On 3/24/2010 10:01 PM, Steve wrote:
On 2010-03-23 22:02:52 -0400, "J. Clarke" said:

And suppose everyone here has it, or nobody here has it, or some of us
have it and some of us don't, what of it? I'm sorry, but your poll has
no relevance to the point in question.

My question does have relevence, without regard to
"mandated-whether-I-want-it-or-not."

Do you have health insurance?


Do you want health insurance?

Which has what to do with the legality of the Congress ordering people
to buy insurance?

IF you want health insurance, but DO NOT have it, why?

Which has what to do with the legality of the Congress ordering people
to buy insurance?

If you DO NOT want health insurance, why?

Which has what to do with the legality of the Congress ordering people
to buy insurance?

Health is probably more germane to the general population than having a
Unisaw. If the government were mandating the purchase of that item, I
would agree with you. And let's disregard the entire SawStop issue, as
that IS irrelevent to this question.

So you're saying that it's legal for the government to order people to
buy insurance but not to buy a Unisaw because in your opinion insurance
has greater utility?

BTW, in my state, at least, you have to provide proof of financial
responsibilty (i.e., insurance) before you can license a car.

Yawn. This has already been addressed. Licensing a car to be
operated on the public roads is a privilege. If one wants to avoid
purchasing the insurance one simply does not drive on public roads. Are
you saying that merely existing in the United States is now a privilege
which one needs the permission of Congress to exercise?

If you're
driving without insurance, you'd better damn well pray you don't hit a
BMW driven by a lawyer.


Which has what to do with the legality of the Congress ordering people
to buy insurance?

Here's another tip for you: Don't bet against the house.


Which has what to do with the legality of the Congress ordering people
to buy insurance?