April 27, 2006 journal, The mandatory medication health insurance bill in Massachusetts is now law, requiring every person to have health insurance is another foot in the grave for a socialist system on its last leg. This state has a mandatory auto insurance law that requires every motorist’s to carry liability insurance which is a real boost for insurance companies. Suppose one do not wish to patronize a chemical pharmaceutical idolatry medical system. In Massachusetts one will be fined a thousand dollars if found without a medical insurance policy to guarantee payment to a demonic sickness system that may result in early death. I again wish to quote a credible voice of wisdom as written in the Times Examiner by Ben Graydon "The ink was barely dry last week on my column about the health care racket when the news came out that the state of Massachusetts had passed legislation and require all persons to purchase health insurance or face fines and penalties. Under the new law, all residents of Massachusetts will be required to have their own health insurance in place by July 1, 2007, or be fined over $1,000 per year. This is a very bad law for every reason imaginable. Massachusetts businesses with more than 10 employees will now be forced to provide medical insurance or face a $295 fine per employee. Thus, now, in the Common-wealth of Massachusetts, wealth may not be all that common, health insurance is a guar-anteed employment benefit. Supporters said that allowing people to not carry health insur-ance, only later to get into government programs to pay their medical bills, amounted to a "freedom to mooch", but such a position begs the question, first, that all such people will have medical bills that they cannot pay, second, that they will or must necessarily resort to government programs to bail them out. Last I knew, there were no government programs of bailout people who cannot pay their mortgages, their credit cards, or their auto loan installments, so why should there be government programs to pay medical bills? Support-ers claim that this state will save money in the long run because poor people without any insurance go to the emergency room for health care-the costliest of choices-and that those bills often fall back on the state to cover. But should the actions of the lowest common denominators dictate policy for everyone? Apparently in the land of Ted Kennedy it does. Could it be that someone inside the government or closely aligned with government has a vested interest in keeping alive a "medical system" that is, as I pointed out last week, most bogus? Would it not be better to stop paying delinquent bills out of the public coffers than to require all potential bill getters to pay exorbitant fees in order to pay a good portion of those bills in advance? Could the wealthy medical insurance industry insider itself have a horse in this race? There is definitely an agenda at work here. Back to definition: what is "health care", and how did it ever come to be defined in terms of doctors, hospitals, chem-ical d*ru*gs and insurance? Who and what is at play in all of those entities, what drives them? Is it really the overall health and wellness of the population they claim to serve ...or is it something else-money, for example? The certain knowledge that pharmaceutical companies will attempt to buy out, then silence through legislation, any researcher who finds an all natural cure for any disease until a way can be found to replicate it in a lavat-ory using artificial means that can be patented, answers that question plainly. While the vast majority of doctors truly get into medicine because of a desire to help people, reality makes their efforts about money first before they get out of medical school. This effort in Massachusetts says nothing more about health and wellness: it speaks only about money and somebody’s bottom-line-and you can bet their first concern is not the health of the average Massachusetts taxpayer." continued. Healthcare is a commercial enterprise!