Active Users:669 Time:30/10/2026 07:15:13 AM
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 1229 Views
*yawn* Macharius - 13/12/2010 05:46:58 PM 885 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 350 Views
It may very well end up that way. *NM* Tom - 13/12/2010 07:09:36 PM 388 Views
So riddle me this... Dannymac - 13/12/2010 07:23:14 PM 877 Views
He's not "making his own law", just denying the government the ability to..... trzaska2000 - 13/12/2010 08:06:48 PM 844 Views
That wasn't my question. Dannymac - 13/12/2010 09:10:39 PM 945 Views
I get what you're saying... Jeordam - 13/12/2010 11:30:13 PM 939 Views
Re: I get what you're saying... rempires - 14/12/2010 01:34:13 AM 979 Views
*heh* Jeordam - 14/12/2010 04:01:35 PM 873 Views
That's not all they're saying, though. Dannymac - 14/12/2010 01:42:27 AM 845 Views
At least in my mind.... Jeordam - 14/12/2010 04:10:38 PM 847 Views
Agreed; when do I get a refund for my share of the B2 bomber? Joel - 14/12/2010 04:40:25 AM 874 Views
But see...you are using the B2 bomber. Jeordam - 14/12/2010 03:59:27 PM 799 Views
Much as you are using the healthcare system. Joel - 14/12/2010 05:55:40 PM 921 Views
*nods* Jeordam - 14/12/2010 06:09:42 PM 916 Views
Again we're back to whether individuals deign to tolerate majority rule. Joel - 14/12/2010 07:27:22 PM 1024 Views
Re: So riddle me this... everynametaken - 14/12/2010 02:51:35 AM 847 Views
It's judicial review Ava - 14/12/2010 02:47:43 PM 900 Views
Re: It's judicial review Macharius - 14/12/2010 03:27:28 PM 882 Views
Re: It's judicial review Ava - 15/12/2010 05:35:17 PM 1008 Views
I really don't understand why people defend the forced purchase aspect Isaac - 13/12/2010 08:22:03 PM 922 Views
This analogy no doubt has its flaws too, but I was just reminded of it... Legolas - 13/12/2010 08:52:31 PM 941 Views
That's precisely the logic, yes. Joel - 14/12/2010 04:31:44 AM 892 Views
Forced insurance purchase would indeed be terribly unconstitutional. Joel - 14/12/2010 04:26:27 AM 836 Views
This judge... Dreaded Anomaly - 13/12/2010 11:26:09 PM 932 Views
there is a major problem with this.. rempires - 14/12/2010 01:29:41 AM 883 Views
Bad analogy..... trzaska2000 - 14/12/2010 02:57:28 AM 852 Views
Re: Bad analogy..... rempires - 14/12/2010 03:23:31 AM 860 Views
Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance..... trzaska2000 - 14/12/2010 03:42:26 AM 843 Views
Re: Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance..... rempires - 14/12/2010 04:53:39 AM 866 Views
Just to note.... Jeordam - 14/12/2010 06:11:57 PM 841 Views
Re: Just to note.... Macharius - 14/12/2010 06:44:54 PM 849 Views
Re: Just to note.... rempires - 14/12/2010 08:32:46 PM 839 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 812 Views
No, the courts exist to interpret legislation, and the SCOTUS to strike down illegal legislation. Joel - 14/12/2010 04:36:59 AM 823 Views
I'll excerpt some relevant passages, but the full article is in the link. Macharius - 14/12/2010 02:10:48 PM 1014 Views
In other words there may be a painful silver lining. Joel - 14/12/2010 07:46:38 PM 768 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 422 Views
Update: the judge's decision is basically nonsense. Dreaded Anomaly - 14/12/2010 08:04:27 PM 1104 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes