insurance problem...the new "secular church"
Timothy Sutter
who do not, now, have insurance,
and one reason that they do not have insurance
is, because, they cannot afford insurance,
it is unclear how, compelling them to purchase insurance,
will allow them to afford insurance.
which is to say, if it s not because these 30-47 million people,
are unable to find an insurance house that will insure them,
for a price, but, that, they do not have the money
to purchase insurance, outright, then, compelling -them-
to purchase insurance, does not put the money in their pockets
with which to purchanse insurance, so,
if you can afford insurance,
you must purchase a policy,
but, if you cannot afford insurance,
the government will give you a policy,
which still -sounds- like
government instituted charity,
and -some- people consider charity
to be some sort of "religious" exersize.
so, the gubbment is now our "church"
the new "secular church"
Timothy Sutter
> you must purchase a policy,
> but, if you cannot afford insurance,
> the government will give you a policy,
> which still -sounds- like
> government instituted charity,
> and -some- people consider charity
> to be some sort of "religious" exersize.
> so, the gubbment is now our "church"
> the new "secular church"
i'm not against charity
but, having the gubbment purchase insurance policies
for some people, is still, very much =like= 'charity'
and it does seem like, it is not because
these uninsured people cannot find anyone
who will insure them, but that, they don't
have the money to purchase it for themselves.
it's a charity...
muscular dystrophy foundation...
some people, are buying other people, insurance policies...
but, the "freewill" aspect seems to be circumvented...
Piet de Arcilla
> if there are 30-47 million people
> who do not, now, have insurance,
>
> and one reason that they do not have insurance
> is, because, they cannot afford insurance,
Well, the other reason some people don't have insurance is because
they're healthy and don't need medical treatment right now. These
people have money which would help to pay for _other_ people's medical
treatment. So they are the ones that "need" to be forced to buy
insurance.
Timothy Sutter
�
> > if there are 30-47 million people
> > who do not, now, have insurance,
�
> > and one reason that they do not have insurance
> > is, because, they cannot afford insurance,
Piet de Arcilla wrote:
�
> Well, the other reason some people don't have insurance is because
> they're healthy and don't need medical treatment right now. These
> people have money which would help to pay for _other_ people's medical
> treatment. So they are the ones that "need" to be forced to buy
> insurance.
�
and having such an 'order' -imposed- will increase so-called 'chaos'
and make these people 'sick' and -force- them in to the sickness
industry.
but that's just the scuttlebutt...
and then there's also, of course, people like the Amish
who have no intention of buying insurance policies ever
and forcing them to purchase insurance policies would seem
to be an erosion of their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
Piet de Arcilla
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> > > if there are 30-47 million people
> > > who do not, now, have insurance,
>
> > > and one reason that they do not have insurance
> > > is, because, they cannot afford insurance,
>
>
>
> Piet de Arcilla wrote:
>
> > Well, the other reason some people don't have insurance is because
> > they're healthy and don't need medical treatment right now. These
> > people have money which would help to pay for _other_ people's medical
> > treatment. So they are the ones that "need" to be forced to buy
> > insurance.
>
> and having such an 'order' -imposed- will increase so-called 'chaos'
>
> and make these people 'sick' and -force- them in to the sickness
> industry.
We should just declare that everyone is eligible for Medicare, and
abolish the insurance industry. Then increase payroll taxes as
necessary to pay for it.
Timothy Sutter
> who have no intention of buying insurance policies ever
> and forcing them to purchase insurance policies would seem
> to be an erosion of their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
but anyway, i'm not a proponent of insurance mandates.
instead of studying the Amish and seeing how they 'do it'
they would like to force the Amish to buy insurance policies
against their wishes.
automobile insurance is different inasmuch as you must
gain the -privelege- to drive a car on the public roads
by getting a driver's lisence, and so, the municipal authorities
can madate automobile insurance as part of
gaining and maintaining this -privelege-,
but, you can be a citizen of the u.s. of a
without having a social security number
and you are not -required- to identify yourself
to anyone at any time.
==
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/kids/parent2.htm
Applying for a Social Security card and number
for your newborn is voluntary
==
which is to say that you do not have to identify yourself
to the civil authorities
you need no -permit- to walk down the sidewalk
in as blithe a manner as you see fit
but as you see,
"Obtain medical coverage;"
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/kids/parent2.htm
is one of the reasons to get a social security number
and so, to mandate health insurance
will also mandate the gaining of a social security number
and, such is -not- a requirement for anyone.
Timothy Sutter
�
> > > > if there are 30-47 million people
> > > > who do not, now, have insurance,
�
> > > > and one reason that they do not have insurance
> > > > is, because, they cannot afford insurance,
�
> > Piet de Arcilla wrote:
�
> > > Well, the other reason some people don't have insurance is because
> > > they're healthy and don't need medical treatment right now. These
> > > people have money which would help to pay for _other_ people's medical
> > > treatment. So they are the ones that "need" to be forced to buy
> > > insurance.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
�
> > and having such an 'order' -imposed- will increase so-called 'chaos'
�
> > and make these people 'sick' and -force- them
> > in to the sickness industry.
Piet de Arcilla wrote:
�
> We should just declare that everyone is eligible for Medicare, and
> abolish the insurance industry. Then increase payroll taxes as
> necessary to pay for it.
this is a good one;
�
==
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/pl93-579/pl93-579.htm
"(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or
local government agency to deny to any individual any right,
benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such
individual's refusal to disclose his social security account
number.
==
so, somewhere along the line, you will have
to be granted health care, without providing
a social security number, unless, of course,
they overturn this bit.
but anyway,,.
insurance is just a pool of money,
i did this bit earlier;
==
if you're gunna do ths gubbment bit
and turn 'health ccare' into
an entitlement as opposed to a business,
abolish insurance outright
and when people need health care,
have them pay up the first 23%
and have the gubbment pay the rest.
where the gubbment is just tax revenues anyway.
to have people buy -insurance- from the gubbment is goofy.
just abolish insurance outright...
all insurance represents is a pool of monies
that providers use to pay off the administration
of health care when and as it takes place
with the hope and expectation that use
is outpaced by the pool itself
in that most people who put monies into
the pool never make use of it at all.
that's what will happen anyway
if you institute a gubbment option.
you will abolish "insurance" by default
and supercede that with a taxpayer
pool of funding monies, which is 'available'
to cityizens, and, as it turns out,
maybe even non-citizens inasmuch as we
are the benevolent kinder gentler people
who take care of strangers, even if we don't like them.
insurance is a pool of money
what you want is a pool of money
and there's really not much -room- for "profit"
because any "profit" that is taken out of the pool
is .... taken out of the pool
etc.
strictly speaking, "insurance" is already a "social contract"
where people pay into a large pool that is used
when needed by some people in the pool
"NO PROFIT" shudder shudder shudder...
a pool of monies is a pool of monies is a pool of monies
antidisirregardless of who is keeping an eye on such a pool of monies
and when and where it is to be allocated in -some- efficient manner
and who just wants to buy a flash car from the pool
and it's not like, you coouldn't allot "contracts"
to existing "insurance" concerns in much the
same way as the military allots
"contracts" to macdonald's douglass or whatever
but we -don't- want 50 dollar big macs
and thousand dollar toilet seats
we want 10 dollar X-rays
and good advice...
sure, the existing insurance companies
have an altered -focus-
away from private profits
and in to "public" efficiencoes
of pooled monies
and the initiating payment asked of people getting care
to help avoid plain old abuses
like you gotta need it
it's just that having -people- buy insurance policies
from teh government is instituting a middle man arrangement
which automatically is a money drain that serves no useful purpose
and only serves to drain monies -out- of the pool.
but, like i'm sayin'
insurance -is- a "pool"
and a "pool" -is- a "social contract"
it is not, in any manner,
one person, stashing monies with a bank
that will be used exclusively on ailments
encountered by that one person.
no, people put monies into a pool of shared resources
which are shared as need requires.
so, the "socialism" charge -can be- considered as unfounded
inasmuch as insurance itself -is- a "social contract" anyway.
and -now- 'we' want to save money
and some money can be saved
by abolishing 'insurance'
and converting the =pool= to something else.
to have people pay taxes -and- purchase insurance policies
is hitting themn coming and going
and instituting extraneous middle agencies
that do zero but drain the pool of resources.
so, if you absolutely feel the need to keep this 'health care'
fund slash pool of monies
"private" and not the proprietary ownership
of a =federal= bureaucracy
but a =private= bureaucracy
then, the focus of insurance 'granting' corporations
will have to shift away from profits
and over into base metal efficiencies
and now you need the same 'dedication'
in the insurance bizness as you'd
-like- to claim for the
medical profession itself
now start crafting the "oath"
"i promise not to do harm and rip people off for a flash car"
but if it's words that bother you,
insurance already -is- a "socialized" pool of monies.
but the thing is, some people simply pay
into their fears of being caught sick
and having their life savings
drained from their purses
and yet, never get really sick
and never make use of the policies.
and -that- is the plan of the insurance providers themselves,
that more money is placed in the pool
than ever are taken -out- of the pool.
so, -more- people pay into the pool and -don't- get
an exact return of what they placed in,
and so, people worrying about paying for people
that don't pay in as much as they put in
is -already- happening now.
more people -already- pay -in- to the
system than take out of the system,
-that- is how it turns a profit.
cuz, in reality
the insurance company
does -not- want to have to 'gamble' with the pool
in the markets to make their profits
and keep their concerns operating,
no, they maintain operating expense
by taking in more than they pay out.
and -that- involves a "social contract"
they -promise- to pay,
but they -expect- =not= to have to pay out
for each and every person who pays in.
they -expect- that -most- people will never recoup
every penny they pay in, and that some people will
use more than they pay in.
so, you are looking at abolishing insurance in its present form
for the emergence of the same sort of =pool= of monies
where the abolition involves
cutting -away- at the "middle men"
-but- introducing a new gubbment bureacracy to do -this-
is self defeating and is at crossed purposes
with the desired effect
where the desired effect
is more =pool= monies being devoted to -actual- care
and less to pay for flash cars and the like...
that's the -focus-
'they're' already 'wanting' to abolish
-existing- gubbment bureaucracies
so, to institute another is self defeating
but- then there's insurance
-if- you're going to absorb health care
into a gubbment bureaucracy,
you almost have to abolish insurance as it is now.
and not consider taxing people
-and- having them purchase insurance policies
for the self same [potentials for] care.
=something= gets abolished...
it's way too =ponderous=
to carry around all existing contingencies
-and- new institutions...
and so, if small businesses don't
have to consider insurance policies
for their employees, they get a benefit from that
etc. etc. etc.
somehow, to have both working, is self defeating.
so, it's like, the gubbment absorbs the existing -insurance- industry
just like the gubbment has absorbed the military contractors...
sure, they're "private" but they don't do anything much
-except- contract for unca sam.
and =people= don't purchase policies
a form of tax break in some sense
and some insentive to -not- get sick....
etc.
but what is not beneficial is;
"buy an insurance policy -and- pay more taxes"
it would be -nice- for -both- to be reduced.
===
Timothy Sutter
i mean, you get this idea that it's just some 'individual' that
performs a supplication with the giant corporate office and
asks for them to pay for medical bills that he can't pay
for his own daggone self.
not exactly.
the large corporate interest did not invent the monies.
it is a -pool- of monies from -many- 'individuals'
ok, so now, having said that, there would
be nothing standing in the way
of several hundred people, who felt
comfortable and friendly with each other
and had a modicum of trustworthiness amongst themselves
to 'pool' a collection and set it aside for the occasion
when one or ten of them may have some sort of illness
or accident that required medical attention.
and promise that the "treatment' for
an appendicitus would not be a bullet
in the brain.
"but the Don has mental problems, he needs to see a doctor"
and before 'we' decide to put a bullet
in the Don's brain for having mental problems,
either 'we' dig into the coffers of set
asides and hire him a head shrinker
or- 'we' use that money to send one of
the Don's associates to medical school
for training in how to diagnose and treat the Don's 'illness'
all the while, we give the associate a 9mm handgun to put
a bullet in teh Don's brain -if- such is the only
necessary and availabel 'treatment' for the Don's illness
and, sometimes, just showing the Don a gun aimed
at his forehead -may- be enough 'treatnment'
so as to cure his nausea.
see, but it's teh same sort of thing,
there is -nothing- standing in the way of
a group of people pooling resources
so as to take care of their own
private 'corporate' interests.
it just so happens that, the -larger- the group
the less expense incurred -per- individual.
and -this- is where the insurance companies come in.
they pool the resources of millions of people
and -try- to promise not to give you a bullet
in the brain for a head cold
not that you need to see a doctuh
for a head cold, anyway.
now, if you are dissatisfied with the manner in which
one large corporate entity is handling your case work,
find another -or-
you -could- try and gather up a large grouping of people
of your 'own' choosing
and begin a pooling of your 'own'
and bypass the existing concerns and
settle in on a concern of your own.
that's 'democratic'
and teh Don can have fewer attacks of nausea
worrying about how his associates are taking
care of their drug problems,
and who needs a bullet in the brain
like as, if one of -your- sons asked for a loaf of bread
would you -really- give him a poisonous scorpion instead?
it sounded better before i wrote it down...
but anyway, that's the general idea
shopkeepers have been pooling resoruces
for nigh on to ....lots of years,
and when the pool gets big enough,
they open up another mini-market
or another restaurant
or, another 'insurance' company...
you don't -have to- pool your money
with complete strangers
but you -can-
of course, 'individuality' is emphasized in this place,
-but- when you wander off to the insurance company
believe it or not, you have managed to
enter in to a 'collective' economy of sorts.
all we -don't- want
is a bullet in the brain for an appendectomy...
that would be 'overkill'
after all, the appendix still works
provided you feed it things it likes to digest.
believe it or not...
but anyway, the insurance company claims to be your 'friend'
but, if you had a group of 'friends' that you pooled money with,
just think for a moment about who might
instantly become not so much a 'friend'
if they got the cancer... and you=
wanted to ease your day
by giving him a scorpion
-insteead- of a trip to the doctuh's office
and that your 'friends' in teh insurance bizniss
may be a little less likely to put a bullet in your head
as -you- would be to put a bullet in ione of your
'firend's' heads.
of course, it could all be love and kindness
and people could be all nice to each other
and not even think of pushing the olde lady down the stairs,
but, this sometimes, remains to be seen...
and so, you can gripe and moan with
the faceless insurance agencies
but, would -you- do anything any different?
or would you push your 'friend's olde lady
down the steps when she got perpetually sick?
and then you'd have the poeleece at your door...
more drain on the economic situation...
but, the larger the concern,
like a corporate insurance company -or-
unca sam's insherance agancy
the more -faceless- the individual
may become or feel [he] has become
-but- is this a 'good thing'?
sure, if 100 families pooled resources
and had a health collection stash,
it may begon to result in huge arguments
over =who= was to get treated and for how much of the 'fund'
when great and wonderful +=ME=+ developes an ulcer
and small and insignificant {you} has pancreatic cancer
and 'we' all decide that {you} can go to blazes
and =+ME+= gets an all expence paid visit
to the Mayo clinic for the complete Spa treatement
whereas, the very largest concerns
has to consider more "objectively" who and how
people get treatments for what and who-hit-john
and still, ME=ME=ME ends up feelin' like a number...
i got feelin's to yuh know///
but we still don't want this insidious creeing feeling
that the =gubbment= is treating people like 'cattle'
and the moment you pipe up with a complaint,...
... the DON's boys escort you to your eternal resting place...
and so, why bther with 'insurance' in the first place,
only they =force= you to 'insure' yourself through taxation
and it's all just a big machine and minor cogs and sprockets
get 'replaced' all the time and have more babies so
we can feed the machine.
> but we still don't want this insidious creeing feeling
that's "creeping"
an insidious and 'creeping' feeling of being a nut or a bolt
and not even a human being any more.
unless you're with the 'elite' and oftentimes incoompetent power
structure
who gets 'special treatment'
which -ain't- so 'democratic' any more...
so, we seem to end up in teh same predicament
no matter how large the 'pool' is or how small...
=unless= and until,
the 'grand awakening' takes place
andteh sky pie smacks you in the face
and God initiates a massive food fight
and everybody gets a little egg on their face
and 'we' all live happily ever after
9ncluding the Don who is drinking milk for a while
yeah yeah yeah.... it -could- happen...
then all God'll say is that you already -had-
apple pie and banana cream pie and coconut creap pie
and shaving cream pie so what did you bother =MU-US= for
while WE-US were out on the back nine haveing
a perfectly lovely day on a palm springs weekend?
not that God would be more than happy to lend a helping hand
but, the hand has already been lent...
why don't you pick up your silly mat and walk?
you'll be happier...
there isn't =full= cooperation
and without =full= cooperation
it ends up the same way
entanglements that tear away at the fabric
and the new patches rip apart the old garments
and...
you can't concern yourself with =who=
-you- can \trust\ to be in -your- pool
but -can- you trust your God
to see you through all the way
to the very beginning of the road
and if 'some' people who didn't pay full price
just happen to hitch a free ride
and actually -do- get accpeted in the 'end'
so be it
after all, the same can be said of us all...
"they weren't with 'us' from square one,
and you're giving them a full share in the thing"
that's right charlie...
"they' get a full share,
even if _they_ -hated- _you_
in the beginning..."
Mercy Triumphs over Justice...
news at 11
don't bother talking about what one -deserves-
cuz by and large, people may -deserve- a brick upside the head...
and instead, get daisies...
it may not be as -you- would have it,
but, you may just get it any way...
the daisies,
and not the brick...
backtracking a bit;
"but i don't have a thousand 'friends' to pool resources with"
so, it's back to the 'Church' only a 'criminal element'
has settled in to the "Church" and they're waiting right there
to do what they were already doing to you before you sought
refuge in a "Church" and that's letting you into 'their thing'
and taking the best care of themselves first and giving you
second class care and charging you a full fee.
and so, schismatics develop
and you 'leave' something that you may
never have been a part of anyway,
and get all these strange ideas
about how a "Church" did you wrong...
et cetera et cetera et cetera
and still; "i never knew you"
and there's other times and places
and people entering 'congregations'
with somewhat crooked ideas of their own
thinking they can be untruthful with the Holy Spirit
and who asked you in here anyway?
and you have peope running around saying;
"God, show me something"
and God staring right back at you goin'
"NO, -you- show -me- something"
does God believe in -you-?
that's the way the insurance companies
became insurance companies.
they knocked on people's 'door' and
convinced them to buy a policy like
a raffle ticket,
and, as it turns out, like a raffle
if you're "lucky" you sell more tickets
than the value of the prize, and
lo and behold, there's "extra" money beyond
the value of the 'prize'
if it's not 50 million destitute people
that don't have insurance, then, portions
of those 50 million people can sell themselves
into an insurance "raffle" and start what amounts
to several insurance companies of their very own.
it's really that simple.
that's how "they" 'did' it
when they went around drumming for bizness in their
little insurance scheme and sold policies like a raffle ticket
and said; "hold those tickets, and if you get
accidentally dismembered, we'll put food on your table"
but still, the Amish don't buy insurance policies...
at all
you don't need unca sam's permission to do this,
you need personal trust amongst a group of people.
===
Timothy Sutter
"voluntary" as opposed to "state imposed"
when it comes to saying things like;
"well, 'everyone' -wants-
a social security number
and health insurance"
funny things happen when you start
-forcing- things on people.
cogs start flying all over the place...
boioioioinggggg
Timothy Sutter
> boioioioinggggg
but not only that, but you get this situation
that starts to look very much like... a pyramid scheme
because everyone who puts ten years of their
dollar into a health insurance policy/fund
-wants- to see a return of some sort on their 'investment'
and "well, i got peace of mind out of it"
ain't eneough and they want -services- for their dollar
and not "peace of mind"
and so, they want services and they start
going to the doctor more and more
and now, seeing as how -everyone- wants a
'return' on their health care dollar
the only resort is to bring in more 'investors'
to stand at the bottom of the pyramid
and pimp in funds, er,.. i mean pump in funds
so that 'everyone' who has already put money in,
can get sevices out
because very few people are buying health
insurance policies for "peace of mind"
and didn't we already go through this
when the so-called "generation Xers"
had it dawn on them that they
weren't gong to get social security
because it would be bankrupt
by the time they were 65
and now, they're all 35 and complacent and looking
for new blood to sit at the bottom of a new pyramid,
well, it's the same olde pyramid and lets
all have a good olde fashioned war...
or maybe they're over 40, i forget,
but anyway, "i ain't got no social security"
and now, i ain't got no health care neither...
only , i ain't part of no generation,
i'm just normal...
so quick, get more suckers, er, i mean subscribers
to pump monies into the pyramid
so's we all can get 'well'
like a shot in the arm ain't enough...
yeah, that'll work...
but seriously,
that is exactly how a pyramid scheme works,
only we got teh forceful arm of unca sam
=making= you get in on the ground floor...
Timothy Sutter
> only we got teh forceful arm of unca sam
> =making= you get in on the ground floor...
�
"who are you for?"
�
"i'm you FOR-ia"
�
"yeah yeah right,
now sit down and shut up
we'll get you some drugs in a minute"
�
"gee thanks, now i'm part of the system...again"
Timothy Sutter
> "who are you for?"
> "i'm you FOR-ia"
> "yeah yeah right,
just remember, that bam-and-D they
charge you fitty bucks a pop for
cost only about fitty -cent- to produce,
if that much...
Timothy Sutter
> > "who are you for?"
> > "i'm you FOR-ia"
> > "yeah yeah right,
> if that much...
not to worry,
i'm still looking for the upside...
Timothy Sutter
> > > "who are you for?"
> > > "i'm you FOR-ia"
> > > "yeah yeah right,
> > if that much...
> not to worry,
oh, yeah, right,
if they make maryjuaner legal, outright,
people can grow it in their backyards
and cure all sorts of 'illnesses' with it...
Timothy Sutter
> if they make maryjuaner legal, outright,
> people can grow it in their backyards
> and cure all sorts of 'illnesses' with it...
but that won't work, cuz it would be practically free
and nobody would be able to make any money onnit.
so, that sort of xes that off...
Piet de Arcilla
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> > > > > if there are 30-47 million people
> > > > > who do not, now, have insurance,
>
> > > > > and one reason that they do not have insurance
> > > > > is, because, they cannot afford insurance,
>
> > > Piet de Arcilla wrote:
>
> > > > Well, the other reason some people don't have insurance is because
> > > > they're healthy and don't need medical treatment right now. These
> > > > people have money which would help to pay for _other_ people's medical
> > > > treatment. So they are the ones that "need" to be forced to buy
> > > > insurance.
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> > > and having such an 'order' -imposed- will increase so-called 'chaos'
>
> > > and make these people 'sick' and -force- them
> > > in to the sickness industry.
>
> Piet de Arcilla wrote:
>
> > We should just declare that everyone is eligible for Medicare, and
> > abolish the insurance industry. Then increase payroll taxes as
> > necessary to pay for it.
>
>
>
> this is a good one;
>
>
> "(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or
> local government agency to deny to any individual any right,
> benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such
> individual's refusal to disclose his social security account
> number.
> ==
That doesn't mean what you think. It appears to just mean that there
must be federal authority when they require a SSN.
You frequently are required to give your SSN.
Timothy Sutter
> > > > > > if there are 30-47 million people
> > > > > > who do not, now, have insurance,
> > > > > > and one reason that they do not have insurance
> > > > > > is, because, they cannot afford insurance,
> > > > Piet de Arcilla wrote:
> > > > > Well, the other reason some people don't have insurance is because
> > > > > they're healthy and don't need medical treatment right now. These
> > > > > people have money which would help to pay for _other_ people's medical
> > > > > treatment. So they are the ones that "need" to be forced to buy
> > > > > insurance.
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > and having such an 'order' -imposed- will increase so-called 'chaos'
> > > > and make these people 'sick' and -force- them
> > > > in to the sickness industry.
> > Piet de Arcilla wrote:
> > > We should just declare that everyone is eligible for Medicare, and
> > > abolish the insurance industry. Then increase payroll taxes as
> > > necessary to pay for it.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > this is a good one;
> > ==http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/pl93-579/pl93-579.htm
> > "(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or
> > local government agency to deny to any individual any right,
> > benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such
> > individual's refusal to disclose his social security account
> > number.
> > ==
Piet de Arcilla wrote:
> That doesn't mean what you think. It appears to just mean that there
> must be federal authority when they require a SSN.
> You frequently are required to give your SSN.
as far as i can tell, you do not have to have a social security number
there's this;
==
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/kids/parent2.htm
Applying for a Social Security card and number
for your newborn is voluntary
==
and then there's this;
===
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf
THE PAPERWORK/PRIVACY ACT AND YOUR APPLICATION
The Privacy Act of 1974 requires us to give each person
the following notice when applying for a Social Security number.
Sections 205(c) and 702 of the Social Security Act
allow us to collect the facts we ask for on this form.
We use the facts you provide on this form to assign you a Social
Security number
and to issue you a Social Security card. You do not have to give us
these facts,
however, without them we cannot issue you a Social Security number or a
card.
Without a number, you may not be able to get a job and could lose
Social Security benefits in the future.
===
see, to me, this says that having a social security number
is not mandatory and it's not like they can revoke your
citizenship if you do not have a social security number,
and so, they cannot require you to disclose a number
you do not have, but, if they require you to apply
for health insurance, and, they also require that you
have a social security number to apply for such coverage,
then, they -may be- invading your privacy,
inasmuch as they may require you to apply for
a number and card which is not, now, mandatory.
the ssa says here, "may not be able to get a job"
but, like i said before, you -can- walk through life
in some blithe manner without having a social security number.
and no one can approach you and -demand- that
you be issued a social security number.
and so, where some instances may be found for which
a social security number is a requirement, such as
-receiving- social security benefits,
you are not to be -forced- to -take-
such social security benefits
and so, no federal agency, 'per se'
may deny you such rights as outlined in teh "Bill of Rights"
which are guaranteed by law, simply because you
are not in possession of a social security number.
just consider this;
say you live in a 'self sufficient agricultural community'
which does -not- trade 'money' for goods and services amongst itself...
and now, the federal government -may- would like
to walk into that community, and require, by law,
that they purchase insurance policies...
in which case, also requiring them to apply for and receive
social security numbers, which thing is not, now, required by law.
and yet, such people, would not have -renounced- their citizenship...
they simply did not acquire social security numbers,
and so, the Bill of Rights, still applies to them...
Timothy Sutter
> http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf
> THE PAPERWORK/PRIVACY ACT AND YOUR APPLICATION
> The Privacy Act of 1974 requires us to give each person
> the following notice when applying for a Social Security number.
> Sections 205(c) and 702 of the Social Security Act
> allow us to collect the facts we ask for on this form.
> We use the facts you provide on this form to assign you
> a Social Security number and to issue you a Social Security card.
> You do not have to give us these facts, however, without them we
> cannot issue you a Social Security number or a card. Without
> a number, you may not be able to get a job and could lose
> Social Security benefits in the future.
> ===
> > ==http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/pl93-579/pl93-579.htm
> > "(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or
> > local government agency to deny to any individual any right,
> > benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such
> > individual's refusal to disclose his social security account
> > number.
> > ==
so, basically, you are not to be denied your "civil rights"
based on possession of a social security number, which is
to suggest that it is not a social security number which
makes one a citizen of the united states of america,
but some other criteria,
but, now, it seems as if we are trying to institute
health care coverage -as- a "civil right"
but, by mandating coverage, you require an =exposure=
to the civil authorities which is not required by law
and may be -viewed- also, -as- a "civil right":
a "right to privacy"
so, it looks as if, we could run afoul of
competing civil rights
a right to privacy and
a right to health care coverage.
which may seem like a trivial matter,
but, may not be so trivial...
Timothy Sutter
> a "right to privacy"
and so, the question becomes;
"-can- you, still wander off in america and
establish some sort of 'invisible society'?"
whether anyone actually ever does this,
it should be -possible- for them to do so,
if they so desire.
not that health care initiatives, alone,
would be preventing such establishment,
but, the slow erosion of practical freedoms
will certainly, disallow such possibilities over time.
and also, it's not clear -now-
who is "invisible"
as "supranational" constructions, -may- exist,
which maintain an invisibility to the civil authorities
and yet, participate in the erection and maintainance
of civil regulatory apparatuseses, but
=that= is 'unfounded speculation'...
citizens of the u.s.a. who do not have social security numbers
but, who, design systems which practically necessitate
that everyone else has social security numbers.
but, now, i'll have to invoke "amweica"
and suggest that this is "fiction"
so, i'll add this to by fictional description -of- "amweica"
"just kidding" ha ha ha,
but anyway, a group of people -should be- _able_
to wander off into the desert and disappear from view...
even and -especially- 'in america'
where you need not, now, identify yourself to strangers
even if those strangers have badges...
provided you are above reproach and spotless...
no, not "above the law"
above reproach...
holy and blameless
such things are still possible...
Timothy Sutter
you may not realize how far you've fallen
until you hit the ground.
Timothy Sutter
> you may not realize how far you've fallen
> until you hit the ground.
be careful what you agree to
in a time of crisis.
note, social security was arranged
during the crisis period
known as "the great depression"
but, not 'everyone' was in
favor of it, social security,
but, now, generally, most everyone has
'acquiesced' to it, social security.
soem people are more conditioned to accept government prying,
but, some people, view government as a limited use instrument,
but, in times of crisis, you may sell your birthright
for a bowl of oatmeal...
Timothy Sutter
by the way, i have a social security number,
but, when instituted, teh social security number
was not to be used as a form of identification,
but, it became stitched in with personal identification
because of the tax laws and things like that,
but, 'they' are trying to yank it
back out of personal identification.
apparently, you -can- acquire a bank account
without a social security number.
and then there's all this 'identity theft' bit
when what becomes compromisd
is your social security number
which was never
to be used as a form of identification
in the first place.
one other small item;
we probably don't want the federal government
to take on the aspects of a living organism
where =IT= seeks out the acquiring and attaining of
=ITs= "own best [self] interest"
something very 'sinister' could develop
unless, of course, =ITs= "best [self] interest"
was to =dissappear= into the woodwork
sort of like the difference between
a "straight jacket" and "braces"
teh gubbment could -be- a good set of 'braces' to align
your teeth correctly, if you need it, but, if the gubbment
gets to "feeeling" insecure about =THE People"
it could tie a straight jacket of certain folks
to -mollify- them, like as if =IT= had to protect =ITs=
self intert against The People
who are now, -not-....
i didn't really want to wander off in this direction...
but, "for entertainment purposes"
i'll post it anyway...
but, the bit about identification is true...
i just didn't want to wander off in to the dilemma
of what -could- happen
even if such things -could- happen...
cuz i like unca sam
he ain't exactlly my enemy...
in fact, he's been a pretty good friend
and maybe i'd like unca sam to stay that way
but, i don't necessarily want to a share tooth brush...
Timothy Sutter
but see, it can be difficult to get some people
to go see a doctuh as things be, but, i you have
unca sam coming up the proctoscope with the doctuh,
you couldn't drag them in to the
office kickin' amnd screaming,
cuz they don't want news of their syphlitic rash
blasted all over the internet
and just remeber, "Roe v. Wade"
was orginally settled as a "doctor patient privacy" matter,
but now, you'll be having unca sam follow =HIS= money around
and filling out gubbment forms and privacy becomes a null point.
<hypothecially speaking>
=everybody=, now, knows what you doin' in the doctuh's office.
</hypothecially speaking>
but you just know, if =HIS= money is involved,
some federal acountant is going to be jotting down
each and every tittle of what takes place in
a doctuh's office and what gets paid for
and what does not, and this quite likely
will expose very intimate details of your
personal life to =government= scrutiny,
which things are still private matters betwen
you and whomsoever -you- _choose_ to divulge them.
and do you really want a "health score"
somewhat akin to your "credit score"?
maybe not...