|
Yachtie -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/4/2012 6:56:47 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
It's a good argument.
Is it?
The premise of all social insurance plans, including the Social Security program, is that inescapable risks should be shared across a political community between those more and those less at risk. The Act follows this principle; it provides that with few exceptions Americans who are not insured by their employers or by other government programs must purchase insurance themselves or, if they do not, pay what the Act calls a “penalty” on their tax return.
Define inescapable risk? Here's one. Death. All people die. All life, inescapable once one is alive, leads to death. There isn't even risk involved. It's inevitable. Like the claim of healthcare. Eventually all use it at some point. Therefore, under the above premise, all life, and every aspect of it no matter how small, should be regulated from cradle to grave.
Outlandish?
Justice Kennedy, for instance, asked whether the mandate doesn’t “create” commerce rather than regulate it.
Fucking is the main source of life creation. Since all human life engages in commerce all human life is regulatable. Perhaps so is fucking.
Outlandish?
Every American already has health insurance; the mandate only requires that he pay for his insurance rather than free-loading on those who do pay.
Free loading is abhorrent, but so is cost shifting which created the free loading in the first place. This is a case of creating the problem requiring solution (by further intrusion).
So the argument of the government is false at the outset (see premise); because communal sharing (cost shifting) was created by legislation and not occurring naturally, whereupon what was created is now being asked to be treated as naturally occurring. It's not healthcare directly but the cost shifting that is truly being addressed as shown by the mandate.
This whole government argument is laughable. This shit has to stop.
|
|
|
|
