tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8959556.post6788119432772108158..comments2024-02-21T17:30:40.448-05:00Comments on An Objectivist Individualist: Broader Lawsuit Filed Against ObamaCareCharles R. Anderson, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09610765984333672076noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8959556.post-9064420309748872102010-08-22T05:27:01.062-05:002010-08-22T05:27:01.062-05:00Yes, and there are many cases that ignore that pla...Yes, and there are many cases that ignore that plain English as well. It seems we always have to keep our fingers crossed when we should have no need for such nonsense.Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09610765984333672076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8959556.post-13680503613363175102010-08-20T22:46:57.612-05:002010-08-20T22:46:57.612-05:00There are various Supreme Court cases that say the...There are various Supreme Court cases that say the Constitution is plain English and ought to be interpreted as such, e.g., see Home Bldg. & Loan Asso. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398; 54 S. Ct. 231; 78 L. Ed. 413 (1934).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8959556.post-53225337546323024092010-08-20T12:17:00.700-05:002010-08-20T12:17:00.700-05:00It would be interesting indeed if the legislation ...It would be interesting indeed if the legislation does not actually say what everyone thinks it does. Unfortunately, the Constitution says many things very differently also than people think and they impose their wild interpretations on that. So, even if plain English, let alone arcane English, says something differently than people believe it does, it often does not help.<br /><br />Nonetheless, I will try to look into this.Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09610765984333672076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8959556.post-14023794813245159372010-08-20T01:51:42.677-05:002010-08-20T01:51:42.677-05:00You wrote, "Nick Coons will be forced to buy ...You wrote, "Nick Coons will be forced to buy government approved health insurance by 2014 or face IRS fines. He wants to continue to make his own health care decisions. He also objects to the legislated violations of his medical privacy to an insurance company, the federal government, and others without his permission."<br /><br />You and Nick are both wrong, assuming you believe as he does. I'd suggest you watch Lawrence O'Donnell, who was a legislative staffer for the Senate Finance committee during the 90s and wrote this kind of arcane language, decipher the bill. Then look up the bill and see if it true. Surprised me. I guess this is what happens when our congressional officials dont bother to read 2,000 page bills: they dont know what they are talking about. It take a while to load.<br />http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36154264#36154264Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com