Re: Obamacare

[Big Crotch on a Small Fish]

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Jan 9, 4:16 pm, Flint <age...@section31.org> wrote:
>> On 1/9/2011 4:37 AM, KDT wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 9, 3:16 am, Flint<age...@section31.org> wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/2011 8:25 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>>>> May not much matter if it can't get past the Constitutional
>>>>> legalities it faces.
>>
>>>> Clearly it IS _unconstitutional_. What concerns me is just how the
>>>> SCOTUS will rule on the case as its inevitably headed there.
>>>> Remember the assinine ruling it made just a few short years ago on
>>>> Emminent Domain? That sthould have been a slam-dunk too, but they
>>>> broadened that too as being Constitutional.
>>
>>>> This ain't no slam dunk, either...
>>
>>>> --
>>>> -MFB
>>
>>> So how is mandatory health care payments any less "constitutioonal"
>>> than social security or Medicare?
>>
>>> If the government shouldn't force me to have to pay insurance, then
>>> does that mean I shouldn't be forced to have car insurance?
>>
>> You have a choice of not owning/operating a vehicle, hence the need
>> to buy auto insurance. One has >no< choice to not purchase health
>> care insurance under Obamacare.
>
> It used to be that you could forego the buying of auto insurance if
> you could show financial responsibility... but I think most every
> state has made it mandatory by now.

Because of idiots like Snit.

>> This is mandating individuals to purchase a product from a GSM
>> (government sponsored monopoly) that may not be required, which is
>> unconstitutional. A >lack< of participation/activity in a government
>> mandated health insurance program is a broad distortion of the power
>> invested in the government under the commerce clause.
>
> I'd tend to agree... doesn't mean it isn't going to happen, though;)

Mostly because idiots like Snit are too stupid to know the history of their
own country.

--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch