Poll: 77 Percent Say Obamacare’s Individual Mandate Should Be Delayed or Repealed…. A lemon is a lemon is a lemon. The will of the American people never has been a concern of the Obama administration though, as evidenced by its non-enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act when it was the law of the land.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
shaynroby 
There is no individual mandate!
Freedom not to participate
On September 7, 1916, Congress passed the Public Health Service Act, [Public Law 410] 58 Stat. 682(pertinent part reproduced below). The very title was designed to deceive, it had nothing to do with the public, and it was an *elective form of insurance. The reason no one is required to participate in the Health Care Act, as stated in section 1555, is simply the Act amends the Public Health Service Act, the original law was not repealed, so any amendment would also have to be voluntary.
Section 1001 (pertinent part reproduced below), clearly states the PPACA is an amendment to the Public Health Service Act, for the most part, it’s an International Agreement for Foreigners, and government owned corporation employers.
google; Title 5 U.S.C. chapter 89 group health care.
The agency posed to enforce the Act, is the Public Health Service, their record of healthcare is recorded in the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment.
____________________________________________________________
One Hundred Eleventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten
An Act
Entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Public Law 111-148 ( available on line)
TITLE I—QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS
Subtitle A—Immediate Improvements in Health Care Coverage for All Americans
*Sec. 1001. Amendments to the Public Health Service Act.
Sec. 1555. Freedom not to participate in Federal health insurance programs.
SEC. 1555 @42 U.S.C. 18115. FREEDOM NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN FEDERAL
HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS.
No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.
____________________________________________________________________
Public Health Service Act (the original law)(maritime law)
July 1, 1944 [H.R. 4624] | [Public Law 410] 58 Stat. 682
TITLE I—SHORT TITLE AND DEFINITIONS
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 1.
Titles I to V, inclusive, of the Act may be cited as the “Public Health Service Act”.
SEC. 605. (a) Section 7 of the Act of September 7, 1916, entitled “An Act to provide compensation for employees of the United States suffering injuries while in the performance of their duties, and for other purposes”, as amended (U.S.C., 1940 edition, title 5, sec. 757), is amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a colon and adding the following: “Provided, That whenever any person is entitled to receive any benefits under this Act by reason of his injury, or by reason of the death of an employee, as defined in section 40, and is also entitled to receive from the United States any payments or benefits (other than the proceeds of any insurance policy), by reason of such injury or death under any other Act of Congress, because of service by him (or in the case of death, by the deceased) as an employee, as so defined, such person shall *elect which benefits he shall receive. Such election shall be made within one year after the injury or death, or such further time as the Commission may for good cause allow, and when made shall be irrevocable unless otherwise provided by law.”
LikeLike
Carl, I am not inclined to dispute what you have posted at all. I think that what you have posted is factual. Having tipped my hat to your meticulous attention to federal law, let me point out that we have a Commander-In-Chief (at least that’s his title) who is not the least bit interested in what the law says, unless of course, it happens to go along with his agenda. He ignored the Defense of Marriage Act when it was still the law of the land. He fails to enforce federal immigration law, and he has exerted executive privilege to thwart a congressional subpoena that was sent to Attorney General Eric Holder. President Obama has been at the helm of abuses of the civil liberties of conservatives with reckless abandon and has no interest in holding liberals accountable unless caught red-handed, and even then his strategy is to slow walk and stonewall everything. Judge Jeanine Pirro has come out and called Barack Hussein Obama a liar for only one reason BECAUSE IT’S THE TRUTH.
LikeLike