Move To A U.S. Territory To Escape OBAMACARE

[palani]

So it appears that the union states have been converted to mere administrative subdivisions. Congress has virtually dictatorial powers in the territories but haven't chosen to extend healthcare laws to those territories yet do choose to assume those same dictatorial powers over the union states.


http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/07/puerto-rico-is-a-utopia-for-those-who-hate-obamacare-but-like-insurance/374642/





Puerto Rico is now the perfect place for people who think Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery, but would also like to be insured. Territories are now exempt from most of the requirements of Obamacare. Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands have high uninsured rates, but Puerto Rico has a pretty good publicly funded health care system.

The Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services announced Wednesday that the five U.S. territories would mostly be exempt from Obamacare's requirements, according to Sarah Kliff at Vox. Like the 50 states, territories were required to offer insurance to everyone and use 80 percent of premiums on health care. Unlike the states, territories didn't have an individual mandate or subsidies to lure people into the exchanges. Obamacare's detractors were worried that young people would be turned off by high (but subsidized) premiums, and only old and sick people would sign up for the plans, driving premiums through the roof — aka a death spiral. Without a carrot (subsidies) and a stick (the mandate) to convince healthy people to enroll, that's what happened in the territories.

"HHS and the government itself describe health care reform as a three-legged stool where you have the mandate, the subsidies and the market reforms," John McDonald, director of the Virgin Islands' division of banking and insurance, told The Washington Post in December. "Well, what they've basically done is left us with a one-legged stool." In the Northern Marina Islands, the only insurer in the territory said it would stop offering its one plan in 2014.
Via AJAM.

In that sense, being exempt from most of the Obamacare provisions (plans in the territories can't drop coverage or have lifetime or annual spending limits) is a great thing. The only problem is the territories need Obamacare more than most states do. As the chart to the right shows, all the territories have incredibly high uninsured rates — except for Puerto Rico.

In 2012, Puerto Rico's uninsured rate was 10 percent, lower than all but three states and the District of Columbia. As Al Jazeera America explained in October, Puerto Rico has a "popular locally funded" health care system and its uninsured rate is much lower than the other territories. So if you want to escape the clutches of Obamacare but still have a decent health insurance system, move to Puerto Rico. Or Canada.

[iOWNme]

Should rape victims 'move away' to escape their rapists? What would have happened if the Founders simply 'moved away' to escape their oppressors?

The principle behind your statement seems to be that if 'Government' does something immoral/wrong, we should just go somewhere else? If i came to you tomorrow and demanded money for your 'healthcare' would you pay me? Or would you just pack up and leave because you disagree with me?

Is there anything 'Government' would do that you would advocate resisting them, instead of moving?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s

[7th trump]

Should rape victims 'move away' to escape their rapists? What would have happened if the Founders simply 'moved away' to escape their oppressors?

The principle behind your statement seems to be that if 'Government' does something immoral/wrong, we should just go somewhere else? If i came to you tomorrow and demanded money for your 'healthcare' would you pay me? Or would you just pack up and leave because you disagree with me?

Is there anything 'Government' would do that you would advocate resisting them, instead of moving?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s

Instead of posting retarded video's from ignorant people on the subject (the blind leading the blind) just read through the defined terms in the health care act and you'll be enlightened to the fact that "employment" which is the anchor in the health care act comes directly from Social Security.
The health care act is nothing but an extention of SS....and SS is 100% voluntary.
Without SS thr healthcare Act is toothless and become moot.

[palani]

Should rape victims 'move away' to escape their rapists?

Are you proposing that these victims move TOWARD their rapists?

The original 13 union states were not ever U.S. territory. All the rest of them were formed from U.S. territory. And then there are those areas still classed as U.S. territory (Guam, Virgin Isles, Puerto Rico, American Samoa). The point being if you are not in a state of the union with the same rights and privileges as the original 13 states then it is likely you are in a U.S. territory of one form or another. You are there for one reason only .... you consented. Whatever laws apply do so because of your status. You don't need to actually move anywhere. You need to withdraw your consent.

[Horn]

You don't need to actually move anywhere. You need to withdraw your consent.

Wouldn't one of those easy faux business front address, or po box help your cause, Po. boxes are roomy enough for a couch and coffee table, am I being too jewish?

You need to be more specific, palani. That way I can call on you when I need to.

[7th trump]

Are you proposing that these victims move TOWARD their rapists?

The original 13 union states were not ever U.S. territory. All the rest of them were formed from U.S. territory. And then there are those areas still classed as U.S. territory (Guam, Virgin Isles, Puerto Rico, American Samoa). The point being if you are not in a state of the union with the same rights and privileges as the original 13 states then it is likely you are in a U.S. territory of one form or another. You are there for one reason only .... you consented. Whatever laws apply do so because of your status. You don't need to actually move anywhere. You need to withdraw your consent.

Palani is 100% corect Horn..its called jurisdictional overlay. The 14th amendment created the jurisdiction you consented to being a 14th amendment "US citizen".
When my daughter was born 7 years ago the nurse tried to get me to sign a SS5 form on her behalf...I refused as it denoted "us citizen" and gave warning about losing certain rights.
I happily walked out the hospital without ever signing the SS paperwork....that is after giving the nurse a stern warning that I will sue her in a private manner if she made me sign the SS5 form as a condition of leaving the hospital.
She came back after talking t oher superiors stating I and my daughter were free to leave....and you should have seen the look on her face. She was slightly educated that day.

[iOWNme]

Are you proposing that these victims move TOWARD their rapists?

No, Im implying that a rape victim has no moral obligation to 'moveaway' from her attacker, and that she has every bit of moral Right to resist him using lethal force.



The original 13 union states were not ever U.S. territory. All the rest of them were formed from U.S. territory. And then there are those areas still classed as U.S. territory (Guam, Virgin Isles, Puerto Rico, American Samoa). The point being if you are not in a state of the union with the same rights and privileges as the original 13 states then it is likely you are in a U.S. territory of one form or another.

Where did you find this information? You found it by looking through the scribbles of 'Politicians'. So, you believe that the ONLY way for someone to become 'free' from their oppressor is to do exactly as the Oppressor says, in order to find 'freedom'. This is not only insane and irrational, but it is a CONTRADICTION of gigantic proportions. And then you IMAGIINE yourself to be some smart person with 'inside' information. PUKE.

Should the rape victim look through the diary of her attacker in order to find out how to 'get away' from him?



You are there for one reason only .... you consented. Whatever laws apply do so because of your status. You don't need to actually move anywhere. You need to withdraw your consent.


There is no such thing as 'consent' when it comes to 'Government'. For the exct same reasons their is no love in rape. Ive proved it to you a million times, yet you constantly parrot back the idiotic ramblings of your own Master.



The Myth of Consent:

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?76344-The-Myth-of-Consent

In the modern world, slavery is almost universally condemned. But the relationship of a perceived “authority” to his subject is very much the relationship of a slave master (owner) to a slave (property). Not wanting to admit that, and not wanting to condone what amounts to slavery, those who believe in “authority” are trained to memorize and repeat blatantly inaccurate rhetoric designed to hide the true nature of the situation. One example of this is the phrase “consent" of the governed.

There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one person using threats or violence to force his will upon another. The first can be labeled “consent”– both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. The second can be labeled “governing” – one person controlling another. Since these two – consent and governing – are opposites, the concept of “consent of the governed” is a contradiction. If there is mutual consent, it is not “government”; if there is governing, there is no consent. Some will claim that a majority; or the people as a whole, have given their consent to be ruled, even if many individuals have not. But such an argument turns the concept of consent on its head. No one, individually or as a group, can give consent for something to be done to someone else.

That is simply not what “consent” means. It defies logic to say, “I give my consent for you to be robbed.” Yet that is the basis of the cult of “democracy”: the notion that a majority can give consent on behalf of a minority, That is not “consent of the governed”; it is forcible control of the governed, with the “consent” of a third party.

Even if someone were silly enough to actually tell someone else, “I agree to let youforcibly control me,” the moment the controller must force the “controllee” to do something, there is obviously no longer “consent.” Prior to that moment, there is no“governing” – only voluntary cooperation. Expressing the concept more precisely exposes its inherent schizophrenia: “I agree to let you force things upon me, whether I agree to them or not.”

But in reality, no one ever agrees to let those in “government” do whatever they want. So, in order to fabricate “consent” where there is none, believers in “authority” add another, even more bizarre, step to the mythology: the notion of “implied consent.” The claim is that, by merely living in a town, or a state, or a country, one is “agreeing” to abide by whatever rules happen to be issued by the people who claim to have the right to rule that town, state, or country. The idea is that if someone does not like the rules, he is free to leave the town, state, or country altogether, and if he chooses not to leave, that constitutes giving his consent to be controlled by the rulers of that jurisdiction.

Though it is constantly parroted as gospel, the idea defies common sense. It makes no more sense than a carjacker stopping a driver on a Sunday and telling him, “By driving a car in this neighborhood on Sunday, you are agreeing to give me your car.” One person obviously cannot decide what counts as someone else “agreeing” to something. An agreement is when two or more people communicate a mutual willingness to enter into some arrangement. Simply being born somewhere is not agreeing to anything, nor is living in one’s own house when some king or politician has declared it to be within the realm he rules. It is one thing for someone to say, “If you want to ride in my car, you may not smoke,” or “You can come into my house only if you take your shoes off.” It is quite another to try to tell other people what they can do on their own property. Whoever has the right to make the rules for a particular place is, by definition, the owner of that place. That is the basis of the idea of private property: that there can be an “owner” who has the exclusive right to decide what is done with and on that property. The owner of a house has the right to keep others out of it and, by extension, the right to tell visitors what they can and cannot do as long as they are in the house.

And that sheds some light on the underlying assumption behind the idea of implied consent. To tell someone that his only valid choices are either to leave the “country” or to abide by whatever commands the politicians issue logically implies that everything in the“country” is the property of the politicians. If a person can spend year after year paying for his home, or even building it himself, and his choices are still to either obey the politicians or get out, that means that his house and the time and effort he invested in the house are the property of the politicians. And for one person’s time and effort to rightfully belong to another is the definition of slavery. That is exactly what the “implied consent” theory means: that every “country” is a huge slave plantation, and that everything and everyone there is the property of the politicians. And, of course, the master does not need the consent of his slave.

The believers in “government” never explain how it is that a few politicians could have acquired the right to unilaterally claim exclusive ownership of thousands of square miles of land, where other people were already living, as their territory, to rule and exploit as they see fit. It would be no different from a lunatic saying, “I hereby declare North America to be my rightful domain, so anyone living here has to do whatever I say, If you don’t like it, you can leave.”

There is also a practical problem with the “obey or get out” attitude, which is that getting out would only relocate the individual to some other giant slave plantation, a different “country.” The end result is that everyone on earth is a slave, with the only choice being which master to live under. This completely rules out actual freedom. More to the point, that is not what “consent” means.

The belief that politicians own everything is demonstrated even more dramatically in the concept of immigration “laws.” The idea that a human being needs permission from politicians to set foot anywhere in an entire country – the notion that it can be a “crime” for someone to step across an invisible line between one authoritarian jurisdiction into another – implies that the entire country is the property of the ruling class. If a citizen is not allowed to hire an “illegal alien,” is not allowed to trade with him, is not even allowed to invite an “illegal” into his own home, then that individual citizen owns nothing, and the politicians own everything.

Not only is the theory of “implied consent” logically flawed, but it also obviously does not describe reality. Any “government” that had the consent of its subjects would not need, and would not have, “law” enforcers. Enforcement happens only if someone does not consent to something. Anyone with their eyes open can see that “government,” on a regular basis, does things to a lot of people against their will. To be aware of the myriad of tax collectors, beat cops, inspectors and regulators, border guards, narcotics agents, prosecutors, judges, soldiers, and all the other mercenaries of the state, and to still claim that “government” does what it does with the consent of the “governed,” is utterly ridiculous. Each individual, if he is at all honest with himself, knows that those in power do not care whether he consents to abide by their “laws.” The politicians’ orders will be carried out, by brute force if necessary, with or without any individual’s consent.TMDS

[iOWNme]

Instead of posting retarded video's from ignorant people on the subject (the blind leading the blind) just read through the defined terms in the health care act and you'll be enlightened to the fact that "employment" which is the anchor in the health care act comes directly from Social Security.
The health care act is nothing but an extention of SS....and SS is 100% voluntary.
Without SS thr healthcare Act is toothless and become moot.


So in order for me to be free from my oppressors, I must look through their words and do what they say to do? How can i be 'free' if 'freedom' means doing exactly what my opressors say? And then you IMAGINE you are some smart person with 'inside' information. PUKE.

You are literally a living breathing contradiction.

How many contradicitons can you hold in your mind at one time? Im seriously impressed. LOL

If i kidnapped you and put you in a cage and then told you the only way out is to become an Anarchist, would you do it?

[palani]

Wouldn't one of those easy faux business front address, or po box help your cause, Po. boxes are roomy enough for a couch and coffee table, am I being too jewish?

You need to be more specific, palani. That way I can call on you when I need to.

I am no expert on what actions will guarantee success. Consider each action possible a degree of freedom with differing likelihoods of a satisfactory outcome. Hegelian dialect might help you. Define the problem, determine the cause(s) and come to some conclusion which will result in some action or actions to counter the problem. This method seems to work for the system so why wouldn't it work for your benefit?

[palani]

she has every bit of moral Right to resist him using lethal force
Those who threaten lethal force usually end up holding the shorter straw.

Where did you find this information?
Reasoning.

Should the rape victim look through the diary of her attacker in order to find out how to 'get away' from him?
You seem overly infatuated with rape. Is there a reason for this?

There is no such thing as 'consent' when it comes to 'Government'.
Indeed? And you know this how?

Ive proved it to you a million times I'm sure you are confusing our discussions with the number of McD burgers you have consumed.

[Horn]

I am no expert on what actions will guarantee success.

I need Bulldog service, palani!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Fe9PMNbWE

[7th trump]

So in order for me to be free from my oppressors, I must look through their words and do what they say to do? How can i be 'free' if 'freedom' means doing exactly what my opressors say? And then you IMAGINE you are some smart person with 'inside' information. PUKE.

You are literally a living breathing contradiction.

How many contradicitons can you hold in your mind at one time? Im seriously impressed. LOL

If i kidnapped you and put you in a cage and then told you the only way out is to become an Anarchist, would you do it?


hahahahaha.....just unreasonable babble.
Kidnapping me and putting me in a cage and telling me I have to become an anarchist to get out isn't consent.
You consented by signing your name on government forms that under penalty of perjury of being a 14th amendment US citizen.
Trust me fool.....you signed a W4 voluntarily....nobody put a gun to your head or kidnapped your silly ass to sign it or just took the money from your paycheck.....you gave authority to have the employer take the money from you and give it to the government.
You don't think the government follows the Constitution huh?
Well if you don't think the government doesn't follow the Constitution then why does the government ask you to sign government forms to begin with. You cant see the forest through the damn trees!
You are comparing apples to oranges which is why nobody is really taking you seriously.
The problem with you is you know you can be free, but your too damn lazy to do anything but complain about the shackles around your wrists and blame everything on someone else.