Both when you use it directly (which I have yet to do with a stealth bomber, unless Civ II counts) and when you indirectly benefit from a larger and healthier (thus cheaper and more productive) labor and technical pool.
Larger and healthier labor/technical pool? Last time I checked, those people were the ones who were more capable to buy their own health insurance...not be forced to buy it. I understand and acknowledge that there are a great many exceptions (those that work for small business for instance).
As for taxes: You tax people with money; taxing people with no money tends to build deficits (not that it stopped Reagan, of course). If I can pay taxes for an Iraq invasion illegal under international law simply because a majority of our elected representatives voted for it, you can pay taxes for a perfectly constitutional healthcare bill a majority of those same representatives voted for as well.
How does taxing people with no money build deficits? Everyone has money....even if its just a little. As we already stated, not everyone is taxed. But you actually made my day with this paragraph. I had to smile.
"Iraq invasion illegal under international law"...that makes me laugh for several reasons. The first of all was that Saddam violated the treaty from the 1st Iraq war by even firing on an airplane. Secondly, international law means exactly nothing. It has absolutely no juris-my-diction over the US. *laughs* (I just watched the original Matrix yesterday)
And the Health Care Legislation is not Constitutional (hence the court debate and its eventual overturning). The Government has no such authority to *force* anyone to buy something that they don't want to buy. Period and full stop.
Meh. A lot of folks would like to pick and choose what taxes they do and don't pay and each thing on which those taxes are spent. Of course, if every government expenditure without unanimous popular approval were unconstitutional I'd have gone to the SCOTUS when I was "forced" to subsidize SUVs for people who didn't need my help buying expensive, global warming, foreign oil dependent and unsafe road hogs. As the Republicans will remind us all when they have another legislative majority, if you don't like the law you change it, not get a judge to illegally annul it.
This paragraph is so much blah blah blah. I didn't like the US car industry bail out either, but I deal with it, because it didn't *force* me to buy an American made car. It forced me to support an industry which was loosing money hand over fist (for whatever reason).
~Jeordam
ex-Admin at wotmania (all things wot & art galleries)
Saving the Princess, Humanity, or the World-Entire since 1985
Saving the Princess, Humanity, or the World-Entire since 1985
Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law - 
- 13/12/2010 05:21:37 PM
1035 Views
- 13/12/2010 05:21:37 PM
1035 Views
*yawn*
- 13/12/2010 05:46:58 PM
697 Views
Another step closer to SCOTUS.....and that will be 5-4 decision in favor of repeal! 
*NM*
- 13/12/2010 05:55:54 PM
269 Views
*NM*
- 13/12/2010 05:55:54 PM
269 Views
So riddle me this...
- 13/12/2010 07:23:14 PM
685 Views
He's not "making his own law", just denying the government the ability to.....
- 13/12/2010 08:06:48 PM
652 Views
That wasn't my question.
- 13/12/2010 09:10:39 PM
754 Views
I get what you're saying...
- 13/12/2010 11:30:13 PM
746 Views
Agreed; when do I get a refund for my share of the B2 bomber?
- 14/12/2010 04:40:25 AM
685 Views
But see...you are using the B2 bomber.
- 14/12/2010 03:59:27 PM
617 Views
Much as you are using the healthcare system.
- 14/12/2010 05:55:40 PM
737 Views
*nods*
- 14/12/2010 06:09:42 PM
708 Views
Again we're back to whether individuals deign to tolerate majority rule.
- 14/12/2010 07:27:22 PM
827 Views
It's judicial review
- 14/12/2010 02:47:43 PM
703 Views
I really don't understand why people defend the forced purchase aspect
- 13/12/2010 08:22:03 PM
721 Views
This analogy no doubt has its flaws too, but I was just reminded of it...
- 13/12/2010 08:52:31 PM
735 Views
Forced insurance purchase would indeed be terribly unconstitutional.
- 14/12/2010 04:26:27 AM
652 Views
there is a major problem with this..
- 14/12/2010 01:29:41 AM
693 Views
Bad analogy.....
- 14/12/2010 02:57:28 AM
653 Views
Re: Bad analogy.....
- 14/12/2010 03:23:31 AM
665 Views
Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance.....
- 14/12/2010 03:42:26 AM
649 Views
Re: Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance.....
- 14/12/2010 04:53:39 AM
663 Views
Just to note....
- 14/12/2010 06:11:57 PM
666 Views
yeah, but the courts exist to strike down dumb legislation, which is what this ruling does
- 14/12/2010 03:17:04 AM
610 Views
No, the courts exist to interpret legislation, and the SCOTUS to strike down illegal legislation.
- 14/12/2010 04:36:59 AM
629 Views
I'll excerpt some relevant passages, but the full article is in the link.
- 14/12/2010 02:10:48 PM
799 Views
He partially owns the lobby aiming to make it unconstitutional, which the plaintiff was a client of *NM*
- 14/12/2010 05:35:21 PM
335 Views