Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Arizona And Oklahoma Voters Reject Obamacare Insurance Requirement

November 11, 2010 by  

Arizona and Oklahoma voters reject Obamacare insurance requirementResults of the Nov. 2 midterm elections pose serious obstacles for President Barack Obama's healthcare bill. Republicans heading to Capitol Hill have expressed their desire to repeal aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was passed by Congress earlier this year.

In some states, Obamacare has already been rejected. Voters in Oklahoma and Arizona approved amendments that prohibit any law from requiring individuals to have health insurance. They join Virginia, Idaho, Georgia, Louisiana and Missouri as states that have passed The Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act (FCHCA). The act was rejected by voters in Colorado on election day.

Members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which drew up FCHCA, said the election results reflect the American people's frustration with Federally mandated healthcare.

"I hope Washington will listen to these results and that more states will vote to retain their Constitutional right to freedom of choice in healthcare," said U.S. Representative Linda Upmeyer (R-Iowa).

According to Reuters, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) recently called on GOP lawmakers to deny funds for implementation of the healthcare law. McConnell wants a straight-up repeal of Obamacare, but he acknowledged that any such measure would likely be vetoed by the President or blocked by Democrats in the Senate. 

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Arizona And Oklahoma Voters Reject Obamacare Insurance Requirement”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Dan az

    By defunding anything he tries to get though will show him that its just not going to happen.It only takes two third votes in the senate to by pass his vetoes so they better get on board or lose their seats. The fight has just begun get use to it!

    • Al Sieber

      Dan, I’m glad it passed in our state. I hate to be forced to do anything.

      • tlludwig

        Not only are you forced to buy something, if you don’t pay the IRS comes after you. You could also face jail time for failure to pay. All this healthcare bill is is a way to increase taxes and control every aspect of our lives from birth to death.

        • Craig

          Do not pay their fines and do not let them take you to jail. The mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional. Any government that would force a free person to buy a service they do not have the authority for is a tyrannical government. It is our duty and right to fight tyranny.

        • HFlashman

          Ummm…care to point out where it states you can go to jail for not paying a debt? i.e. back taxes (such being the impliation in your post tlludwig). BTW…..just where in the Health Care law does it state if you do not have health insurace you go to jail?

      • Christin

        Al Sieber,
        I hate being forced to do things that I don’t believe is good for the people or the country, either.

        So I’m going on record as saying:

        * I don’t like being forced to buy their Health insurance (not health care) which is just a front to the machine they are putting in place to control the population.

        *And I don’t like paying high taxes… which I am forced to do, so that congress (WH / TPTB / FED) can spend, spend, spend and break our system.

      • Dan az

        Hey Al
        Hows things going for ya?You sound a little depressed.Why dont ya take a break and come up here.Bring a coat its really cold!

    • JC

      Government by Force is what we’ve given so many lives to put down.
      And we must continue the fight.

      Today I’d like to offer a salute Northward to our Canadian friends and say Thank You on this, their Remembrance Day, set to Honour the fallen soldiers of the wars to preserve peace and freedom.
      They gave too.

      • Bob Wire

        Government “is” dominion and always has been. what we seem to have here is a conflict of dominion.

        Perhaps that’s a good thing, If! as many of you seem to desire more “states rights”

        I’m thinking more competition between the states a good thing. Perhaps dispersing some of our Nations populations, create the need for more infrastructure. Be more independent, more responsible and good thing.

        People that don’t like the states laws and ways of conducting business can shop around, move Each state can employ state citizenship documents. Limited citizenship privileges until each citizen has contributed enough to be fully vested with “states rights”

        Still there will be rich states and poor states.

        The peoples in states like Pennsylvania where the two larges employers are government and health care systems or Arizona, where the two larges employers are government and Walmart can Lord over their borders and allow supply and demand to rule the day. They can “create demands” and “restrict” supply, creating an economic atmosphere of their own design.

        Interstate taxes can be levied on both imports and exports to extract the “necessary” funding for state matter.

        and we’ll all be happy with “freedom” and states rights.

        My state today ~ The proud “Conservative” state of PRICK PERRY a “wealthy state” when the GOP took it away from ANN RICHARDS has a deficit today! Imagine that! JUST 81 million!

        “The Texas State Legislature passed and Gov. Rick Perry signed on June 19, 2009 a $182 billion 2-year budget (Sept.1, 2009 to Aug. 31, 2011) with a projected $9 billion Rainy Day Fund. The FY 2010-2011 biennium budget of $182.3 billion spends $1.6 billion less in general revenue than the previous biennium. Gov. Perry used his line-item veto power to cut $97.2 million in general revenue and $288.9 million from all funding sources. [1] Comptroller Susan Combs acknowledged that Texas will show a $1.3 billion deficit at the end of the budget year[2], which is up dramatically from the July 2010 estimate of a shortfall of up to $18 billion dollars.[3]

        Texas has far to go to meet the gains projected for the current two-year budget cycle, despite some signs of an improving economy.[4] Lawmakers have called for budget cuts. For FY2010, state agencies cut their budgets by 5 percent, saving $1.2 billion.[4] In the $182 billion budget, only $87 billion is general-revenue money, with the rest of the funds coming from the federal government or placed in the highway fund and bond proceeds, the uses of which are tightly specified.[3]

        Texas has a total state debt of $81,128,512,515 when calculated by adding the total of outstanding debt, pension and OPEB UAAL’s, unemployment trust funds and the 2010 budget gap as of July 2010.”

        I’m sure our recently reelected state “conservative” governor with find a way to squeeze the money out of Texas Citizens one way or the other.

        Maybe rent out congress chambers to a BINGO HALL after hours or something.

        What might Annie do?

        The Texas economy had been in a slump since the mid-1980s, compounded by a downturn in the U.S. economy. Richards responded with a program of economic revitalization, yielding growth in 1991 of 2 percent when the U.S. economy as a whole shrank.] Richards also attempted to streamline Texas’s government and regulatory institutions for business and the public; her efforts in the former helped to revitalize Texas’s corporate infrastructure for its explosive economic growth later in the decade, and her audits on the state bureaucracy saved $6 billion.

        As governor, Richards reformed the Texas prison system, establishing a substance abuse program for inmates, reducing the number of violent offenders released, and increasing prison space to deal with a growing prison population She backed proposals to reduce the sale of semi-automatic firearms and “cop-killer” bullets in the state.

        She signed into law the amendment of the Texas Financial Responsibility Law where renewal of a motor vehicle’s registration (also covers initial registration of a motor vehicle), safety inspection sticker, driver’s license, and/or obtaining new license plates require that a motorist must have a valid auto insurance policy. The law, which passed on September 1, 1991, broadens the 1982 law where a police officer will request a driver’s license and proof of insurance during a traffic stop.[citation needed]

        The Texas Lottery was also instituted during her governorship—advocated as a means of supplementing school finances; Richards purchased the first lottery ticket on May 29, 1992, in Oak Hill, near Austin. [6]

        School finance remained one of the key issues of Richards’ governorship and of those succeeding hers; the famous Robin Hood plan was launched in the 1992–1993 biennium and attempted to make school funding more equitable across school districts. Richards also sought to decentralize control over education policy to districts and individual campuses; she instituted “site-based management” to this end.

        She was famous for her personal charisma, for her ease with the public, and even for her see-through wispy white hairdo. It was said that many people who knew her personally saw little if any difference between her public and private personas.

        Her sense of humor was often part of her day-to-day political life. Regarding a concealed weapons bill, she was asked if she didn’t think the women of Texas might feel safer if they could carry guns in their purses. She replied, “Well I’m not a sexist, but there is not a woman in this state who could find a gun in her handbag, much less a lipstick.”

        She was unexpectedly defeated in 1994 by George W. Bush, winning 46 percent of the vote to Bush’s 53 percent

        That was a hard 4% to swallow and the Great “W” rides into national politics. ~ I believe Ann thought she had the votes and really didn’t worry with it much, she was having fun and really ready to move on.

        • 45caliber

          You are pushing Ann Richards? Good God! Do you know anything about her at all? To tell the truth, most of us breathed a sigh of relief when she was no longer in. You wanted to mention a few things she did. How about doubling the number of people working for the state government? She was forced to keep prisoners longer – the people objected to her open-door policy in prisons. In fact, so many of the prisoners were getting out early that the people in Texas on juries began to increase the sentencing just to keep them in jail a little longer. She released a lot of people from prison by pardons or paroles including one known murderer on death row who tortured, raped, and killed over FIFTY women in the following nine month period before they could get enough evidence to try him again. (He’s one who is executed now, thank God!) Robin Hood has been one of the worst things that ever happened to education in this state. It deprives the richer districts of needed money while the state keeps 90% as a handling fee so the poor districts don’t get it.

          Your idea of shopping for a different state is fine, but your idea of requiring all sorts of ID’s, etc. is typical of a progressive.

          And if you live here in Texas, perhaps you should move to California and raise the IQ of both states.

          • Christin

            I am with you on that one.

            Former Gov Ann Richards D-TX was not the saint the previous poster makes her out to be.

            We were duped on the Lottery Sales to be given to Education… it turned out to be a small fraction, like 1% I believe.

            As far as gun legislation is concerned it only affects the law abiding citizens… the criminals don’t abide by the laws.

            Atleast, Gov Rick Perry (whom I did not vote for in the primary) does NOT want FORCED Health Insurance/tax/control over the people, like AZ and OK and has joined in that side for States and citizens RIGHTS.

        • James

          Lots of words going ‘Off-Topic’ means very little. The issue is simple…does the Pres. and Congress have the right to force this Health-Care Bill down our throats? Their actions, in the passing of this Bill, could be construed as an ‘Act of Treason’ considering they are abrogating their responsibilities to uphold the Constitution.

          • JC

            Exactly right. NO they don’t have the right. Certainly our founding documents and principles don’t allow for it, and that’s what makes it treasonous.

          • http://naver samurai

            I agree. Thank goodness for the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Act. In my opinion, I see it disappearing next year. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • Think Again

    Good – there’ll be more for the rest of us.


    Old rich conservative tax-cheats afraid to die.

    • bbstacker

      what “more” do you speak of? The government is capable of delivering one thing and ONE thing only–MISERY. Gov’t will promise you everything under the sun, and has no capability to produce those results because: Government cannot give to anyone anything that it first does not TAKE from someone else.

      Molon Labe

      • AnhydrousBob

        Molon Labe

    • AnhydrousBob

      There will be more debt for you too, if the States will each repudiate the National Debt.

      Lets get started with that…

      While we are at it, lets rescind the Fed, the constitution only allows the National Gov’t the right to coin specie, not paper money.

    • 45caliber

      Think Again:

      You aren’t thinking in the first place. If the people against this was only “old rich conservative tax cheats”, they wouldn’t need to even buy insurance. They could pay out of pocket for all their medical care and probably will anyway. It is the rest of us who have to pay for you and others like you who won’t pay for yourselves.

      • Bob Wire

        not really 45, out of pocket for medical care for heeled up seniors is not an option worthy consideration. Possible to eminent high cost being but one reason why.

        Seniors with good insurance are treated very well, often too well, to a hospital and doctors alike , each senior that walks through the door with insurance is seen as the “Goose that lays the Golden Egg”

        If You walk into a hospital with no doctor and all your money stuffed in one pants pocket and you will set in line with the indigent and the care with be something less then attentive or encompassing.

        • 45caliber

          He was talking about RICH old conservatives. I seriously doubt if any of them couldn’t pay for medical care out of pocket if they wished. Or are you considering someone rich if they have a thousand a month income on retirement? A lot of progressives do.

          • marty

            please use smaller type.

      • Christin

        “Old rich tax cheats”… I thought those were the (Progressive)Democrats… names that come to mind are: Gietner, Rangle, Dashal (sp), … so many I can’t think of them all.

  • Teresa

    I understand there is still a majority of people who support the health care bill, I do not understand why..but I would like for you to explain WHY you do. You see not only is it UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Here is just a few examples. My child who is allowed to fight and die for this country, but can’t drink and vote is now on my ins. till they are 26. If I do not get the ins. I have to pay huge fine, am already paying a huge increase on my own ins. premium due to this..actually went from 20. a wk to 70. a wk. A chip will be placed in everyone who is on the Obama healthcare system. The taxpayers pay for interpreters in emergency rooms. We pay for est. 3.5 million illegals to be added and pre-existing conditions but our cost is suppose to be cheaper (yea right). Pay for abortions, they decide who lives and dies. What do you think will happen to the specialist doctors when the government takes control of the system???? So, please explain to me HOW IS THIS HELPING THE AMERICAN CITIZENS….NOW THINK HARD BEFORE YOU ANSWER…I do not want to hear how it is helping the Union workers and the government workers, I want to hear how it is helping the American People!

    • Raggs

      I think I can answer that.

      The ones that will get “free” health care are the very ones we as taxpayers support eveyday…

      They are the ones that got this incompetent bastard elected and it was for that very reason we as the minority ( working class ) are going to get screwed!

      • Teresa

        Then I need a larger bottle of Vaseline please!

        • TIME

          Now thats funny, yes we have about 43% of the US population on Government aid. So there are a lot of them out there. How bloody sad is that?

      • Bob Wire

        “The ones that will get “free” health care are the very ones we as taxpayers support everyday…”

        well you can feel that way but people are required to pay something! That’s why you want to claim it being unconstitutional!

        So you need to decide on what grounds you are going to argue it.

        as for paying, ~ People that pay federal taxes subside many American Major Medical Insurance premiums. ~ the results being lower medical cost for the more over employed by people that are under to unemployed.

        How about that ~ for freedom of choice? You’d thinks people be howling about that too! but they not ~ just me it seems.

        I keep a jar of Vasoline handy

        • Teresa

          wrong…its unconstitutional because:
          One of the more troubling components of the ObamaCare bill wending its way through the House is the inclusion of individual mandates to carry health insurance. What gives Congress the power to dictate that choice to American citizens? A single document enumerates Congressional power.
          Although the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress’s commerce power expansively, this type of mandate would not pass muster even under the most aggressive commerce clause cases.

          • Christin

            I’m with you… Unconstitutional!

            You know I was remembering that this monstrosity they “call” a ‘healthcare bill’ was not really suppose to be the final bill. The House bill was different than the Senate bill and they never sent it to the committees for discussion to come up with ONE bill from the two. This bill was pushed to a vote in a moment of fervor when the progressives realized they didn’t have the votes or a longer window of opportunity, but bullied, strong armed, lied, and made sweet heart deals to buy votes from the weak… knowing it was now of never.

            For anyone to talk about “obamacare” or this “health insurance bill” which is a tax and medical structure to control the people, as legitimate health care, is unreal.

          • Vigilant


            “Although the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress’s commerce power expansively, this type of mandate would not pass muster even under the most aggressive commerce clause cases.”

            As I recall, the Federal Court turned down the government’s argument that the authority for Obamacare is contained in the Commerce Clause. Having reached this road block, the government then tried to use its “power to tax” authority. They were understandably reluctant to do so because it it belied Obama’s contention that that he would not raise taxes. What a hoot!

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Barb Wire
          Actually I think you are mistaken in your thoughts. Only the ones that can afford to pay will be required to pay. Those at or below the “poverty” level will be required to pay nada, zip, NOTHING!!!! As USUAL!!! You know, the ones that get welfare, food stamps, H.E.A.P., all sorts of freebies funded by the workers of this nation!!

          • Carol

            Sorry, but I am still required to pay. 864 a month is SS and paying 96.40 for Medicare. Medicare supposed to pay 80%, but paid only $46 on a $162 bill for my cardiologist. I have to pay all my utilities, buy my heart meds, put gasoline in my car and buy my food on $765 a month. No Supplemental ins or prescription coverage. Can’t afford the $167 for supp and the $62.80 for prescription coverage. Then there’s the co-pay of $5 for generic and $75 for branded per month. And now I’ve been told the cost of Medicare is to be increased by 35% for 2011, and no cost of living raise. I can already hear you saying “Get a Job”. Hah. Even WalMart wouldn’t hire me. I don’t speak Spanish so I guess they don’t want me. I’m well below the poverty level, but not eligible for any help since I own my home.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            I’m not talking about retirees! I’m talking about people that are able to work, are on welfare, and collecting assistance on their heating!

          • Vigilant

            Under Obamacare, “Americans who don’t get qualified health insurance will be required to pay penalties starting in 2014, unless they are exempt because of low income, religious beliefs, or because they are members of American Indian tribes. The penalties will be fully phased in by 2016.”

            CBS News, Apr 2010

    • AnhydrousBob

      Of course you realize that we can’t fix the debt issue without cutting Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid?

      These entitlements are not “on the books” and represent a huge black hole in the budget.

      How many retired folks will accept that?

      • 45caliber

        Bob: Tell you what. Let’s fix Welfare first. Let’s get all those who are third and fourth generation off Welfare and let them work for a living too. Not only would it save us tax money, it would also mean that they can start paying taxes for the first time in their lives.

        Every time I hear someone who wants to keep Oblamacare, the first thing they insist upon is getting rid of SS. Well, okay. But are you going to get rid of the tax too? I’ll bet not. Actually SS is self-supporting if you can get Congress to leave the surplus alone. It really is if they will allow it to pay all the payments before they start taking some out for the pork projects.

        • Vigilant

          I agree with you, but pork barrel spending is a miniscule drop in the bucket compared to the social entitlements. The publicity generated by pork just diverts attention from the real problems.

      • Kate8

        Social security is not an entitlement. You have to have paid in to be able to collect it.

        It was supposed to supplemental retirement, not sole retirement.

        • 45caliber

          Correct, it was. Unfortunately the government took so much from so many people that they could no longer save for retirement.

          • thinking

            Prez clinton used the money to balance the federal buget. Hey he knew he would be long out of office before anyone got wise. Now our federal government to keep the budget balanced added the disabled and the handicaped to the program and they can collect without paying in a cent. Good thinking! As we take in elderly from around the world we pay them also, how generous. The post offices get the most s.s. checks to deliver, Arizona and New Mexico (mostly picked up) from across the boarder. Check this info out it is on the (al gore)internet.

        • AnhydrousBob

          Wrong, you do not have to have paid in to collect it.

          And it doesn’t matter what happened to the money at this point in time. It is not there, and the taxes are not enough to self sustain it. It is an entitlement, based on a ponzi scheme.

          What is the justification for keeping it? Not the constitution. Because we have people dependent on it? At what point in time will there not be someone dependent on it, now, or once it swells to take all the tax revenues?

          You really dont believe it can be fixed, do you?

          • independant thinker

            If the gubment will return all that has been paid into SS and Medicare in my name with interest compounded for 40+ years I will gladly refuse my SS checks. If they will do this I will have at a minimum half a million dollars and quite likely more.

    • 45caliber


      Honestly, I think the reason they support this (and all other government “free” things) is because they are too lazy to think and plan for themselves. It’s easier to watch the next football game and let someone else do it.

    • Dan az

      The thing that bothers me the most is that We can send our children in to battle at the age of 17 and we most carry their insurance until they are 26. So where is the responsibility of the Gov. that puts them into harms way? And if they are maimed for the rest of there lives who cares for them? Apparently it wont be the VA it sounds as if they may be phasing that out next! And the ones that dont pay who is paying for their kids?

  • Robin from Arcadia, IN

    The whole thing needs to be scrapped and if they still want to reform healthcare, find out what would be acceptable to the American people. Last year I was paying $171.00 a paycheck for insurance for me and my family. Now I pay $269.00 a paycheck! And, my benefits really haven’t changed that much to warrant that much of an increase!

    • bbstacker

      the increases are solely to support the bureacracy heaped upon the insurers to manage the crap of oboingo-care. It has NOTHING to do with improving medicine, it has everything to do with control over the sovereign citizens. The changes are already on the move, but the foul stench of this moonbat-inspired plan has yet to escape…most of the hard impact will only be felt when the usurper has exited office and somehow this will all be Bush’s fault, or they’ll blame John Boehner. This is OUR fault, as Citizens or residents of the United States for not voting with clear facts or getting off our “idle American” arses to prevent this from every reaching the “pass it before we can find out what is in it” stage of stupidity. WE the People hold the power that we loan to those we elect. Day one of our job as Citizens begins at the voting booth–then you latch onto those clowns and write/phone/fax/visit them with every whisper of legislation.

      • Teresa

        I agree totally, another interesting fact for you: Any effort to repair ObamaCare will be like replacing arsenic with strychnine-choose your poison. The GOP version of ObamaCare failed in Massachusetts, and it will fail nationally if Republicans insist on trying to repair ObamaCare. ObamaCare must be repealed.
        Don’t buy the argument that we can’t simply repeal ObamaCare because we can’t go back to where we were before ObamaCare was enacted. Nonsense. Since there was never a true health care crisis there is no reason to fear repealing ObamaCare.
        Granted, there are major problems with our health care system but turning health care over to the government to run is not the solution.
        The Alliance is dedicated to repealing ObamaCare because it rations Medicare to the tune of $5,000,000,000,000 (5 trillion) dollars.
        AARP is dedicated to keeping ObamaCare because it rations Medicare to the tune of $5,000,000,000,000 (5 trillion) dollars. (By doing so AARP dramatically increases the need for seniors to purchase the Medicare Supplemental insurance that AARP sells.)
        Why in the world would AARP help the White House enact a law that will undoubtedly leave their members without sufficient Medicare coverage???
        Because of the way Medicare is structured, seniors have to purchase an insurance policy that fills the gap between what Medicare covers and what it doesn’t. Bigger gap, less coverage; less coverage, greater need to purchase Medicare Supplemental insurance; greater need for Medicare Supplemental Insurance, bigger AARP profits.
        For years, AARP made a fortune selling Medigap insurance to fill in those gaps. Then, Congress created Medicare Advantage, an alternative to the Medicare Supplemental Medigap policies sold by AARP. That cut into AARP’s Medigap business.
        If ObamaCare is allowed to undermine Medicare Advantage plans, as the Congressional Budget Office confirms it will, AARP stands to benefit enormously as seniors are forced to return in droves to purchase AARP’s Medigap Supplemental plans.

        • Vigilant


          Your take on AARP is exactly correct. They supported the Dems in passing Obamacare because they were interested in one thing: $$$. I unsubscribed from AARP when I saw the underhanded methods they were using on their website to make seniors believe that health costs would decrease for them.

          When I unsubcribed, I them a scathing e-mail and effectively told them I saw through their game. They did not answer, of course.

          I understand AARP just increased its rates by 13% as a direct result of Obamacare. While the Obama WH has threatened insurers across-the-board who claim they need to raise rates as a result of Obamacare, not a peep out the them when AARP did it. I wonder why.

    • 45caliber


      Someone has to pay for all those 26 year old kids still sitting at home with Momma! You can’t expect them to do it themselves can you? But I know what you mean. My insurance premiums are going up too, big time! Wait until all the plastic surgery, sex change operations, etc. kick in. It will really go up then!

      • Kate8

        45 – You mean everyone will be able to get the sex-change ops and such, and not just those in prison? Wow! I can’t wait to pay for that stuff.

        • 45caliber

          Sure. You can’t expect those poor people who are unsure of what sex they should be to pay for such things themselves, do you? It costs too much! Heck, I noticed a story this morning about some guy that had a sex change operation and then another to change back. He said all he had needed was some counciling and his psychologist talked him into the sex change. Now I’m sure he was out some real money; wouldn’t you be happy to help him out?

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Not no, but HELL NO!!!

  • J.M.R.

    wheres the rope and the oak tree

  • 45caliber

    If the government (state, I’ll admit) can tell you that you MUST buy car insurance, what is the difference in the government telling you that you must buy medical insurance?

    Personally, I believe if they have the right to “keep you safe” by telling you that you MUST wear seat belts (protecting you from yourself) then they have the right to tell you where to live, where to work, and whom to marry. After all, all three of those things can affect your safety and health too.

    • meteorlady

      The MAJOR difference is that you don’t have to drive. That’s it, that’s the argument.

      • JC

        Who says you don’t have to drive?
        Not everyone is living in an urban center on a bus line.

        • 45caliber

          Tell me about it! Here in Texas, most of us drive 30-50 miles one way to work every day because we can’t find a job any closer. People in the NE would mess their pants at the very idea of it.

          However, I do suppose we could all stay home and draw welfare instead of working and driving to work ….

    • Kate8

      45, That IS the plan.

      • 45caliber


  • Pat Valez

    Whoa–We have to wear seat belts and shoulder harnesses in our cars, children and infants have to be strapped in for “safety” and as someone mentioned already we have to have car insurance. We also have to have malpractice insurance, unemployment insurance *STATE and Federal, worker’s compensation insurance, liability insurance, home insurance if you have a mortgage and flood insurance if you are in a flood zone, and PMI insurance if you put down (in the old days) less than 20% of the home value when you bought your home!!!!

    I think anyone who doesn’t want insurance to care for themselves and their families (other than children who aren’t yet capable of deciding or paying to do the right thing for their health) should then be capable of paying for their own doctor’s bills, not allowed to use emergency rooms or urgent care centers and use taxpayer dollars there rather than health insurance to cover preventive care and go to a regular health care practice, and not allowed to go on Medicare when they turn 65 because they haven’t cared enough about their own bodies to pay for insurance in the past. Solves the budgeting problem for Social Security and Medicare right away.

    It is called cutting off your nose to spite your face! Someone tells you to get something we have all been begging for for decades so you decide you don’t want it because they told you that you had to have it. So you also decide I and my family can’t have it either. Yes they go together, if you don’t understand that you don’t understand how the crooked and money-making insurance industry works and shouldn’t be commenting or voting on anything to do with insurance or healthcare reform.

    Our problem is with insurance companies, not with healthcare or the government. This plan just didn’t go FAR enough; it needed to regulate, strictly, all insurance companies, as consumer advocacy groups have been begging for for years.

    Sweetie, insurance premiums have been going up for as long as I can remember. Not just since last year. It has gone up in individual, group, and family plans. Premiums and deductibles and co-pays go UP, provision of services goes DOWN, and management by draconian methods goes SKYHIGH with INSURANCE companies deciding about paying benefits or allowing care. ALL insurances, but health care is what we are moaning about now–as for the last 20 years that I can remember.

    • meteorlady

      Sorry, but I have not been begging for decades for free health care. I was perfectly happy with the health care that I worked to pay for and I’m still happy with it. I am not responsible for anyone but myself. All this common good crap is getting really really old for me. If you want to live somewhere where there is common good, then go to Europe where their tax rate averages around 53% with VAT tax and income taxes.

      A person’s choice to eat themselves sick is not my problem, it’s theirs. A person’s choice to drug or drink is not my problem, it’s theirs. I’m sorry, the I have enough on my plate without having to work harder to support a bunch of irresponsible people that can’t think beyond their next paycheck or welfare check.

    • 45caliber

      I’m happy with my health care program. Why should I want to change it? Further, why should I care enough about all those idiots who don’t want to pay for health care to pay for it for them?

    • 45caliber

      Actually, I’d be happier if the insurance was unregulated. Then I could pick what I want and need, not what the government says I should have and pay for.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        how true! Let the insurances cross statelines un-fettered as well. this will result in competition and lower prices!!

    • (WIA) Wild Indian in Action

      Pat Valez, So why don’t you move to Cuba, I hear that their Health Care system is wonderful.

  • adamsmith1949

    45caliber is right. We need to reform Welfare much more than we need to reform S/S. S/S has always been a socialist program anyway. Those who pay the most in get the least benefit and vice versa. The benefits formula is geared towards those who pay in the least amount (look it up if you don’t believe me) and now there are those who want to “means test” S/S. If you save through an IRA or 401K the brilliant liberals who run the country will use that as an excuse to deny you some or all of your S/S benefits (under the guise that you have enough to live on already & you don’t need S/S). All that will do is ut an end to the 401k programs and saving for retirement (why should you save if it’s going to cost you your S/S benefit).

    Let’s start by doing away with the reward for having illegitimate children (welfare, food stamps etc) and reforming the pensions that the government unions have obtained over the years. Many will end up making almost as much in retirment as they do now. There are trillions in unfunded liabilities out there when you combine the effect of city, county, state and federal employeees’ retirement plans. Not to mention out of control government salaries (there are now more than 13 times as many federal employees making over $150,000 per year as there was in 2005).

    • meteorlady

      Granted, welfare, medicaid, medicare and VA all need to be reformed. The fact is though that SS and Medicare take up a huge chunk of the budget because the government has been systematically sucking money on of the SS fund to pay for Medicare.

      We need to get rid of waste and fraud and then maybe look at privatizing the medicare program and at least get the cost of running it out of the equation.

      We need to get rid of the illegals that are sucking our system dry. We need to stop importing immigrants that are under-educated and aren’t capable of holding any well paying job. We need to stop subsidizing these people with housing, welfare, food stamps and free medical. The sad truth is that we can’t afford anymore people in this country for a long time. We need to stop everything and get our economy going and that means putting Americans back to work.

      • 45caliber

        Actually they have been sucking money out of SS for a LONG time before Medicare was ever thought of. The real problem is that the money was supposed to be SAVED. You know, that odd practice of putting it in a bank somewhere and not using it.

        But it was just too much money for Congress to leave alone. So they had to buy votes with it somehow. And, interestingly enough, most of that money has been removed and spent after the Dems discovered minority block voting in the mid 60′s.

        Incidently, when you talk of the government and 401K’s, one of the ideas I’m hearing more and more is the government transferring ALL retirement accounts into SS. That way they can pay for SS for all those who didn’t work any (both ends of the pay scale) and also pick up several trillion they can spend on important pork projects.

        • AnhydrousBob

          And even though you declare how bad the government has managed S/S, etc, all these years you still believe it can be “fixed”. That somehow, the government will suddenly have a change of heart, and start actually doing what it says it will do. That is a pretty insane idea.

        • adamsmith1949

          They already have a plan in the works to have people “invest” in government sponsored bonds that will yield 3% more than the inflation rate. That would give them a ton of new money that they can steal and then issue you an IOU while they spend your retirement savings. They’ve been doing it with S/S for years; what would make anyone think they would do any different with people’s 401K accounts. I don’t think any of them think they can nationalize existing 401K accounts; there would be a revolt but they can offer a “new” plan (ala Teresa Ghilarducci and Andy Stern) and convince some people it is safer than the stock market.

  • da norseman

    Both Arizona and Oklahoma have spoken. Just like the old saying: “Everybody pulls his own weight!”

    • Dan az

      da norseman
      Right on!

  • meteorlady

    Colorado rejected it because they have a high number of 20 something’s working in the resorts, etc. and they all believe that the government should take care of them so they can ski, bicycle, hick and mountain climb, all sports that require health care, but they don’t have it.

    Hope they plan on picking up the tab themselves because I sure don’t want to.

    • 45caliber


  • James

    This Bill should never have passed the House to begin with. Pelosi and her irresponsible comments trying to push the House to make a vote on this Bill reflect the lunacy of the Bills content and Pelosi herself!

    If the Hose had read this Bill before voting on it, it never would have passed the House. I still can’t believe Pelosi and her idiotic argument she made for making an immediate vote. The House…the Senate…and the President had better start to pay attention to ‘We The People’ from this day forward…because we’re sick and tired of ‘business as usual’ continuing in OUR Federal Government! ! !

    • (WIA) Wild Indian in Action

      James, I say repeal this damn ObamaCare, as for the rest of you loonies that think this is a great program, go visit an Federal Indian Hospital near you, you’ll get a quick preview of what you’ll be getting.

    • Vigilant


      “If the House had read this Bill before voting on it, it never would have passed…)”

      Somehow I have difficulty believing that. The Dems. were so hellbent on passing it before the storm (midterm elections) they knew was coming, it wouldn’t have mattered. They had already sold their souls to Old Scratch for political gain long ago.

      Everything they do, from the illegal immigration fiasco to Obamacare, is calculated to produce dependencies upon government.

  • Dave Heim

    You people still don’t get it. The only legitimate powers granted to the federal government are articulated in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. It doesn’t take a genius to see that the federal government doesn’t belong in the health care field at all. The entire bill is unconstitutional, as well as Medicare and Medicaid. If Obama could impose his agenda unhindered he would make this country a total socialist state. He made that pretty clear during his campaign, but most people thought he meant something else when he said “fundamentally change America”. The health care bill is designed to put private insurance companies out of business and allow the government to run the entire system. Once the government pays for all health care, it is just a matter of time before they will claim for themselves the power to regulate every aspect of our lives that can affect our health, virtually unlimited. It is already beginning.

    • AnhydrousBob

      I get it Dave, and I agree it is disheartening to see so many folks who think that the government will get it right if we just keep on urging them. What is the point in having a constitution if you don’t follow it? The government has way overstepped its bounds, but people only want to change things they personally agree with. So it no longer is a rule by law, but rule by men.

    • Vigilant

      WHAT? Don’t you guys believe that we are endowed by our Creator with those unalienable rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, health care, cradle-to-grave welfare, and the right to be taxed to Kingdom come to support the indolent? What’s the matter with you?

  • Dee

    The voters in Colorado were fools to reject FCHCA.
    They probably all thought they were going to get
    free health care.

    • Christin

      Yes, Dee, very foolish.

  • jackson

    The entire democratic political system is unconstitutional, twisted and corrupt. It will continue on it’s path of destruction. We have a chance to take it back now. We must oust Obama Hussein and hang him for treason to the United States. The entire Government system must be dismantled and rebuilt on a much smaller scale with the People in charge. Will that happen ? I doubt it. Tolerance has been the silent killer of America. Tolerance is the Key that The Liberal sick individuals have used to gain access to our lives. Revolution or Civil war is our only out, unless God himself changes the outcome. All I can say is Americans better get on their knee’s everday and pray or we will be in for some very troubling time’s.

  • John Bermudaz

    Hello out there. Did you not realize who got you to vote. The rich-wealthly-affluent-High Salary people. People you are not even close to reaching their income requirements. Think for one moement they are looking after your 350,000,000+ interest??? Hellow out there. Business-Special Interest groups-250+ have intention of their concerns-issues. We want less government so that we can contribute to pollution, less monitoring of toxics in products, fire you at our will, still pay less taxes and still get your money for our bonuses. Lower employee wages, outsource more. Oh yeh there is more. But how about this one. United States of Capitalistic America. Short for US Capitalistcs.

    • Raggs

      Hey john… Call 1-900-china…

    • adamsmith1949

      I can’t speak for everyone but I voted against BHO and his Socialist/Marxist philosophy. Capitalism, which you seem to hate, is what made this country the greatest country the world has ever known. BHO and the liberals would turn us into a wimpy Socialist state like those in Europe and bury us with their tax and spend philosophy.

      Why are you so jealous of those who make a lot of money? I’m not in that group but I don’t begrudge them what they have earned because I know the kind of personal sacrifices you have to make to attain that level of success. One of the founding concepts of this country was the right to keep what you rightfully earned and not have the government arbitrarily take it from you. What they have earned is theirs to do with as they please and many of them are much larger contributors to charity than the Democrats who rail against the excesses of the rich. And those same politicians are the ones who are burdening American business with so much regulation that it’s easier to operate overseas. The problem is not with capitalism; the problem is in Washington, D.C.

    • (WIA) Wild Indian in Action

      Hey Juan Bermudaz, I bet you believe that Cuba is Communistic heaven. I mention Cuba because it’s the closest Commie haven for idiots like you.

      • Vigilant

        I could not have said it better!

  • Raggs

    How much more rejection does the so-called “leader” need?

  • R L Jarvis Sr

    I have Just one question, did you all vote? If you did not vote then SHUT THE HELL UP!!!! For you see if you did not VOTE then you have no right to complain!!!!!

    • JC

      That is one very tired old argument. As corrupt as this “democracy” is I don’t blame anyone for thinking their vote will make no difference at all. The other side of the coin is…we’re not supposed to be a democracy, which is just a vehicle for corruption and socialism anyway. We’re supposed to be a Republic.
      So whether I voted or not (I did) I can complain all I want (and I do) about the morons who voted for the Kenyan.
      Guess what, my vote didn’t stop that (place expletive here) from getting elected did it?
      Sorry RL…we need an overhaul not a replay.

    • http://?? Joe H.

      I told my youngest daughter the same thing. she was talking how she might not make it home from college in time to vote. I told her if she didn’t vote, I didn’t want to hear a word of complaint from her!!! She got home in time!!

  • http://comcast Mike Curcuru

    Imagine……30 million people showing up at a police station turning themselves in because they don’t have obamacare. What would they do then?

    • JCF

      Put them in the FEMA camps they have and are preparing for the up and coming masses!

  • Sharon


    Q: What political party took SS from the Independent “Trust” fund and put it into the General Fund so congress could spend it”
    A: Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Party

    Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for SS ( FICA) withholdings?
    A: Democratic Party

    Q: What political party started taxing SS annuities?
    A: Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as President of the Senate.

    Q: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
    A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SS payments. The democratic party gave them these payments even though these immigrants never paid a dime into SS.

    Q: Which political party provided SS to those that would have had their welfare terminated?
    A: Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party

    08/2000 invested assets went past the 1 trillion mark, at $1,000,001,712,600.00.

    Q: Which political party is saying there is no more money for those that have paid into SS for decades and now it is time to collect?
    A: Obama and the Democratic Party.

    Q: Which president and political party is trying to rob the working man again????????????????????????????

    • Dan az

      That was outstanding thanks would you mind if I spread that around?

    • Carol J

      Very good. You have expressed my feelings and said very clearly what I have been trying to tell people for years. Problem is, about the only ones who will see it are those of us who already know.

  • Dave Heim

    The bottom line is this: If the Constitution is faithfully abided by, socialism in this country is impossible. Socialism, in its entirety, is unconstitutional. We did not arrive at the abyss of a total socialist state without the complicity of the Republicans. The time is far overdue that the general public must let go of party mentality and vote for candidates of principle who will serve the interests of the COUNTRY, not the party. George Washington warned us of the dangers of party in his timeless Farewell Address, every shred of which has come to pass.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.