Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

02 April 2012

Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, DUMB!!!


Music to read by:  The Kinks - Jack the Idiot Dunce & Green Day - American Idiot 










 



Aura writes:  "Is it rational to agree to mandatory car insurance, and then go crazy against mandatory health insurance? Is there a shred of rationality there? Hello?


____________________________________________________


1. States have more powers than the enumerated and limited powers of the Federal government.

2. States can force you to get immunised, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), or sterilise you against your will, Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, ex. rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). The Federal government cannot force you to drive 55, wait until you are 16 to get a licence, or keep your BAC under ,08 even though you use the Interstate Highway System and one drunk driving accident with a semi carrying flammable materials could take out a critical thoroughfare for months or even longer, which would have a devastating impact on interstate commerce, South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).

3. Operating motorised vehicles on public roads is not a right. It is a privilege. The state has the authority to regulate who drives on its roads and under what conditions. It can require a minimum level of proficiency.  It can say that only 18 years olds can drive alone. It can mandate that the elderly with more that 2 accidents be accompanied by an adult. It can made those that have been convicted of DUI blow into gadgets to turn on their cars. On private property, you can drive where and however you want.

4. No state requires anyone to carry collision insurance. You are only required to insure against the damage that may occur to other's property. If you do not have collision and are in an accident, YOU PAY OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET FOR THE DAMAGE TO YOUR CAR.

5. Even though the Interstate Highway System is "federal," it is policed by the states because the Federal government does not have plenary powers. When you get pulled over next time, ask the nice man if he is a Federal Trooper or a State Trooper.

6. If you do not drive, you do not need insurance.

7. If you do not own vehicles, you do not need insurance.  

8. Auto insurance is priced to risk. If a driver lives in a high-crime area, then the premiums will rise to cover the risks associated with theft. If a driver has moving violations and accident, his premiums will go up, or in some cases, the insurer will cancel the policy. Other risk factors are factored into price, as well. Due to their propensity for causing losses, the youngest and oldest drivers pay more. Those who drive well and present a lower risk get rewarded with lower premiums.

****************************************************

Aura writes: That was surreal. What's your point? Is it that you object to an individual mandate because it is the states' job to mandate health insurance? So if your state requires that you buy health insurance, as Massachusetts has done, you'll be fine with that?


_________________________________________________________________
 
 
I am against mandates, in general, but states can mandate individuals purchase health insurance. The Federal government cannot. The Obamacare mandate fails the Lopez Test and it is not supported by either Wickard or Raich, where both were involved in actual activities. The government didn't tell the farmer "Go grow wheat so that we can regulate you" or tell the pot user "Go grow medical marijuana so that we can regulate you." Both were already engage in the activity. In the instant case, the government is saying, "Go buy health insurance so that you will be engaged in an activity that will allow us to regulate you under some nebulous reading of the Commerce Clause."

The Commerce Clause does not regulate individuals. It regulates commerce between foreign countries, the several states, and the Indian tribes. Now, granted that has expanded under Wickard, Raich, and Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, but ALL of those involved individuals involved in activities that were economic in nature.

The government has attempted to use the Commerce Clause to ban guns in schools (no economic activity) and lost. United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

The government has attempted to use the Commerce Clause to regulate violence against women (no economic activity) and lost. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).

The government has attempted to use the Commerce Clause to regulate virtual child pornography (no economic activity & First Amendment violations). Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).

So, no, I'll not be fine with my state mandating me purchasing health insurance. If I choose, I will move. I don't like mandates at all.

What you need to understand is that the states created the Federal government. The States gave limited powers to the Federal government retaining all others than those enumerated to themselves.

I know that you hear "States' Rights" and think Confederate, Nazi, etc!

You should know that I am a native Brit and am glad that the North won. You should also know that Adolf Hitler was adamantly opposed to states' rights:

"Since for us the state as such is only a form, but the essential is its content, the nation, the people, it is clear that everything else must be subordinated to its sovereign interests. In particular we cannot grant to any individual state within the nation and the state representing it state sovereignty and sovereignty in point of political power ... [the] mischief of individual federated states…must cease and will some day cease…. National Socialism as a matter of principle must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries."

- Adolf Hitler


****************************************************

Aura writes: "What are you talking about? Who is forcing anyone to eat broccoli?  You conservatives are so paranoid about being told what to do, and no one is forcing you to do anything.   You can't hurt other people and not, say, pay for your own health care and make others pay for it, as you seem to want. But that's to protect others from  conservative freeloaders."



_________________________________________________________________________


"What are you talking about? Who is forcing anyone to eat broccoli?"

I am talking about various articles written in the last several days, along with debates that I have been having with my legal colleagues for the last 2 years. On the Progressive Left, there are many, who do in fact, believe that the government can mandate Americans eat broccoli. Please try to keep up.

"You conservatives are so paranoid about being told what to do, and no one is forcing you to do anything."

You Progs are SO BLOODY STUPID. I am a LIBERTARIAN. By the way, 'tard, get a Black's Law Dictionary and look up the definition of "mandate." Your ignorance is showing, my dear.

"You can't hurt other people and not, say, pay for your own health care and make others pay for it, as you seem to want. But that's to protect others from conservative freeloaders."

I pay for my own health care, thank you very much. What I do not want to do is to pay for yours! I have never accepted a penny from the government and Social Security and Medicare do not factor in my future plans. I have always been responsible. That's not my problem with the mandate. It is the unconstitutionality of the mandate. And, yes, the Heritage Foundation and all of the Cons were hawking an unconstitutional POS. Obama used to be against it. What happened?

You people claim to be pro-choice. Well, riddle me this, Aura: 

I am a 34 year-old woman in perfect health. I go to the doctor once or twice a year for check ups and pay for any scripts out of pocket. I pay for office visits out of pocket, too. I carry a major medical policy. It's all that I need.

If Obamacare stands, beginning in 2014, I no longer will be allowed to carry only a major medical plan. You ANTI-choicers have decided that I need a "minimum benefits package" with all kind of bullshyt that I neither want nor need. You want me to pay more money so that you friends with pre-existing conditions can get really cheap insurance policies.

When you buy auto insurance, do you buy insurance for your 2000 Toyota or Beyonce's $500,000 Maybach?  You buy what suits you personally and economically.  Correct?  

Under Obamacare, you will no longer be purchasing the policy that is best for you, but what is best for the "community" as defined by "our betters" in Washington, DC.  You will be forced to pay much, much more so that people with pre-existing conditions can pay much less.  That might be a noble idea, but it is not why we purchase insurance.



No comments: