Forcing someone to buy something regardless of whether you believe it's good for you or not, violates personal freedom.
It can be forcing you to buy anything. That's the point Roberts made the first day - next the gov't will force you to buy an electric car or to eat health foods like brocolli. You can name any items.
That is what the communists do.
Many Christians don't even take the Bible to church anymore. Everything is
posted on huge video screens now including the words of the songs. There's
no more Bibles or hymn books.
Many if not most Christians have never read the Bible from cover to cover and can't even name 3 of the 10 Commandments nor can they name the first book of the new testament. No, it wasn't Mathew. Less than 10% have
ever told anyone about Christ and less than 5% have ever led
anyone to Christ.
1. People choosing not to buy bibles doesn't lead to $1000.00 premium paid by all of us each year leading to somewhere between 50 billion and 500 billion a year absorbed by the country depending on the study you cite.
2. People not buying bibles doesn't affect the price of bibles to a degree that their price will double in the next several years.
3. The cost of bibles doesn't represent 17% of the nation's GDP
4. People not buying bibles doesn't lead to 50,000 unnessesary deaths a year.
You can feel free to fill in broccoli, cell phones, gm cars etc to the analogy and they all severely fail to address the COMMERCE concerns of the individual mandate and the uninsured. I get it that you don't understand this but how does Verrilli not make this obvious point?
This is was why Kennedy mentioned the uniqueness of this case vs. broccoli and cell phones as well as where Kennedy and/or Roberts will find their "limiting principle".
What is infuriating to people like myself who actually read about healthcare on a regular basis is how someone like yourself, who can get on here and challenge (bluster) the "complexity" of someone's thought by yourself bulleting four legal arguments to be presented, which by the way, any 8th grader could gleem from the front page of the USA Today in less time than it takes to take a dump, yet you miserably fail at understanding what is really being debated here. It has zero to do with your ideological need to feel "free" but has more to deal with bending the cost curve of something we all use, healthcare, to a reasonable level.
Yet you think forcing people to buy bibles is equivalent. If you guys really want to know what will lead to the eventual decline of America, I don't know if there is an clearer example than this healthcare debate and how misinformed, uninformed and just plain ignorant some people are.
The "you're to stupid to understand this" line from our resident narcissist again ....
I get a giggle every time.
Finally you are the one that always start this shit with people. You should be careful criticizing the "complexity" of someone's thought when you have historically been not much more than simple. If you can't take it than play elsewhere.
Sorry Galen, the broccoli cell phone analogy, all apply, if the government can say, you're going to need healthcare eventually regardless of whether you can afford to pay out of pocket or not, must by health insurance, they can tell you to buy anything cause at some point you're going to anyway.
Whether or not the SCOUTS agrees with that and or agrees the mandate can't be severed is another story.
Then he should have used an example that is actually comparable. He drew a direct equivalency between health insurance and a bible when there is none. Is there some actual service that people could use that isn't mandatory. Car insurance? Nope. Renter's insurance? Nope. I'm being honest, I can't think of many vital services we get to opt out of like health insurance.
Sorry for the delay. While I was typing this I got attacked by my dead beat brother in law. I'm off to the emergency room. Glad I have health insurance. <- Not a joke. Seriously just got my eye gouged by a deadbeat relative. Now I know how BC's wallet feels around his sister in law.
Who's to say the government won't force us to buy products that only fit within the criteria they set down as being healthy or manufactured by plants, etc. that fall within their guidelines of environmental contamination because that could effect our health?
There's a whole hoist a things that could be brought into this equation if this pandoras box is opened.
You're concerned about the amount of money our private insurance is going to cost us if we don't pass this bill?
Is there stuff in this bill prohibiting insurance companys from raising their premiums?
Who's to stop them from going out of business forcing everybody to take part in the governments plan?
How much freakin' money in taxes is this going to cost me that I'm now saving (in your eyes) in my insurance premium?
You really think the government can anticipate how much money this will cost?
How the hell do they know how many people are out there in need, and what those peoples issues are?
What about all the newborns that come into the country by parents that don't have insurance that now need healthcare?
Who's to say the government won't borrow money from the pool of tax money designated for this program and screw it up? (see social security)
There's a shit load of unknowns and what ifs involved here that could (and probably would) backfire from this that is impossible to forecast or account for financially.
There's a shit load wrong with the healthcare system including rising costs which seems to be proponents of the bills biggest concerns.
But trying to force their alternative onto us is asking for trouble and unaccounted for problems.
There's stuff involved with that bill that I agree with and think should be addressed, but not at the cost of the entire thing.
That's the problem in my eyes.
They should be addressing the issues presented by the healthcare system and health insurance providers that seem to be the biggest problems of concern.
Not the whole fucking thing!!
So now we potentially are back to square one with the same issues and no resolution because the powers that be thought to fix the problems that exist, they needed to screw with everything about the system which a large majority of the population didn't want.:187734:
But are you saying the court should be making those changes?
I want changes made as well. But not at the expense of the Constitution and certainly not by an unelected court.
I'm pretty damn sure the insurance companys themselves aren't going to voluntarily do it and cost themselves more money in expenses if they can get by the way they have and still profit knowing that joe american is going to buy insurance if he can afford it because some insurance is better then no insurance.
I think the government has to get involved in some way to regulate what they can and cannot do similar to everything else.
Doesn't mean I think the government should have the power to force a specific plan down my throat though.
The government wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't look into things to make sure it's in our best interest which is why they are elected to begin with which you're fully aware of.
With that being said....
Just because they're elected doesn't mean I have to agree with what they think or believe is right for me, particularly if these decisions are being made for me by people I didn't vote in.
If we go off the line of questioning (Which we know can be misleading) as a gauge of which way they will vote
Kagan may vote against the mandate but will not vote against the whole law.
Bryer same as Kagan
Ginsburg is for both.
Sotomayor who knows, she has actually asked good questions of both sides.
Scalia against both.
Roberts on the fence about both
Alito against the mandate, on the fence about the whole thing
Kennedy, same as Sotomayor.
Thomas, against both