Hello there! My first post here. *grins* As a Florida native, Im proud of my state government for the first time since Crist got elected as governer. I thought I would help clarify this issue. The lawsuit states that the health insurance bill is unconstitutional because it forces a citizen of Florida to buy health insurance from a private company in order to retain their citizenship in good standing. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to require me to buy something in order to ...well...live! These other insurances mentioned are different. Car insurance is required in order to drive. It is not necessary to drive in order to live. Driving on federal and state roads is considered a privilige, not a right. Since the government built and owns the roads, they consider they have the right to dictate policy on how they may be used. Considering they used tax dollars to build them may bring that point into debate, but..*shrugs* Home insurance. No one is saying you HAVE to buy a home - so the lawsuit against the health insurance bill is not the same as home insurance. Workers compensation insurance. This is a tax applied to a business owner with employees, and the government doesnt say you HAVE to own your own business. Im not saying that the government is right in their stance on these issues, but Im explaining why the lawsuit being filed against the health insurance bill would not be comparable in this sense to other insurance requirements. -Melly
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, James C <jcpatr...@...> wrote: > > > FL Attorney General Bill McCollum filed a lawsuit today stating government > forcing people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. I agree, but he > did not include car insurance, homeowners insurance, and workers compensation > insurance which makes his lawsuit hypocritical. The libertarian party should > file a federal lawsuit to include those insurance products as well. > James Coakley > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
