Active Users:483 Time:15/11/2024 06:42:54 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
I really don't understand why people defend the forced purchase aspect Isaac Send a noteboard - 13/12/2010 08:22:03 PM
It seems weird anyone would accuse him of judicial activism for pointing out that this would give unlimited power. There's no legal difference between the gov't forcing you to buy health insurance and forcing you to buy a shotgun, and I'd think the analogy would hold, if one is trying to make healthcare a right, like gun ownership is, then the parallel would be demanding we all subsidize people's handgun and rifle purchases and force everyone to buy guns, or similarly as free speech is a right, making people buy newspapers. I can't think of any legal reason why forced insurance purchase would be okay but those aren't, and heck, guns and newspapers are a lot cheaper then health care insurance.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Reply to message
Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law - trzaska2000 - 13/12/2010 05:21:37 PM 958 Views
*yawn* Macharius - 13/12/2010 05:46:58 PM 622 Views
Another step closer to SCOTUS.....and that will be 5-4 decision in favor of repeal! *NM* trzaska2000 - 13/12/2010 05:55:54 PM 241 Views
It may very well end up that way. *NM* Tom - 13/12/2010 07:09:36 PM 276 Views
So riddle me this... Dannymac - 13/12/2010 07:23:14 PM 639 Views
He's not "making his own law", just denying the government the ability to..... trzaska2000 - 13/12/2010 08:06:48 PM 571 Views
That wasn't my question. Dannymac - 13/12/2010 09:10:39 PM 678 Views
I get what you're saying... Jeordam - 13/12/2010 11:30:13 PM 666 Views
Re: I get what you're saying... rempires - 14/12/2010 01:34:13 AM 690 Views
*heh* Jeordam - 14/12/2010 04:01:35 PM 605 Views
That's not all they're saying, though. Dannymac - 14/12/2010 01:42:27 AM 565 Views
At least in my mind.... Jeordam - 14/12/2010 04:10:38 PM 570 Views
Agreed; when do I get a refund for my share of the B2 bomber? Joel - 14/12/2010 04:40:25 AM 607 Views
But see...you are using the B2 bomber. Jeordam - 14/12/2010 03:59:27 PM 563 Views
Much as you are using the healthcare system. Joel - 14/12/2010 05:55:40 PM 645 Views
*nods* Jeordam - 14/12/2010 06:09:42 PM 635 Views
Again we're back to whether individuals deign to tolerate majority rule. Joel - 14/12/2010 07:27:22 PM 742 Views
Re: So riddle me this... everynametaken - 14/12/2010 02:51:35 AM 590 Views
It's judicial review Ava - 14/12/2010 02:47:43 PM 624 Views
Re: It's judicial review Macharius - 14/12/2010 03:27:28 PM 605 Views
Re: It's judicial review Ava - 15/12/2010 05:35:17 PM 693 Views
I really don't understand why people defend the forced purchase aspect Isaac - 13/12/2010 08:22:03 PM 637 Views
This analogy no doubt has its flaws too, but I was just reminded of it... Legolas - 13/12/2010 08:52:31 PM 648 Views
That's precisely the logic, yes. Joel - 14/12/2010 04:31:44 AM 624 Views
Forced insurance purchase would indeed be terribly unconstitutional. Joel - 14/12/2010 04:26:27 AM 572 Views
This judge... Dreaded Anomaly - 13/12/2010 11:26:09 PM 653 Views
there is a major problem with this.. rempires - 14/12/2010 01:29:41 AM 616 Views
Bad analogy..... trzaska2000 - 14/12/2010 02:57:28 AM 574 Views
Re: Bad analogy..... rempires - 14/12/2010 03:23:31 AM 597 Views
Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance..... trzaska2000 - 14/12/2010 03:42:26 AM 564 Views
Re: Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance..... rempires - 14/12/2010 04:53:39 AM 587 Views
Just to note.... Jeordam - 14/12/2010 06:11:57 PM 582 Views
Re: Just to note.... Macharius - 14/12/2010 06:44:54 PM 571 Views
Re: Just to note.... rempires - 14/12/2010 08:32:46 PM 569 Views
yeah, but the courts exist to strike down dumb legislation, which is what this ruling does moondog - 14/12/2010 03:17:04 AM 526 Views
No, the courts exist to interpret legislation, and the SCOTUS to strike down illegal legislation. Joel - 14/12/2010 04:36:59 AM 555 Views
I'll excerpt some relevant passages, but the full article is in the link. Macharius - 14/12/2010 02:10:48 PM 711 Views
In other words there may be a painful silver lining. Joel - 14/12/2010 07:46:38 PM 531 Views
He partially owns the lobby aiming to make it unconstitutional, which the plaintiff was a client of *NM* Jragghen - 14/12/2010 05:35:21 PM 306 Views
Update: the judge's decision is basically nonsense. Dreaded Anomaly - 14/12/2010 08:04:27 PM 817 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes