--
thanks for the friendship ... we usually have similar opinions
I am just pointing out
that there is NO way out of the HC mandate. NONE!
---
a fine (penalty-tax)
Whereas, there is with
car insurance - don't drive.
---
some state allow a post bond instead
there have always been good Americans who refused to be shackled with
insurance
The better comparison would be funeral insurance (which is becoming
VERY
popular), as we most certainly will all die. Ergo, you MUST buy it,
and we
mean NOW!!! Or pay the PENALTY! NOW!
---
Tennessee has no law preventing anyone from burying their family
members on private property.
On Mar 30, 10:15 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My friend, I think we are on the same side here. I am just pointing out
> that there is NO way out of the HC mandate. NONE! Whereas, there is with
> car insurance - don't drive.
>
> The better comparison would be funeral insurance (which is becoming VERY
> popular), as we most certainly will all die. Ergo, you MUST buy it, and we
> mean NOW!!! Or pay the PENALTY! NOW!
>
> Dig?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 29, 2012 11:48:18 AM UTC-4, plainolamerican wrote:
> > No its not. If I don't wanna drive, I don't have to buy car
> > insurance.
>
> > Please show me the same escape in OBambicare.
> > ---
> > I concede it's not the same ... in that you will forced to buy health
> > insurance.
>
> > the only point I was making is that the state DOES require you to buy
> > auto insurance ... so they can require you buy health insurance ... if
> > this OC is ok's by the USSC
>
> > On Mar 29, 10:28 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > No its not. If I don't wanna drive, I don't have to buy car insurance.
>
> > > Please show me the same escape in OBambicare.
>
> > > On Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:51:03 AM UTC-4, plainolamerican wrote:
> > > > but it does force you to buy auto insurance if you do drive.
> > > > tom's point is valid
> > > > Some states will allow you to post a bond instead of buying insurance
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 7:45 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > The STATE government cannot force you to buy car insurance if you do
> > not
> > > > > intend to drive a car.
>
> > > > > The comparison falls down right there.
>
> > > > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:34:05 PM UTC-4, Tommy News wrote:
> > > > > > If the government can force you to buy car insurance, and it does,
> > why
> > > > > > can't it ask you to buy health insurance?
>
> > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:56 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > "If the
> > > > > > > government can force you to buy health insurance, why can't it
> > force
> > > > > > > you to buy broccoli?"
>
> > > > > > > This is the crux of the matter.....
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-the-supreme-court-debates...
>
> > > > > > > > What's going to happen during 3 days of arguments on health
> > care?
> > > > > > > > By Jeffrey Rosen, PROFESSOR OF LAW Published: March 23
>
> > > > > > > > Starting Monday, the Supreme Court has scheduled six hours of
> > oral
> > > > > > > > arguments over three days to consider the constitutionality of
> > > > > > > > health-care reform, the most time given to a case in more than
> > 45
> > > > > > > > years. We're certainly in for a historic event — but it might
> > be
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > entertaining one, too.
>
> > > > > > > > Oral arguments are always theatrical: The lawyers stand only a
> > few
> > > > > > > > feet from the justices, who loom above them on a curved bench,
> > and
> > > > > > > > they are barraged with so many questions that they often have
> > > > trouble
> > > > > > > > completing a sentence. The hearings are also an opportunity
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > traditionally secretive Supreme Court to cut loose. In fact,
> > the
> > > > > > > > Roberts court is known as a "hot bench" — not a reference to
> > the
> > > > > > > > unusual sexiness of the justices but to the fact that eight of
> > the
> > > > > > > > nine are unusually chatty during oral arguments (Justice
> > Clarence
> > > > > > > > Thomas hasn't uttered a word since 2006). Even though the
> > justices
> > > > > > > > rarely change their minds during oral arguments if they
> > already
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > strong views about a case, the hearings can clarify their
> > > > thinking,
> > > > > > > > offer some lively give and take, and occasionally lead to
> > humor.
>
> > > > > > > > So, will the oral arguments over health-care reform produce
> > some
> > > > > > > > laughs? Here's a preview of what might transpire when the
> > commerce
> > > > > > > > clause becomes a punch line.
>
> > > > > > > > Justice Antonin Scalia
>
> > > > > > > > According to a 2010 study in the Communication Law Review,
> > Scalia
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > the funniest member of the court, based on how many laughs the
> > > > various
> > > > > > > > justices have elicited in the courtroom. But his wit sometimes
> > has
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > sharp edge. In 1988, when a lawyer fumbled for the answer to a
> > > > > > > > question, Scalia exclaimed, "When you find it, say 'Bingo!' "
>
> > > > > > > > Expect some zingers from Scalia in the health-care argument,
> > > > perhaps
> > > > > > > > focused on the not-so-side-splitting subject of whether
> > Congress
> > > > has
> > > > > > > > the authority to require people to buy health insurance as
> > part of
> > > > its
> > > > > > > > power to regulate interstate commerce. Imagine, for example,
> > the
> > > > > > > > following exchange:
>
> > > > > > > > Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: "In 2005, Justice Scalia,
> > you
> > > > held
> > > > > > > > that Congress has the power to prevent California from
> > authorizing
> > > > > > > > people to grow marijuana for their own use. Surely, the
> > decision
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > to buy health insurance has a far greater impact on the
> > economy."
>
> > > > > > > > Justice Scalia: "Depends on what part of California you're
> > from."
>
> > > > > > > > Justice Stephen Breyer
>
> > > > > > > > Breyer's jokes often follow a long question identifying the
> > > > hardest
> > > > > > > > issue in the case. He cares about legislative history and may
> > > > focus on
> > > > > > > > a striking irony in the health-care law briefs: During the
> > debate
> > > > over
> > > > > > > > the legislation in Congress, Republicans insisted that the
> > mandate
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > buy health insurance should be considered a tax, and Democrats
> > > > > > > > countered that it shouldn't. The moment President Obama signed
> > the
> > > > > > > > bill, though, both sides rushed to court to claim the
> > opposite:
> > > > > > > > Democrats now insist that the mandate is absolutely a tax (and
> > > > > > > > therefore authorized by the taxing clause of the
> > Constitution),
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > Republicans are equally confident that it's not.
>
> > > > > > > > This debate is also relevant to whether the court has the
> > power to
> > > > > > > > hear the case in the first place. If the mandate is a tax,
> > > > according
> > > > > > > > to a 1867 law, litigants may have to wait until it goes into
> > > > effect in
> > > > > > > > 2014 to challenge it. If Breyer can get a laugh out of the "is
> > it
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > tax?" debate, he deserves to be promoted to funniest justice.
>
> > > > > > > > Chief Justice John Roberts
>
> > > > > > > > All eyes will be on Roberts to see whether he is inclined to
> > > > interpret
> > > > > > > > the commerce clause of the Constitution as narrowly as he did
> > in
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > opinion that gave rise to one of his most memorable one-liners
> > as
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > appellate judge. In 2003, Roberts dissented from a ruling
> > holding
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > the federal government could use the Endangered Species Act to
> > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > development on the habitat of the arroyo toad. He said the
> > federal
> > > > law
> > > > > > > > couldn't be applied to "a hapless toad that, for reasons of
> > its
> > > > own,
> > > > > > > > lives its entire life in California." Verrilli will try to
> > > > convince
> > > > > > > > Roberts that the interstate economic effects of thousands of
> > > > uninsured
> > > > > > > > sick people are far greater than those of the hapless toad,
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > while avoiding the word "toad."
>
> > > > > > > > As the crucial swing vote, Kennedy is most frequently
> > flattered in
> > > > > > > > Supreme Court briefs. Some libertarians hope that he will
> > strike
> > > > down
> > > > > > > > the health-care mandate by invoking the same right to privacy
> > that
> > > > he
> > > > > > > > recognized when he reaffirmed Roe v. Wade in 1992. "At the
> > heart
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence,
> > of
> > > > > > > > meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,"
> > > > Kennedy
> > > > > > > > wrote; Scalia later ridiculed this as the "sweet mystery of
> > life"
> > > > > > > > passage. For Scalia and the other conservatives, Roe v. Wade
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > root of all constitutional evil. So if Paul Clement — who will
> > > > argue
> > > > > > > > before the court for the health-care law's challengers — wants
> > to
> > > > > > > > appeal to Kennedy without alienating the other conservatives,
> > he
> > > > may
> > > > > > > > try to murmur "sweet mystery" so quietly that only Kennedy can
> > > > hear
> > > > > > > > it.
>
> > > > > > > > Justices Elena Kagan
> > > > > > > > and Sonia Sotomayor
> > > > > > > > These justices weren't yet on the court during the period
> > covered
> > > > by
> > > > > > > > the 2010 laughter study, but Kagan may have her eye on
> > Scalia's
> > > > > > > > "funniest justice" title. She delivered the best one-liner of
> > the
> > > > > > > > current Supreme Court term. Noting that the Federal
> > Communications
> > > > > > > > Commission had interpreted its TV indecency policy to allow
> > the
> > > > > > > > cursing in "Saving Private Ryan" and the nudity in
> > "Schindler's
> > > > List,"
> > > > > > > > she said: "It's like nobody can use dirty words or nudity
> > except
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > Steven Spielberg."
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment