SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate

U.S. | Health, Housing, and Public Services

It's President Obama's "Obamacare" So He Can Change It If He Wants To?
by Cris Ericson
Friday Nov 15th, 2013 3:05 PM
Is President Barack Obama just a really hard working guy trying really, really hard to back-track and fix the passages and errors in the (ACA) Affordable Care Act with unilateral changes, and is that what people want, for him to just fix it - or are we tired now, and ready to throw the book at him?

In 4th grade the teacher made us memorize this phrase, I don't know who wrote it:

GOOD, BETTER, BEST
NEVER LET IT REST
UNTIL THE GOOD IS BETTER
AND THE BETTER
BEST!

Should we be applauding President Barack Obama for continually trying to improve his "Obamacare" Affordable Health Care Act (ACA)
just like a traditionally trained and conservative
oil painter
will work for at least six months
on one painting,
putting layer after layer
of colors
until the top layer
is just right?

Is President Barack Obama
an artist,
or a
con-artist?

Does President Barack Obama have the right to
"unilaterally" change a law?

What does "unilateral" mean?

A unilateral contract occurs when it is so one-sided
that the other party did not have a fair input, and it
is forced upon them without their willing consent
or the ability for their side to make changes,
making it a unilateral contract under duress.

Is "Obamacare", the Affordable Care Act, a "contract"?

A contact is an agreement between competent parties, upon
a legal consideration, to do
or to abstain from doing some act.
When the U.S. Congress passes a Bill and the President
of the United States of America signs it into law,
there is an "implied contract" with the Citizens of the
United States that they will follow that law
and that law will be upheld in Court.

The Affordable Care Act requires citizens to comply
with it, or pay a penalty, which the U.S. Supreme Court
calls a "tax."

The Affordable Care Act does not comply with U.C.C.
Uniform Commercial Codes, and it is therefore voidable
and rescindable because it is a unilateral contract,
with one sided changes, forcing the public to comply
under duress.

This issue was raised in the news Nov. 14, 2013.
Brief Excerpts From TheBlaze Inc:
" President Barack Obama has unilaterally altered the law
to delay the insurance mandate for businesses
and make changes for lawmakers
so they aren’t subject to the same health care regulations
as the rest of the American people....
On Thursday, Obama announced that he would be
making yet another change to the law...
Does the president of the United States have the legal
or constitutional authority
to unilaterally change laws
passed by Congress?"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/11/14/obamacare-fix-cancelled-insurance/3543021/
Interview of Christine Eibner by David Mastio
6:44 p.m. EST November 14, 2013
"In retrospect,
communicating more clearly
that there would be a small segment of the population
that would be
unable
to retain their coverage,
and articulating why these plans would
not
be available,
might have helped.
Maybe there would have been a way to make the transition
easier by phasing the individual market reforms in more gradually
.... People who were familiar with the law and
health insurance markets understood
that not everyone would be able to retain their plan....
President Obama and other backers of the
Affordable Care Act said clearly that those who
"liked their plan could keep their plan,"

The above statement published by
USA Today makes it clear
that some people knew that
President Obama was NOT
telling the truth, and that there was a general
conspiracy of those who knew that people
would lose their insurance plans
which proves that the Affordable Care Act
(ACA) did not comply with the (U.C.C.)
Uniform Commercial Code
requiring that all parties to an agreement
understand the agreement, have a
"meeting of the minds" and that it is
fair and not one-sided.

It is "implied" in the law that when we elect
representatives to the U.S. Congress
that we will obey the laws they pass.
That is the "contract" between we, the people,
and our elected government.

Well, where can we find some answers?

Did any of our elected officials,
including President Barack Obama,
commit fraud by making a false statement
that materially affected citizens' health care
insurance?

How many U.S. Senators and U.S. Congressmen
and U.S. Congresswomen received a paycheck
of about $175,000.00 per year and cashed it and
then failed to perform the work they were paid for
by NOT READING THE 2,000 PAGE
"Obamacare" (ACA) Affordable Care Act?

If YOU were paid $175,000.00 a year to do a job,
and you did NOT do your work,
would that be "fraud" in a fiduciary capacity?

What is a fiduciary capacity?

A "fiduciary" is a term for someone who has a duty
to act for the benefit of someone else.
Every time we elect someone to office, and hand over
our taxpayer dollars to them to do a job,
they are acting in a fiduciary capactiy.

Let's first take a look at Title 18 United States Code Section 1001,
Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements

http://uscode.house.gov/
TITLE 18 United States Code
PART I
CHAPTER 47
Section § 1001
18 USC 1001: Statements or entries generally
Text contains those laws in effect on November 13, 2013
From Title 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I-CRIMES
CHAPTER 47-FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
§1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section,
whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction
of the executive,
legislative,
or judicial branch of the Government of the United States,
knowingly and willfully-
(1) falsifies,
conceals,
or covers up
by any trick,
scheme,
or device
a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false,
fictitious,
or fraudulent statement
or representation;
or
(3) makes or uses any false writing
or document
knowing the same to contain
any materially false,
fictitious,
or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title,
imprisoned not more than 5 years
or, if the offense involves internationa
l or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331),
imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117,
or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed
under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a
party to a judicial proceeding,
or that party's counsel,
for statements, representations, writings
or documents submitted by such party
or counsel to a judge
or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within
the jurisdiction
of the legislative branch,
subsection
(a) shall apply only to-
(1) administrative matters,
including a claim for payment,
a matter related to the procurement of property
or services,
personnel or employment practices,
or support services,
or a document required by law,
rule,
or regulation to be submitted to the Congress
or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review,
conducted pursuant to the authority
of any committee
, subcommittee,
commission or office of the Congress,
consistent with applicable rules
of the House or Senate.

Short Title of 1998 Amendments
Pub. L. 105–318, §1, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 3007, provided that:
“This Act [amending sections 982, 1028, and 2516 of this title and section 105 of the
Ethics in Government Act
of 1978, Pub. L. 95–521, set out in the Appendix to
Title 5, Government Organization
and Employees, and enacting provisions set out
as notes under section 1028 of this title and section 994
of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure]
may be cited as the ‘Identity Theft and
Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998’.”

Short Title of 1996 Amendment
Pub. L. 104–292, §1, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3459, provided that:
“This Act [amending this section, sections 1515 and 6005 of this title,
and section 1365 of Title 28,
Judiciary and Judicial Procedure] may be cited as the
‘False Statements Accountability Act of 1996’.”

Short Title of 1994 Amendment
Pub. L. 103–322, title XXIX, §290001(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2097,
as amended by Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §604(b)(34), Oct. 11, 1996,
110 Stat. 3508, provided that:
“This section [amending section 1030 of this title]
may be cited as the
‘Computer Abuse
Amendments Act of 1994’.”

Short Title of 1990 Amendment
Pub. L. 101–647, title XXV, §2500, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4859,
provided that: “This title [see Tables for classification] may be cited
as the
‘Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud
Prosecution and
Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990’.”

Short Title of 1989 Amendment
Pub. L. 101–123, §1, Oct. 23, 1989, 103 Stat. 759, provided that:
“This Act [amending section 1031 of this title,
repealing section 293 of this title, enacting provisions
set out as notes under sections 293 and 1031
of this title, and repealing provisions
set out as a note under section 293 of this title]
may be cited as the
‘Major Fraud Act Amendments of 1989’.”

-->Contract Disputes, Title 41 USCS Public Contracts
Chapter 9 Section 601(7) the term
"misrepresentation of fact" means a false statement of
substantive fact, or any conduct which leads to a belief
of a substantive fact material to proper understanding
of the matter in hand, made with intent to deceive or mislead.

-->Question: Is the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")
a "public contract" because if you don't buy health
insurance you have to pay a fine, and the U.S. Supreme
Court determined that fine is equivalent to a "tax";
so therefore, the law is constructed to generate a "tax"
and so is it a "contract"?