Largest Act Of Civil Disobedience In History Of US?

Updates

April 1, 2014: this is just the tip of the iceberg. Over time we will see more and more stories with this as a theme. It may get worse in 2015 when folks realize they were fools to sign up for expensive ObamaCare policies with/without subsidies and high deductibles just to avoid the $95 penalty which the IRS probably won't go after anyway. CBS SF Bay Area is reporting:

Despite an extended deadline to sign up for health care under Covered California, some in the Bay Area are choosing to pay a penalty instead of insurance because of the cost.

ObamaCare is the law of the land. Like any law, it has penalties. Anyone "accepting the penalty" instead of signing up is demonstrating "civil disobedience" at some level. This is no different than breaking any other law. Over time, if the "law" is not enforced, more and more folks will simply see ObamaCare as an option, but not a "law."
 

Original Post

I could be wrong on this; I don't know US history all that well.

I opined some time ago that, in terms of numbers, the greatest (largest? biggest?) act of civil disobedience with regard to a federal law in the United States will be "mass" rejection of the ObamaCare individual mandate. [Speeding / breaking the law on the federal interstate system doesn't qualify because states set the speed limit. I think.] [Draft dodging in the 1960's got more ink but it only affected a small proportion of the male population. Drinking 16-oz drinks was only outlawed in NYC.][The revolutionary war occurred before we were a nation.][The US civil war: maybe that would be the exception.]

I don't know about you, but it seems folks think ObamaCare is "optional."

It's not.

ObamaCare is the law of the land. And yet if one just relied on the mainstream media, one would get the impression that ObamaCare is optional.

Now we're starting to get the poll numbers suggesting what I've been saying for a long time: not signing up for ObamaCare will be the biggest act of social disobedience in the history of the United States.

First, this poll: young adults are rejecting ObamaCare. Then, wasn't there an "opt-out" story, the other day?

Google.  college activists opt-out ObamaCare

Ah, here it is.

Yahoo!News is reporting: "Anti-Obamacare group entices students with models and a boozy party."

And then, this, another poll: 40% (that is, 4 out of 10) Americans would rather pay a fine (which they think is $95) than enroll in ObamaCare. 

Right, wrong, or indifferent: college activists enjoy the experience of actually doing something. Think "community organizer."

Right now there really isn't anything like the draft or the Selective Service in the '60s to demonstrate against. No draft card burning, for example. Students don't really have much to demonstrate against these days. Certainly they aren't going to demonstrate FOR Obamacare: not only would it not be cool to demonstrate FOR ObamaCare, but it would not be calling for an act of disobedience, which is generally what college activists are known for.

I don't think the "opt-out" movement will gain much VISIBLE traction, but the tea leaves certainly suggest there will be mass rejection of actually signing up for ObamaCare. It's a heck of a lot easier to PASSIVELY NOT sign up (and possibly face a $95 fine) than it is to ACTIVELY SIGN up.

I could be wrong. I don't have a dog in that fight, but this act of social disobedience is an interesting phenomenon to watch.

When only 44 people have signed up for ObamaCare in Oregon, it certainly suggests we are seeing a large-scale act of civil disobedience, the likes of which we have never seen in this country. The media voted Oregon to be the state most likely to overwhelmingly accept ObamaCare. The state spent $300 million, apparently, to sell ObamaCare and 44 folks signed up. Assuming many of these would have been married couples, we might be talking 30 family "units" actually signed up. I'm not good at math: is that $10 million per family unit?

In another life, in another time, both Mr Mandel and Mr Obama would have been part of this civil disobedience.

**********************************

Speaking of which,  the following quote is making the internet rounds. I do not know whether it was actually said by Don Imus:

Nelson Mandela is a leader Barack Obama should try  to emulate.

He could start by spending 27 years in  prison. 

                                                                                -- Don  Imus

The point is not that I agree or disagree or if I am even making a partisan / political comment. The interesting point is that a libertarian like Don Imus, who might have been among the elite who supported Obama at one time, [may have] said this.

**********************************

The government says they are easily on track to meet the enrollment numbers they need.  Read the linked article (NBC) and place your bets. [The government spokesman, focusing on "x" million is focusing on the wrong metric; see below.]

Don sent me the link. This was my response:

Yes, they need 7 million. The "real" drop dead date is March 31, 2013, but if one wants coverage to begin January 1, 2014, your date of December 23 is correct.

They are counting on procrastinators and as we get closer to March 31, 2013, the rate of enrollees will increase. That's their argument.

I'm with you. If they don't need health insurance by December 23, they don't need it. And worse, things may start to backfire, and the rolling snowball could get bigger: folks who signed up (they have only put the policy "in their cart") have not actually bought the policy. A lot of folks who signed up and are sent their first premium due, may not pay it, just quietly drop out. [The "rolling snowball" referred to the "opt-out" movement."]

However one writes about it, the fact is the insurers have to be very, very nervous. They needed several million enrollees by the end of December to start paying premiums to have the cash flow to pay claims. They can see the writing on the wall. The software is not yet written. They may see no cash flowing from these new policies by the end of January, and when the cash starts to flow, it could be from enrollees numbering far less than the 7 million they claimed they needed.

But this is even worse: the government spokesman is focused on the wrong metric. They needed a "good mix" in the 7 million, preferably MORE young adults and non-pregnant young male adults to subsidize the older, sicker patients, with pre-existing conditions. Pregnant women, seniors, and folks with AIDS and cancer (the most likely to have signed up) will disproportionately make up the "x" million that actually enroll, pay the first premium, and then keep paying the premiums. And submit the claims.

Remember: until the government bails the insurance companies out, which the federal government will do (the genie can't be put back into the bottle), the insurance companies are on the hook for unlimited liability.