In an appeals court today the majority holding that Obamacare is legal:

The majority emphasized that the case should not hang on distinctions about whether the failure to purchase insurance should be defined as activity or inactivity, a question the Supreme Court has never considered. “The constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision cannot be resolved with a myopic focus on a malleable label,” the judges said.

In his concurrence, Judge Sutton added: “Inaction is action, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse, when it comes to financial risk.” Whether an individual buys an insurance policy or not, the judge wrote, “each requires affirmative choices; one is no less active than the other; and both affect commerce.”

Inaction is action?  Is this guy on some hardcore pharmaceuticals?   No less active, yet one has a cost, and a decision made where resources are forced to an end by government.  Government that assumes too much.

Our founders would have chased you back to England, foul wretch.

Loading Facebook Comments ...