Posted on 03/27/2012 12:09:57 PM PDT by NoLibZone
Opponents of the individual mandate provision of President Obama's health care law contend that if the government can force you to buy health insurance, its powers of compulsion are virtually unlimited. Chief Justice John Roberts wonders what else Washington can force citizens to buy in this exchange:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, the same, it seems to me, would be true say for the market in emergency services: police, fire, ambulance, roadside assistance, whatever. You don't know when you're going to need it; you're not sure that you will. But the same is true for health care. You don't know if you're going to need a heart transplant or if you ever will. So there is a market there. To -- in some extent, we all participate in it. So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services? You can just dial 911 no matter where you are?
GENERAL VERRILLI: No, Mr. Chief Justice. think that's different. It's -- We -- I don't think we think of that as a market. This is a market. This is market regulation. And in addition, you have a situation in this market not only where people enter involuntarily as to when they enter and won't be able to control what they need when they enter but when they --
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Is the guy without one going to be able to get one when he needs it anyway and stick me with the bill?
Socialization of the insurance market. Obama pretends to be providing a service (not forcing you to buy - he's taking care of you!) by usurping and regulating this market.
What I don’t understand is why anyone, the Justices in particular, accept the premise that buying health insurance is the only way one can pay for their personal health care?
Colorado.
There are ways around it.
If they imposed that where I am, I’d simply violate the law in a way they couldn’t catch me.
However, it does point to what the next item of control will be - water. One of the most abundant substances on earth, will be rationed and taxed.
One sounded like RUSH.
History shows us that their decisions frequently don’t reflect their political beliefs.
I know that you were joshing and just mimicking LibTurd/DummyRat speak.
It already did that - Wickard v. Filburn The farmer in that case was prohibited from growing food for himself because it would have "a substantial effect" upon interstate commerce. W v. F also needs to be overturned - and this case may be the mechanism for that. So I pray.
The communist USA government is already forcing us to buy cell phones for people THEY have determined need them. It matters not if these people are in need because of circumstances beyond their control or in most cases due to a life time of dumb, stupid life decisions.
Somehow, the communists gained control and now feel cell phones are a right and we must pay for them.
Bingo! This case lays bear the lie that is modern commerce clause jurisprudence and hopefully leads to a retrenchment and resurrection of the rights reserved to the States and the people. Let's insist on it in November. Shall we?
Which is why it’s hard to get that passionate about overturning the individual mandate. I already pay an obscene amount of tax and those taxes have no option attached to be exempt from them if I go out and buy something for myself. How about if I buy my own cell phone, I can get the cut of my taxes back that goes to pay for other people’s cell phones?
Nice jab at Wickard which should be overturned.
What’s WvF?
Hey! That's ridiculous!
They won't want to terminate every pregnancy.
It depends on the parental voting record....
How did we get into the awful position that we have to hope Kennedy wakes up in a good mood to have a just government?
Which is why the individual mandate Newt used to talk about had the option to post a bond instead of getting insurance. So if you set your own money aside you wouldn't need to buy insurance.
Never mind, saw it in another reply.
Can the government make you by cigarettes? After all, the taxes go to the CHILDREN!
“burden the state with unpaid healthcare costs down the “
Which spending programs are unconstitutional in the first place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.