No health and fitness data tracking, no insurance. -- John Han$#@!.

[Chris]

Probably because there isn't one.

In one case you have a public accommodation and the argument that they should serve all people regardless of their race, faith or sexual orientation. On the other you have a voluntary program designed to assess people's behaviour and offer them discounts based on said assessment.

No one is forced in public accomodation cases yet that's deemed constitutional. Here no one's forced yet you all argue it's not constitutional. That's the parallel.

[Common Sense]

No one is forced in public accomodation cases yet that's deemed constitutional. Here no one's forced yet you all argue it's not constitutional. That's the parallel.

Ok, I get your argument.

[Chris]

Ok, I get your argument.

It's off topic so I'll drop it.

[Captdon]

It sure is different. Costs associated with trucking accidents and so forth are preventable. But everyone is going to die. That will never be prevented.

I paid an extra amount of premium because I smoked. Why? Beacuse the odds of me dying earlier was greater.

[Captdon]

No one has to buy their insurance, of course not. Point is that it's hypocritical and a denigration of their namesake. I found it striking.

People who have more car accidents pay more than I do and they should. Why should I subsidize bad drivers. I have low rates because I don't have accidents.

[Dr. Who]

No one is forced in public accomodation cases yet that's deemed constitutional. Here no one's forced yet you all argue it's not constitutional. That's the parallel.

One is about being accommodated per existing legislation and the other is about obtaining discounts for lowering risk. Legally, they are not even similar. What JH is doing doesn't even touch on constitutional issues. They are not violating any constitutionally protected rights because it's a voluntary program.

[Chris]

One is about being accommodated per existing legislation and the other is about obtaining discounts for lowering risk. Legally, they are not even similar. What JH is doing doesn't even touch on constitutional issues. They are not violating any constitutionally protected rights because it's a voluntary program.

Neither should touch constitutional issues. The government is no so empowered.