Natural News | June 28 2012
Natural News ~ Regardless of whether you agree with the fundamentals of Obamacare, the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled the federal government has the power to tax Americans into mandatory purchases of private industry products means an end to economic freedom in America. Why? Because it hands the federal government the power to force the American people to buy anything the government wants or face tax penalties for refusing to do so. It is the equivalent of announcing a federal monopoly over all private purchasing decisions.
“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
Thus, the government can force Americans to buy anything it wants by simply characterizing the forced payment as a “tax.”
Economic freedom crushed by Supreme Court
This article is not an argument so much about Obamacare itself, by the way; it’s a red alert about a fundamental loss of economic freedom — a shifting of private purchasing decisions to Washington D.C. Now, buoyed by the passage of Obamacare, the U.S. government can (and will) create new mandates that, for example, would force Americans to buy all the following:
• A new car each year from Detroit, in order to “boost the U.S. auto industry.”
• War bonds to “support the war effort.”
• A year’s supply of vaccines.
• Life insurance from the government’s “approved” sources.
• Lawn fertilizer (the “lawn health care mandate”).
• Intellectual property such as patented human genes already in your body.
There is no limit to the reach of the Supreme Court’s wild misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause, it seems. So now, all Americans can expect to get ready for the federal government to start laying out a long list of products and services we will all be taxed into buying from the crony capitalist buddies of those in power.
Government hands economic monopoly to Big Pharma and the vaccine industry
Perhaps the worst side effect is that Obamacare isn’t really about health care at all. It’s about protecting a Big Pharma monopoly over medicine; forcing consumers to buy into a system that offers zero coverage for alternative medicine, nutritional therapies, natural remedies or the healing arts.
If Obamacare actually offered consumers a free market choice of where to get services, it would be a lot more balanced and effective. Instead, it forces consumers to buy into a system of monopoly medicine of drugs and surgery that would flat-out collapse if not for the monopolistic protections granted to the industry by the government itself.
If given a free choice, most consumers prefer complementary medicine than straight-up “drugs and surgery” medicine, but complementary medicine isn’t covered under Obamacare. The law is really just another corrupt, criminal-minded handout to the drug industry. And now, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, you can’t even opt out!
Abuse of power by the federal government knows no bounds
That’s the real kicker in all this: No more opting out of the private purchasing demands of the federal government! Americans are being pick-pocketed at an alarming rate, and it’s only going to get worse now that this power has been unwisely handed to the federal government by a short-sighted Supreme Court.
Because long after Obama is gone, other Presidents — from any political party — will abuse this precedent to force Americans into buying any number of products, services, or even intellectual property that we don’t want. There is now no limit to what the federal government can force you to buy by calling it a “tax.”
Note, carefully, there is NO LIMIT to this “taxing” power. If you bring home a monthly paycheck of, for example, $3,000, the U.S. government can now mandate that you spend $2,999 of that on various products and services that it deems you must have “for your own protection.” You no longer control your own take-home pay! The government can force you to spend it on things you don’t want or even need!
America, it seems, is starting to sound a whole lot like England under King George. Soon, we’ll be living under our own modern Stamp Act from 1765, which eventually led to the American Revolution. Learn your history! As Wikipedia explains: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765)
The Stamp Act 1765 (short title Duties in American Colonies Act 1765; 5 George III, c. 12) was a direct tax imposed by the British Parliament specifically on the colonies of British America. The act required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper produced in London, carrying an embossed revenue stamp. These printed materials were legal documents, magazines, newspapers and many other types of paper used throughout the colonies. Like previous taxes, the stamp tax had to be paid in valid British currency, not in colonial paper money. The purpose of the tax was to help pay for troops stationed in North America after the British victory in the Seven Years’ War. The British government felt that the colonies were the primary beneficiaries of this military presence, and should pay at least a portion of the expense.
The Stamp Act met great resistance in the colonies. The colonies sent no representatives to Parliament, and therefore had no influence over what taxes were raised, how they were levied, or how they would be spent. Many colonists considered it a violation of their rights as Englishmen to be taxed without their consent — consent that only the colonial legislatures could grant. Colonial assemblies sent petitions and protests. The Stamp Act Congress held in New York City, reflecting the first significant joint colonial response to any British measure, also petitioned Parliament and the King. Local protest groups, led by colonial merchants and landowners, established connections through correspondence that created a loose coalition that extended from New England to Georgia. Protests and demonstrations initiated by the Sons of Liberty often turned violent and destructive as the masses became involved. Very soon all stamp tax distributors were intimidated into resigning their commissions, and the tax was never effectively collected.
Opposition to the Stamp Act was not limited to the colonies. British merchants and manufacturers, whose exports to the colonies were threatened by colonial economic problems exacerbated by the tax, also pressured Parliament. The Act was repealed on March 18, 1766 as a matter of expedience, but Parliament affirmed its power to legislate for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever” by also passing the Declaratory Act. There followed a series of new taxes and regulations, likewise opposed by the colonists.
The episode played a major role in defining the grievances and enabling the organized colonial resistance that led to the American Revolution in 1775.

Hi Mr.lee Having worked in health care for 24 years i saw some crazy very little critical thinking and a lot of big pharma following, my issue with mandating allopathic med insurance is that they have to get their cure rates up as by their own foggy admission they are treating symptoms and not treating the real disease.this line of thinking is creating more disease and this can be verified! So mandating money to go to same old nonsensical money sucking system is another black hole for our money to get sucked into and to misrepresent other disciplines that do work. Their emergency medicine is good but their disease care gets a resounding F,as it is 44 in the world and most expensive what a fraud.
Totally agree with you, Bill. Blessings, ~G
The misleading conflation of terms associated with “bark-o-care” bothers me. It is not a system that has more than a trifle to do with actual medical care, rather it is a system to tax the poor and force people to give money to “insurance companies”. The essence of a con-game is to mislead – starting with naming the game… That said, I’d have been happy to see the VA and medicare combined and gradually expanded into national health care. The legal logic there is sound – one can say that the people are the militia, and as such are properly eligible to see military doctors until they’re too old for a call-up, then of course, it’s natural to provide care to militia-dependents – children, etc. As to cost – ah! An income tax – oh yes, we have that. I remember when things were prosperous in America and I have filled out the tax forms. I paid 70% one year – and proud to do so. Back when the rich did something useful rather than mere looting…
My God, Mr. Lee. I personally find 70% both excessive and outrageous, especially given the fact that the billionaire/trillionaire class have all their money in foundations and trusts and only have to use 5% of their assets PER ANNUM to maintain their wealth outside the system.
The maximum rate has been, according to my reading in the reference library at CSUS a few years back, as high as 93%. That was during the Korean War. It’s important to remember that such high rates went together with job-creating deductions that made the tax essentially the penalty for spending on one’s self. Essentially it was a voluntary tax, either invest, or spend. But if one invested (and the permitted kinds of investments created growth) he could avoid most of the heavy tax. Let us remember that those tax rates went along with a vast and general prosperity. (I had to pay the 70% only one year – due to an unusual confluence of events.)
Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Lee. Given that taxes on individual income only started after the creation of that FRAUDULENT, privately-owned banking consortium – the Federal Reserve – no percentage of personal tax is acceptable to me. The approved tax is EXCISE taxes, and that was more than enough to usher in an age of prosperity in America. Blessings, ~G
Well, if Uncle Sam has the power within the executive branch to arrest kidnap and imprison, torture, kill (as well as incinerate the earth) and so on any person anywhere with no judicial review and no habeus, ought not we rejoice that the Court has at least said that we common “folk” may be permitted to buy our way out? What I suggest here is that they might have simply said “buy medical insurance that you can’t pay for, or be blasted by “drones”"
Some may recall the fundamental concept that there can never be any question of justice except between equals in power. This decision makes it plain who has the power, and who does not.
I’d like to read the dissenting opinion(s). In recent years, particularly since G v B, USSC opinions have often been poorly supported by legal argument. (Many say the USSC makes overt and slavish “political” decisions.) I myself suspect that this case was poorly argued, though a well-done argument would have probably produced the same result…
I do not understand the evident assumption that the “tax” must be within the scope of “take home pay” – there is no such limitation on other “taxes”. Many people are taxed at levels they cannot pay. Why is the “barky-care” “mandate” assumed to be limited by income and cash on hand?
“barky-care” ? “Barky the Trained Seal…
Not that “Mit” (where do they get these names?) is anything different, beyond the obvious nutt-job aspect…
Hi Mr. Lee! Totally agree with your comment, especially your interest in the “minority” opinion. Had Roberts not gone with the liberals on the bench we might actually have received a decision more in line with our Constitutional REPUBLIC.
What I find bizarre is that a country that was formed as a result of revolt against British taxation is now so bereft of leadership that these dead-heads masquerading as jurists can affirm this cr*p and shove it down the throats of Americans.
Of course this mandate is not limited to “take home” pay. It will soon morph into any and everything these criminals deign within their purview – and that is everything that isn’t nailed down or perceived as lacking value.
One day they will go too far and Americans will realize we no longer own our government and must find a LEGAL way of dismissing the lot of them.
Thanks for commenting. ~G