Making People Buy Insurance Is Unconstitutional*

* Except for medicare, social security disability insurance, survivor insurance,  unemployment insurance, SCHIP, auto insurance mandates and anything else the black guy didn’t support.


About agnophilo

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Making People Buy Insurance Is Unconstitutional*

  1. But you don’t HAVE to drive or work.

  2. THIS JUST IN:Former Harvard Professor of Constitutional Law corrected by moron.

  3. BobRichter says:

    @schallerbrandon – Oh, text formatting, I love this game.Former Harvard Professor of Constitutional Law corrected by moron.

  4. DarthPatriot says:

    @tendollar4ways – You have a right to your life, that entails that you have ownership of that life.  This does not mean that joe A is entitled to joe B’s stuff in order to keep him alive.  It means joe A owns his life, and it is joe A’s responsibility to maintain it, or end it as he sees fit.  A right is something that is inalienable, and by definition, cannot be granted nor taken away from you.  You can violate the rights of another by limiting the practice thereof.  Its an honest mistake, I forgive you. 

  5. @BobRichter – You’ve lost me sir. I was making a reference to the President and comparing his knowledge of the constitution with the source of such objections. 

  6. RaVnR says:

    It’s called the exercise of police power.If it limits everyone’s freedom equally, it is a totally permissible exercise of police power in the name of public health; but that is a power generally reserved to the states, and of course the 14th amendment requires the mandate to apply equally to everyone, which (via written exceptions) it doesn’t.If there’s any reason it’s unconstitutional, that’s why — it has nothing to do with legal justification and everything to do with governmental obligation.

  7. BobRichter says:

    @schallerbrandon – And I just highlighted different words. I don’t put the same stock in credentialism that you seem to, but that’s neither here nor there. Isn’t it amusing how the same words seem to say different things when you format them differently?

  8. agnophilo says:

    @DarthPatriot – So you don’t have a right to avail yourself of the fire department if your house is on fire unless you can afford to buy a fire truck?  And you don’t have the right to have your right to life protected by the justice system unless you can pony up a few hundred grand for an investigation, trial and incarceration of someone who’s trying to kill you?I’m sorry, but that’s retarded.  We use a portion of our funds to pay for things we can’t afford to pay for individually, which includes huge medical expenses.

  9. @agnophilo – My comment is full of shit. I figured I would just beat the Republinecks to the punch. @DarthPatriot – last I checked suicide is illegal.

  10. agnophilo says:

    @schallerbrandon – Calling the people making these objections morons?@RaVnR – It’s taxes, not a “police action”.  And taxes have always been progressive.

  11. agnophilo says:

    @tendollar4ways – Yeah I still don’t get it, lol.

  12. Cliffycliffz says:

    gov’t should give out free insurance. that’s not happening… 

  13. @BobRichter – To be concise, the words are precisely the same, only interpretation is affected because emphasis is placed on bold and italicized letters respectively. Another fundamental assumption which you seem to have made is that words possess the ability to “say” things. How preposterous! @agnophilo – I wouldn’t call them morons in a serious tone, but allow me to state that I have little confidence in them. It does not follow that El Presidente would risk his presidency on a game of chess if he wasn’t a master at it.

  14. @DarthPatriot – i like the way you worked “or end it” in there. everybody knows the poor choose poverty. and then when they realize that poverty was a bad choice, being uninsured, the next choice – death – is almost a no-brainer. 

  15. @agnophilo – you have the right to not take someone to court, regardless of the crime. You also have the right, though never heard of, to tell the firefighters to let your house burn down. Auto insurance only occurs if you want to drive. Some can choose not to drive. Unemployment insurance is for those that lose a job, but they don’t have to take it if they don’t want to and the insurance is taken from business owners. As for health insurance, it should still be an option, not a mandate. Forcing people to buy health insurance or fining them for a lack thereof is a bit extreme. I believe the bill has closed most of the loopholes for those who can’t get it. It should therefore be an individuals choice of whether or not to get said insurance. I for one, don’t need health insurance. Sure, something big might happen and I be hospitalized, but that’s a chance I’m willing to take. Better than downgrading my current lifestyle on a maybe because a few people are overly paranoid and super sensitive. >.>

  16. agnophilo says:

    @Cliffycliffz – There’s no such thing as free insurance, but I know what you mean.@complicatedlight – Are you kidding or what?@xplodinglastbullet – You still have to pay into social security whether you avail yourself of it later or not.  But thanks, I get tendollar4ways’ comment now.

  17. @agnophilo – what do you think? you know me that well, don’t you? 

  18. @agnophilo – well, it’s not like it matters anyway, does it? We’re forced to accept it regardless of how we feel or how many debates we have over it. Oh and sorry in advance if I dislike being dependent on the government for my basic needs. Momma raised me to take care of myself.

  19. DarthPatriot says:

    @agnophilo – Not sure if your missing the point on purpose or if you really are that dense.  I will copy paste what I typed for you.  “You have a right to your life, that entails that you have ownership of that life.  This does not mean that joe A is entitled to joe B’s stuff in order to keep him alive.  It means joe A owns his life, and it is joe A’s responsibility to maintain it, or end it as he sees fit.  A right is something that is inalienable, and by definition, cannot be granted nor taken away from you.  You can violate the rights of another by limiting the practice thereof. “The first part means this:  Your life is your own.  The time you spend while living that life belongs to you and you alone.  Example, if I spend my time going to school and I get out and start making 200k a year.  Its my time, my money.  End of story.The next part.  Just because you “need” my stuff to live doesn’t entail in any way that I am obligated to part with it.  You can take someone’s stuff through force and coercion, but that leaves the realm of legitimacy and enters into the realm of “wtf land”.  The word inalienable literally means non-transferable.  Saying a right is inalienable and that people have rights is to say that rights exist by virtue of the individual’s existence.  Or to put it in simple terms, Bob is alive!  Bob has rights!  Rights are i n a l i e n a b l e!  Dat means they cannot be given away, or taken away!  So rights exist because Bob exists!@tendollar4ways – Ah ok.  So as long as the law says it, it clearly must be legitimate.  So let me follow this logic.  If at any point in time, the majority decides that you especially cannot use your toilet any longer, then your right to use your toilet must not exist?  You can do better than that.  Now I’m going to go use my toilet and bring a book.  You know, a book.  Has words, sentences, paragraphs…you stare at it and magic images come into your brain.  yay!

  20. @DarthPatriot – That is one Shitty arguement.

  21. DarthPatriot says:

    @complicatedlight – Well, the poor don’t always choose to be poor.  But some do, I know a handful personally.  Its some mark of honor or moral superiority for them.  Sometimes people are just fuck ups.  Sometimes they are Incapable of really doing anything worthwhile.  Sometimes they have a neurotic lack of ambition or desire for well being.  Regardless of the context, I don’t care.  If you do, or someone else does, then I say let them worry about it.  More power to ya.  Live or die, not sure why I should care either way.  As long as its not a burden on me.  Not like I believe there is some higher being that’s going to send me to hell for letting some useless nobody shrivel up and die. 

  22. RaVnR says:

    @agnophilo – You clearly don’t understand what police power means. And if it applied equally it *would* be a tax, but it doesn’t thus it is a fine and probably violates 14th amendment.

  23. @DarthPatriot – very nice. but my point remains unscathed. now go stand in a corner for a few years and reflect upon it.

  24. agnophilo says:

    @complicatedlight – I can’t keep track of who believes what about everything on xanga.  I’m assuming kidding.@xplodinglastbullet – Yes, because it’s shameful to call the fire department rather than put the fire out yourself.  I’m sorry, but self-sufficiency goes out the window the second you get diagnosed with cancer, at which point you are dependent on the expertise and science and money of many other people.  Or you could just not avail yourself of any of it and die.You are not a civilization of one.@DarthPatriot – Non-response that doesn’t address anything I said.  As usual.@tendollar4ways – One shitty non-argument*  : )@RaVnR – Taxes have never been non-progressive in the US, the first income tax was during the civil war and it only applied to people who made over $800 a year, which back then was a fortune.

  25. @agnophilo – look, skullitor – you seem like a reasonably bright…bone. you know about “a modest proposal”, right? 

  26. agnophilo says:

    @complicatedlight – Yes, I just sought clarification.  I’m lazy.

  27. MagisterTom says:

    Automotive insurance is only for those who choose to own a vehicle, if they don’t want a vehicle they don’t have to have the insurance. It’s a requirement that goes with the privelege of owning/driving the vehicle.

  28. agnophilo says:

    @MagisterTom – So sell your body and you won’t need health insurance.

  29. cyberbear says:

    If all the states took care of their citizens health insurance, as Massachusetts does, the whole debate of this past year would be moot.  Some states, like Arizona, never will do so.Therefore, Federal action on this front is needed.

  30. coolmonkey says:

    We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Just don’t get sick, otherwise you’re s.o.l.

  31. @agnophilo – No, I’m not a civilization of one, but I do still like having a choice. I wouldn’t mind half as much if this was real health care reform that actually solved the problems in the system. However, such is not the case. Instead, I’m forced to buy a government mandated product, again. I’m being told by my government what I will and won’t do and thus the roles are reversed. No longer does the government serve us, but we serve them. FYI: It’s already been projected that health insurance premiums are going to increase meaning you and I are paying more for insurance. And I just saw where Dems are worried about their lives. They’ve had to beef up security. It’s what they get for passing a half-assed bill.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s