MESSAGE TO THE THIRD PARTIES

Hi NWG Admin:
The "ACA" here refers to Affordable Care Act.
The federal mandates require all citizens to buy insurance or else pay a penalty through the IRS.
This is highly contested, but using so many different arguments, there is not united opposition.

Even the activists polarizing around two sides are NOT all united, so this is why no reforms to ACA have been agreed upon:

A. Some Activists pushing for "Singlepayer" (for Govt to pay all expenses for medical and health services by consumers)
1. OBJECT to this insertion of "corporate insurance" into the equation to make profit 
and/or to make the reform fail
2. or ACCEPT to keep the current legislation, either to
a. reform it or
b. replace it with Singlepayer

B. Some Activists who insist on FREE MARKET health care choices, with NO mandates by federal govt, especially restricting it to insurance
1. OBJECT to the mandates on different grounds:
a. States' rights and civil liberties vs. overreaching by federal govt outside its Constitutional duty and limitations
b. religious freedom issues ranging from "birth control/abortion" funding (which is against prolife and Catholic beliefs) to
opposition in general to federal govt regulating "tax exemptions and penalties" on the basis of RELIGION which federal govt is NOT supposed to "regulate"
c. other Constitutional principles such as: "no taxation without representation" (violation of origination clause), against "involuntary servitude" (compelling people to provide or pay for health care of others constitutes "involuntary servitude" since health care is NOT a natural right where it requires the labor, money, time or resources of "other people" who don't agree to provide these services for free or under the terms required by the regulations), violation of procedures
by not first passing an Amendment expanding or specifying authority given to federal government over health care reforms and exchanges, and in general violating "consent of the governed" by creating a "business contract" between individual consumers and private business without consent of those taxpayers.
d. and what I bring up: equality of POLITICAL BELIEFS including beliefs in "right to health care" "right to life" "right to choose" "free market choices"

and Constitutional beliefs as listed above, which not all people share, but should still be protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. or ACCEPT to enforce the current laws to force the ACA to collapse by its own flawed policies and conflicts;
and OBJECT to the President's unconstitutional revisions of the rules to keep amending and correcting it without going through Congress.

In all these cases of objection or support of the ACA, 
I have found very few who are actually willing to pay to support the measures as they stand.

Most of the people only agree to let "other people" pay for it.
But when I ask people individually, nobody accepts responsibility for paying
for the whole program by just the voluntary participants.

Even the people who say they support ACA only do so because they expect "other people" to pay for it,
including the opposition who clearly REFUSE to pay for this system.

Since President Obama and the Democrat Party keep pushing the ACA as written,
I believe they and other members and leaders of that Party should be held solely responsible for paying for and enforcing
the legislation as is, and allow all others opposed to opt out and fund their own alternatives through their own systems and parties of choice.

I believe the ACA and beliefs about health care and govt should be treated as "political religions"
where followers of different beliefs should have the right and responsibility to fund their own, and not impose on followers of other beliefs against their will.

There are too many different beliefs for or against parts or all of the ACA as written
to enforce or impose this legislation on the American people.

In fact, I have not found a single person who agrees to fund and follow it
without some reforms. I believe that requiring me to participate in it, endorse it as law, or promote it as legal
would be compelling me to "conspire to violate the civil rights of others."

So I believe the bill should be treated as optional,
where only the people who believe in mandating it should be under it and required to pay under those terms,
exempting all others opposed, where the opponents agree to set up terms and options they do believe in under the system or parties of their choice.

C. For other options to pay for health care without imposing contested insurance mandates
I would hold parties responsible for funding and managing their own reforms per State, such as:

1. The option of reforming or replacing the death penalty and prison systems with expanded
medical programs, education, facilities, and services for treating physical, mental and criminal illness
in order to save resources by investing in effective prevention and correction of the causes of criminal addiction and abuse, 
and to serve more of the population with the same resources currently wasted on crime and related costs after the fact.
Some resources I recommend for medical research into effective methods for spiritual healing of schizophrenia, demonic sickness,
and other illness are posted at www.spiritual-healing.us

2. setting up legal systems of reclaiming financial restitution to taxpayers
for corporate abuses and government waste, where resources are either paid back by the wrongdoers as restitution settlements,
credited back to the taxpayers by issuing notes against the debts charged to the wrongdoers,
and/or lending by citizens against these debts, where citizens own shares in property or programs held as collateral,
and using these resources, credits or loans to invest in development of sustainable medical education and health service programs.

3. claiming restitution for violations of immigration, employment, and trafficking laws
where, in proportion to the crimes committed, resources or labor are invested in
building campuses for sustainable education, housing and job development, health care and social services along the border to provide assistance to 
low-income communities on a sustainable basis that does not rely on welfare handouts. in particular, restitution for violations related to military contracts,
abuses, or fraud affecting Veterans benefits can be invested in building military prisons, teaching hospitals, and training facilities along the border to provide security.

See also: www.earnedamnesty.org
based on the APV Campus concepts written into federal legislation for restoring the national historic housing at APV,
built as a military project, in the national historic district of Freedmen's Town:
www.campusplan.org

As for the argument against "involuntary servitude"
since I am already working two jobs to pay costs of helping the community
in Freedmen's Town damaged by longterm govt abuses of authority and resources to destroy their plans and
ability to preserve their churches, gravesites and landmarks,
I consider it "involuntary servitude" to impose further legislation
requiring me to pay another dime more, on top of what I am already paying because the govt has failed to recognize
the monetary and irreparable damages to the Freedmen's Town community and national history.

I have only agreed to work and pay for these costs, in the meantime, because of faith that the model solutions and campus
plans created to restore the Freedmen's Town district will, in turn, help solve other political problems with government.
So I consider this an investment or loan to future government leaders and programs, and consider the 40 block nationally registered district of
Freedmen's Town to be collateral against the debts and damages owed to taxpayers and community of Freedmen's Town,
where whoever agrees to pay this debt by investing in restoration should be able to claim shares in ownership until these debts are fully settled.


 
I'm not familiar with ACA and insurance? what is that?