Skip to comments.Why Healthcare Mandate is not legally warranted while Car Insurance is (Vanity)
Posted on 03/17/2012 10:45:17 AM PDT by God-fear-republican
Why Healthcare Mandate is not legally warranted while Car Insurance is (Vanity)
1.Car insurance or medical liability insurance is required before you take a risky action to fulfill your obligation in case of wrong doing or causing damage to other people. Otherwise, the burden will be imposed to the society unfairly.
2. Healthcare mandate requires one paying for something which can be considered morally but not legally responsible for because of the absence of wrong doings.
3.Taking care citizens especially one in need is the responsibility and function of a government and its elected leaders, not mandatory on individual citizens.
4.Healthcare mandate is drafted with flaws and willful intention for many details to be interpreted and and executed by the Executive branch, without review by members of Congress, many voted without reading the document.
5.Healthcare mandate gives room for the violation of conscience clause or religious freedom, directly assault on judicial tradition, in the case of contraception and abortion imposed on the Catholic institutions.
6.Healthcare mandate demands a forceful purchase of a undesirable and unnecessary service to certain individuals, therefore, violating their freedom. For example, my government cannot force me to buy a new car while I already have a car. They can tax me to obtain revenue for fixing roads as they provide a service or force me to pay gas tax to provide free transportation for the inner city poor for the welfare of the nation. But taxing is different than mandating a particular service.
Let's hear your thought on the issue.
Government controlled healthcare is a pillar of Communism. THAT is why Obama and Democrats want it. To CONTROL you.
Unlike the health care mandate where you are forced to buy insurance simply because you exist, auto insurance pertains to an activity and involves securing the privilege of a state license. No more distinction is needed.
“3.Taking care citizens especially one in need is the responsibility and function of a government and its elected leaders, not mandatory on individual citizens. “
I reject the whole thesis of your post. Car INSURANCE is NOT mandatory as long as you can pay for any damages that you cause in an accident. One can post a bond for this purpose ( also known as self-insurance).
Moreover, if I never buy or drive a car I have no need for said insurance,
In terms of medical care... again as long as I can pay my medical bills why should I have to buy insurance???? If I chose to never use medical care for my self why would I want to pay for said insurance.
Free socities allow the citizens to make their choices...even freer ones allow the individual the dignity to incur the consequences of their choices
Also, it is more of a State issue to begin with, there are a couple of States that do not require it IIRC.
1- auto insurance is guided by the states, not the Feds...
2- not every state requires you to require auto insurance, there are some where you can drive your car uninsured...
3- in the other states you are only required to buy auto insurance if you buy a car- yet no one is requiring you to buy a car...
First of all, car insurance is required by the individual states....not the federal government.
Second of all, and this is simple: Driving on the roads is an optional activity. Mere existence is not.
* Someone can choose not to drive and live without a car. They may live somewhere with excellent public transportation, move to a walkable community or use taxis. Driving and driver’s insurance is something one can chose to opt-out of. You cannot opt out of healthcare, but you can avoid the public system.
* Health care only poses a burden on others if it payment is forced upon others. From health cost sharing ministries to groups that rely on charity of the group (Amish, some Muslims) to those who pay cash for their own care, medical insurance is not necessary to get care and there are non-insurance methods of managing catastrophic costs.
* To put into law that illegal immigrants receive care for free without paying for it is the opposite of laws for auto insurance. An illegal alien who drives without auto insurance is violating the law. An illegal alien who uses public funded health insurance is not only burdening others but is NOT breaking the law for not having health insurance. This is a double standard that discriminates against tax payers by requiring them to pay for insurance others do not AND penalizes them for not having it while those here illegally (and breaking the law to do so) are not penalized. This may be double jeopardy but it is unequal treatment under the law, with criminals actually treated better under the law than those paying for it.
In my opinion ,mandatory car insurance is BS,too.Previously you could still sue the person who injured you if they did or did not have insurance.With required insurance and no-fault laws,insurance premiums are up not down as they promised us!
Requiring insurance for any one activity will inevitably lead to requiring insurance for all activities.
Lack of insurance and fear of lawsuits already is a major factor in many things not being done today that were once commonplace and the risks were accepted .In my father’s time and in my youth, boys playing baseball with sticks and improvised bases was common,now the neighbors,owner, and incipient busybodies call the police for fear of injury and lawsuits.
The ones who most benefit from mandatory insurance are the insurance companies.
Absolutely agree. Using ‘risk’ as a fulcrum for restricting, banning or taxing any activity is a charter for tyranny as we have found time and again with the state’s incrementalism.
I appreciate the author’s zeal in attempting to take one of the left’s pet arguments off the table but making one half of their case for them is not the way to do it.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR INPUTS, THIS IS GREAT!!! I MYSELF LEARN A LOT.
WE ARE FACING TYRANNY HERE.
1. But not owning a car.
2. By Owning A car but not driving it on the Public Roads.
See you are mandated to have insurance because you are taking responsibility for your actions while driving a large hunk of metal at high speeds which often leads to destruction of property and bodily injury and/or death.
But you can opt out of such by not driving a vehicle on those public roads.
A mandate to have Health Insurance has no way to opt out at all unless you choose not to live.
So when some asshat libtard tries to use mandatory car insurance as a justification for Mandatory health insurance explain to them its not even close to the same issue.
Precisely. All of the selling points about 'uninsured motorist coverage' are falsehoods - no surprise there. The irresponsible people are exactly that. They will ignore any law therefore paying more in premiums by responsible drivers helps nobody but the state and the insurance companies - shocking!
If car insurance worked like health insurance, we would have co-pays for oil changes and tires would be controlled substances.
It covers the "other guy" if you run into him.
The way I understand it is: Obamacare health mandate = federal. Vehicle insurance = state. A state can mandate health insurance; the U.S. government cannot. Of course, Obama, et al., continue to do many things “the U.S. government cannot” do — and he is never thwarted. Hence, we have a dictatorship.
You have to have a body to be alive.
The government wants to take money from you that you could have spent on health care, and spend it on other people and things, and then when you need health care they want to evaluate your "need" to see if you are worth spending any money on.
Indentured servitude. Plain and simple.
They control your health,they control your life; they control your life , they control your freedom; they control freedom, they control your thought; they control your thought, they control your soul.
And more importantly, they do the same to your loved ones.
I see no other way out - Give me freedom or give me death.
When I was a kid I must have heard that “driving was a privilege” a million times.
You know what? I think it is a right and the government has no business licensing you. Now if you cause an accident while driving drunk, then by all means come down hard on me.
BTW, I think I see more ads for car insurance than any other thing. It must be one heck of a racket. The government makes you buy it.
I have never had an accident and haven’t had a ticket in over 30 years yet I am paying more for car insurance than I am for gas, a lot more and I have minimal coverage.
After my company kept increasing my premiums, I switched to another company which is a lot less expensive but still is high.
I am NOT morally responsible for someone else's heathcare. I am not responsible for it anymore than I am responsible for those unknown (to me) myriads' food, clothing, shelter and booze. To make me responsible is to make me responsible for everything to everyone; and them to me. From each according to his abilities to each according to his need.. Leave me out.
Auto insurance required by law is to protect others not your self. Once you own the car all the insurance you need to meet legal requirements is liability. The lender requires insurance to protect them while you have a loan. The state requires insurance to cover damage or injury to others.
All states I know about allow you opt out of insurance if post a bond or can some how show you can cover injuries to others with out insurance.
I think it’s even simpler than you make it...
Auto insurance is required in order to license a vehicle for use on public roads. If you have no car, you do not need to buy the insurance. It’s optional. I would hazard a guess that there are millions of people living in NYC who do not have auto insurance. And they don’t have it legally.
The health insurance mandate is one where the government orders you to buy a commercial product (which will eventually be provided only by the government - that’s the end game) because you have to have it. Once that’s done, what else can the government force you to buy? Hats and sun-block, because the suns UV rays are harmful?
The simple fact is that once the government can force you to buy something simply because you’re alive, there is no limit to what the government can force you to do.
All part of their plan.
>Auto insurance required by law is to protect others not your self.<
Then you shouldn’t have a problem paying health insurance for others.
Ironic but true.
So long as progressive taxation is the law of the land, the government will get you one way or the other to pay for the health insurance of the uninsured.
Mandating the type of insurance which covers contraception, sex change, abortion, drug addiction, food addiction, stress at work, etc is absurd. If one could buy insurance across state lines which covered only catastrophic hospital bills, that would be one thing. But Obamacare has no provisions for real competition among insurance providers.
It covers the "other guy" if you run into him.
It can protect both. For instance, it can protect you from 3rd party law suits, even if you are not at fault, but still cause damage to a 3rd party.
It also protects the lien holder, in the case of a new car where you've taken out a loan, or a lease.
It also pays for your auto repair/replacement if needed.
I have a $250 deductable for that on my insurance.
Car is a necessity for people not living near public transportation. Such as rural areas, farmers, and many outlying suburbs. Car is a necessity for those folks. Which then means auto insurance is a mandate.
Good point. The Constitution specifies what powers the federal government has over the states and the people. Requiring health insurance was NOT a part of those powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. Obama decried that the constitution had "negative powers" meaning that it restricted the powers of the federal government.
There is no amount of car insurance that will pay someone for the loss of their head. Driving is both a right and a risk. Those who do not wish to take the risk should stay off the road, rather than force others to be deprived of a right because they can't afford insurance.
I am absolutely philosophically opposed to state mandated insurance. For any reason.
2.1 The "RIGHT" to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen "cannot be deprived" without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment. See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125
3. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated in 1909:
3.1 The term "Public Highway," in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads, streets, highways-and roadways which the public has a "RIGHT" to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public. See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.
4. The "Supreme Court" of the "State of Illinois" ruled:
4.1 Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the "RIGHT" to travel upon the roadways and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22
6.1 The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; See: Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 607;
But, seriously, every time I read about comparisons between auto and health insurance, I want to scream. Auto insurance (1) protects OTHERS from our negligent actions, and (2) protects US from the negligent actions of others. We don't use our auto insurance to pay for maintenance or diagnostics or repairs.
We are required to carry auto insurance not for repairs to our own vehicles, but for the damage we might cause to others. We are never required by a govt entity to carry collision/comprehensive insurance for our cars or for our own personal injuries. A finance company may require us to carry collision/comprehensive, but that is to protect their own financial interest in the vehicle.
Health 'insurance' is really not insurance. It's an agreement (mandated or otherwise) with a third party to pay for all or part of our bodily maintenance and repair. It does not equate at all with the concept of auto insurance.
Hence, my flippant remark about co-pays for oil changes.
Auto insurance is to protect other people from your negligence. Auto insurance only pays out to others when you are found at fault.
Not to mention that all maintenance costs would be ‘free’ as they would need to be covered by insurance to protect the public from cars that were not maintained and were threats to public safety such as smog generation and accidents.
And of course poor people couldn’t afford the insurance or co-pays so they’d get their coverage paid for by the government via confiscatory taxes on those above the poverty level.
Whenever confronting liberal ideas, ALWAYS check the premises.
It is simple. I am NOT required to buy car insurance to protect my own car or my own health. I am only required to buy insurance in the event I damage someone else’s property or cause their bodily injury.
In no other case than Obamacare, are you required to purchase something to protect yourself and this is blatantly un-Constitutional.
Auto insurance is only required for driving on public roads, and then, only the driver is mandated to buy the insurance. Only for the driver. Not everyone in the home needs auto insurance. That's NOT the case with the health insurance mandate.
And as has be pointed out earlier, the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to mandate individuals buy anything. If the SCOTUS decides otherwise, we'll know that the great experiment that was the republic is no more.
Regardless of the arguments for or against either type of insurance, it comes down to a couple of simple question for me:
1. Is AUTO liability insurance mandated by the FED or by the individual STATES?
2. Where in the US constitution does it authorize the FED to mandate that the people purchase *ANYTHING*?
The argument for me is NOT that people should (or should not) have either sort of insurance — the point of the matter for me is that the rights not explicitly specified for the FED in the US Constitution are the purview of the individual states. That the FED would even express an opinion on the issue, much less mandate anything, is an over-reach of Federal power; power that it does not *rightly* have!
Actually I have lived in rural Iowa. Any one over 16 could not survive without a car, easily. Going to part time jobs, attending school activities, going to store, everything needed your own transportation, unless you could aford to hire a chauffeur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.