Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So what do you think this country would look like if people could be refused emergency medical care because they could not pay?
good grief, who the hell is FORCING you to buy car insurance or even to DRIVE A CAR.
sheesh,
Good grief, someone presents a thoughtful perspective that you can't wrap your mind around, so the MUST be crazy, right?
The state government forces me to buy car insurance. I can't drive without it.
Transportation is an essential necessity in order to perform the functions of every day life.
Therefore, having car insurance is a necessity in order to perform the functions of every day life.
But hey, I really don't have a problem with my car insurance. But the idea that it is unconstitutional for the government to require you to have insurance would mean that every state out there is unconstitutionally requiring people to buy car insurance. Ultimately, nobody forces me to drive, but nobody forces me to go to the hospital either. They are both decisions that I may make in order to provide for basic needs.
Just don't get caught without insurance in most states. There is a hefty fine to go with it.good grief, who the hell is FORCING you to buy car insurance or even to DRIVE A CAR.
sheesh,
Good grief, someone presents a thoughtful perspective that you can't wrap your mind around, so the MUST be crazy, right?
The state government forces me to buy car insurance. I can't drive without it.
Transportation is an essential necessity in order to perform the functions of every day life.
Therefore, having car insurance is a necessity in order to perform the functions of every day life.
But hey, I really don't have a problem with my car insurance. But the idea that it is unconstitutional for the government to require you to have insurance would mean that every state out there is unconstitutionally requiring people to buy car insurance. Ultimately, nobody forces me to drive, but nobody forces me to go to the hospital either. They are both decisions that I may make in order to provide for basic needs.
you CAN drive without car insurance, at YOUR OWN RISK, nobody is forcing you to buy it, or to drive a car.
cutting taxes and waging expensive wars have failed this country.
Those were your ideas, you voted for them
good grief, who the hell is FORCING you to buy car insurance or even to DRIVE A CAR.
sheesh,
Good grief, someone presents a thoughtful perspective that you can't wrap your mind around, so the MUST be crazy, right?
The state government forces me to buy car insurance. I can't drive without it.
Transportation is an essential necessity in order to perform the functions of every day life.
Therefore, having car insurance is a necessity in order to perform the functions of every day life.
But hey, I really don't have a problem with my car insurance. But the idea that it is unconstitutional for the government to require you to have insurance would mean that every state out there is unconstitutionally requiring people to buy car insurance. Ultimately, nobody forces me to drive, but nobody forces me to go to the hospital either. They are both decisions that I may make in order to provide for basic needs.
Auto insurance is required if you choose to buy an automoblie. This health insurance mandates give you no choice.
good grief, who the hell is FORCING you to buy car insurance or even to DRIVE A CAR.
sheesh,
Good grief, someone presents a thoughtful perspective that you can't wrap your mind around, so the MUST be crazy, right?
The state government forces me to buy car insurance. I can't drive without it.
Transportation is an essential necessity in order to perform the functions of every day life.
Therefore, having car insurance is a necessity in order to perform the functions of every day life.
But hey, I really don't have a problem with my car insurance. But the idea that it is unconstitutional for the government to require you to have insurance would mean that every state out there is unconstitutionally requiring people to buy car insurance. Ultimately, nobody forces me to drive, but nobody forces me to go to the hospital either. They are both decisions that I may make in order to provide for basic needs.
Okay, I feel much better now that I've managed to express my opinion of anyone who thinks the Huffington Post is an actual serious news source. And I think I managed to rep everyone who thinks Flaylo is an ignorant jackwagon.
If you think Flaylo is an ignorant jackwagon and have NOT received rep from me for it, let me know.
Who the HELL is ADAM WINKLER and why the hell are we suppose to give a shit what he says?
he's law professor, something you are not. Asswipe.
Law professors are only impressive to people who've never met a law professor.
By the way, I've decided from now on to neg rep anyone I find who starts a thread based on the Huffington Post, just on general principle. Unfortunately, I don't rep much, and I need to spread some reputation around before I can deal with Flaylo here. So everyone in this thread who thinks he's an ignorant jackwagon can have some rep.
Car insurance is a little different. You're not technically forced to buy it. You're merely required to have it if you want to use public roads, like a driver's license. If, for example, you had a farm and a vehicle that you only ever drove on your farm - private property - the government wouldn't require you to have insurance on it.
And, of course, anyone who doesn't have a car is exempt from buying car insurance, as well.
Car insurance is a little different. You're not technically forced to buy it. You're merely required to have it if you want to use public roads, like a driver's license. If, for example, you had a farm and a vehicle that you only ever drove on your farm - private property - the government wouldn't require you to have insurance on it.
And, of course, anyone who doesn't have a car is exempt from buying car insurance, as well.
No, it's not different. First, even driving a car on your private property requires a driver's license and insurance. It's more difficult to enforce if you only used the vehicle on your private property, because of 4th amendment rights. But operating a your vehicle on private property does not negate licensing or insurance laws. Second, the fact still remains that with car insurance, the government is forcing you to buy a product. While I do not support the healthcare bill in any way, the facts do not support the claim that it is unconstitutional. Government has an established history of requiring people to purchase various things, including insurance. Hell, the government often requires a citizen to purchase permissions to build a fence on your own property in your back yard. The government can force you to buy permissions to keep a pet. The government can also force you to sell things, via eminent domain.
Fighting any public policy on faulty premises will not advance the matter. The best way to fight the healthcare bill is to continue pressing on the undesirability of the bill and the ways that it will place unwanted and unfair burdens on many people, particularly those who make less money.
So what do you think this country would look like if people could be refused emergency medical care because they could not pay?
I doubt they would be. I realize that nabobs of negativity on the left - like you - are convinced that their fellow men are all so evil and selfish and cruel that they would just ignore their less-fortunate neighbors if candidates for sainthood like you didn't come along and force them via the government to help out. Shockingly, though, you're not the only ones capable of compassion, and most of us can muster the REAL kind.
Auto insurance is required if you choose to buy an automoblie. This health insurance mandates give you no choice.
First of all, you should consider changing your screen handle, because if you really do subscribe to "Lonestar logic" than nothing you say can have any merit.
Secondly, the effect of the statute in question does not have any bearing on whether this court decision is judicial activism.
Health insurance can equally be argued to be a public safety and liability issue. People without insurance are less likely to seek out health care when it is needed, which can contribute to the spread of communicable diseases. Seeking out health care at all could be seen as a public safety issue. I don't get flu shots, ever. It's my choice. But by not getting the flu shot I can potentially become a danger to anyone I pass as I walk down the street. The flu causes thousands of deaths every year. But somehow, I don't think that you would consider this enough to make a government mandate that everyone purchase a flu shot. That's because the constitutionality of the matter is not based on the fact that government is requiring a person to purchase a product. It is, instead, based on whether the policy presents and serves a legitimate government interest.
Those who do seek out health care at whatever time, via emergency rooms, often will not pay their bills. This causes health care providers to lose money, and causes the prices on others to rise. Additionally, people without health insurance are less likely to seek out health care when they need it when infected with communicable illnesses. The government does have a legitimate interest in addressing these concerns.
Health insurance can equally be argued to be a public safety and liability issue. People without insurance are less likely to seek out health care when it is needed, which can contribute to the spread of communicable diseases. Seeking out health care at all could be seen as a public safety issue. I don't get flu shots, ever. It's my choice. But by not getting the flu shot I can potentially become a danger to anyone I pass as I walk down the street. The flu causes thousands of deaths every year. But somehow, I don't think that you would consider this enough to make a government mandate that everyone purchase a flu shot. That's because the constitutionality of the matter is not based on the fact that government is requiring a person to purchase a product. It is, instead, based on whether the policy presents and serves a legitimate government interest.
Those who do seek out health care at whatever time, via emergency rooms, often will not pay their bills. This causes health care providers to lose money, and causes the prices on others to rise. Additionally, people without health insurance are less likely to seek out health care when they need it when infected with communicable illnesses. The government does have a legitimate interest in addressing these concerns.
Hey stupid, having health insurance and getting a flu shot will not keep you from getting the flu or spreading it to others. How old are you? Twelve?
Driving is a privilege, not a right, your reach of an argument ends there.......
Driving is a privilege, not a right, your reach of an argument ends there.......
That is irrelevant. The fact still remains that government requires you to purchase a product you may not want. There is no constitutional right to receive health care either. Therefore, driving being a privilege does not create an exception to the constitutional permissibility of government requiring you to buy a product, that would not also apply to the question of health care.
