ObamaCare imposes a new requirement on all U.S. citizens and legal residents to obtain government-approved health insurance. For most Americans this will mean they are required to either pay a portion of their income to private health insurance companies, or pay a fine to the federal government for not doing so.
President Obama argued against the individual mandate during his campaign for the presidency, but then, once elected, argued that it was central to his push for “universal coverage.”
Beginning in 2014, the federal government will impose new fines on citizens and legal residents who do not obtain government-approved insurance. Those without insurance will pay a tax that is the greater of a flat fee, or a percentage of family income. The flat fee will be phased in over several years. In 2014, the penalty will be $95 per adult in an uninsured household, increasing to $325 in 2015, then to $695 in 2016, after which it will increase annually in line with consumer inflation. For uninsured children, the fine will be half the amount applied to uninsured adults. If greater, households pay 1 percent of their income in 2014, 2 percent in 2015, and 2.5 percent in 2016 and thereafter in lieu of the flat per person fee.
Limited “Hardship” Exemption
The hardship exemption to the mandate is extremely limited. To be exempt from the insurance requirement, someone would have to be facing insurance premiums at least equal to 8 percent of his or her income.
Federal Definition of Insurance
The federal government will be issuing rules on what qualifies as insurance for purposes of satisfying the individual mandate. See the primer section “Federal Regulation of Health Insurance.”
The individual mandate falls more heavily on low and moderate income families. They will be required to enroll in health insurance plans that generally are more expensive than many of today’s offerings, and if they don’t do so pay a fine or a tax that they do not pay today. These added costs will mean these households have less discretion to spend their limited resources on other priorities, such as perhaps education or housing
Now, it’s a tax.
Who enforces the tax laws?
This is more slavery. You have to be practically homeless not to fall under the individual mandate but then you got a lot of problems anyway.
There’s only one solution and that’s to say no.
“But you say no to them and they’ll come at you with guns!”
So shoot them. Shoot them dead.
The way to succeed in that venture is through proper equipment and training. You need a rifle, able to make lethal hits out to at least 500 meters and be able to shoot to your weapon’s potential. Here are a few suggestions currently out on the gun market:
Mosin-Nagant rifle, 7.62x54R, I’ve covered this affordable, powerful and accurate bolt action rifle for awhile now. Yes the rifle’s a pike but that’s a good thing as barrel length means higher velocity, which means harder hitting, flatter trajectory and with your irons you have more sight radius-meaning YOU will be more accurate.
Your standard M91/30 you can pick up for about a hundred bucks, maybe 120. Consider these your basic arm for your militia group… you ARE learning how to shoot out to 500 meters and do it as a rifle team, right? This is the rifle to train and then inventory when you upgrade for new recruits.
Next step up… the AK:
This is a Saiga in .223. You can fit a conversion unit where the magazine is at to be able to feed AR/M16 magazines. This will go for about 700 dollars and yes they are accurate and reliable. These will allow you to use enemy ammunition and magazines while fielding a mechanically superior arm. Yes you can mount optics on these and the new replacement dust covers allow a optic atop the rifle as well. Use these rifles closer in, with your assault units while your full power cartridge rifle shooters engage at longer range from another direction.
You can go cheaper with a Century or AMD 65 AK-47, which shoots the 7.62×39 cartridge-just have a lot more ammo cached for these weapons.
This is the cost effective answer in .308…