insurance problem...the new "secular church"...

Main Page | Report this Page

Religion Forum Index » Religions - Miscellaneous » insurance problem...the new "secular church"...

Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2

insurance problem...the new "secular church"...

Author

Message

Piet de Arcilla...

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:08 pm

Guest

On Nov 1, 3:44 am, Timothy Sutter <a202... at (no spam) lycos.com-> wrote:

Quote:

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;

==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.
=
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...

Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:20 am

Guest

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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...

Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:51 am

Guest

Quote:

===
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...

Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:27 am

Guest

Quote:

and may be -viewed- also, -as- a "civil right":

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...

Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:41 am

Guest

Quote:

such things are still possible...

you may not realize how far you've fallen

until you hit the ground.

Timothy Sutter...

Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:27 am

Guest

Quote:

such things are still possible...

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...

Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:56 am

Guest

Quote:

note, social security was arranged

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...

Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:07 am

Guest

Quote:

but, i don't necessarily want to a share tooth brush...

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...

Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:09 pm Religion Forum Index