[867V309]

Roberts is not a “Machiavellian genius.” Roberts is a moral degenerate lifetime Washington D.C. politico, who is well known in the beltway to be borderline obsessed with his image. In other words, Chief Justice John Roberts emotionally operates on the same level as the average twelve year old girl, and just sold out not just the Republic, the Constitution and the entire American populace, but really the entire planet, because now that the United States is no more, the forces of evil will run absolutely rampant over the rest of the planet. And Roberts did it so that a bunch of coke-snorting sodomites and psychopaths in Georgetown will pretend to like him – for about five minutes.

Roberts just ratified the “right” for the government to tax people on their existence. Either you purchase a service commodity, thus paying a tax which is collected by the insurance company itself, or you will pay a tax to the IRS directly. Insurance is, for all intents and purposes, an innovation of the last fifty years, meaning that almost no one carried any insurance of any kind, and insurance was itself in some places ILLEGAL (and now we know why, because if allowed to cover anything other than large disasters, insurance will, by mathematical definition, destroy any market that it comes into contract with and end in fascism.)

All of this ObamaCare mandate is a pure function of being a living human being. My required car insurance is a corollary to my totally optional decision to own and drive a car. The requirement that I carry “full coverage” insurance instead of the minimum liability-only insurance is a corollary to the fact that I freely choose to lease my car, and thus there are additional conditions that I must meet. Income tax was tied to the fact that I chose to work and generate income – not on my existence itself. Property tax is a corollary to my decision to buy real estate. The gasoline tax is a corollary to my free decision to drive a car, and a car that runs on gasoline. Yes, I think that income and property taxes in particular are intrinsically morally dubious, but that is not the debate before us. The debate before us is whether the Federal government, or ANY government can ever, ever licitly tax human beings on the very fact that they EXIST.

Ann Barnhardt

[philman_36]

Insurance is, for all intents and purposes, an innovation of the last fifty years...
I usually like what she has to say, but that's just ignorant.

You can go back to @ The Code of Hammurabi to see the first instance of insurance.

Another example most people have heard of is @ Lloyd's of London.

From those beginnings in a coffee house in 1688, Lloyd’s has been a pioneer in insurance and has grown over 300 years to become the world’s leading market for specialist insurance.

Sorry, Ann, you're just wrong on that part.