling:

[P]laintiffs in this case are participants in the health care services market. They are not outside the market. While plaintiffs describe the Commerce Clause power as reaching economic activity, the government’s characterization of the Commerce Clause reaching economic decisions is more accurate.

This judge believes that your choice to NOT participate in Health Insurance, is an INTERSTATE economic activity that the government can then regulate.  Your decision to not purchase local insurance, but pay the doctor yourself, is now a matter for INTERSTATE commerce and a valid, legal, constitutional remedy is to force you to buy government insurance.


Food is also a commerce that we all NEED to have and we all participate in.  The only choice we have is how we choose to pay for it.  For 50 million people in this land receiving food stamps, many of whom are Americans, they are already being told how and what and where to buy their food.

How much more of a stretch then to have the government provide that food to you as a right as your choice of how you pay, or not pay, affects the INTERSTATE commerce of your local food markets and restaurants.. 

If the government can dictate how much, and what kind, of health care you can receive, if the government can tell you what food you can eat, and how you are to pay for your food and health care, if health care is a right, then isn't food that much more of a right?

My friend since High School uses well water.  Water is an ever-constant presence in our life.  We all need it.  We all want it.  The only decision is how we pay for our water.  Right? 

Can the government force a person who either uses well, or a hand pump, for their water to pay the government?  According to this ruling they can. 

Your choice of not paying for your water, you are making an economic decision that affects government commerce.  And according to this judge, that is INTERSTATE commerce. 

How about those who live off-grid?  What about those who build their own homes?  What about those who don't even use doctors?  What about those who make the choice, not of how to pay, but whether to go to a doctor or not?  What about your choice of transportation?!

If they can force mandatory taxation for food and transportation, then shouldn't they make food and transportation a right and free for all?

Remember November.


Powered by Snarf · Contact Us