Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (537758)	12/20/2009 8:03:28 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577111

The number of different grounds for challenging the provision is large from what I've read. The key issue, as I understand it, is whether government can impose a tax or penalty for merely "existing". The very best you can say is that we don't know how the Court would rule on it. And it is distinguished from the car insurance situation by the fact that you aren't required to buy car insurance simply because you exist.

To: combjelly who wrote (537758)	12/20/2009 8:30:46 PM
From: jlallen	8 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577111

Insurance to drive is not required in NH. But in those jurisdictions where it is the imposition of an insurance requirement is based upon a reasonable exercise by the state of its police power and the theory that driving on a public way is a privilege....not a right. The concept of auto insurance is totally different than the state requiring me to buy insurance for my personal health needs or lack thereof.... As usual, you are clueless. J.