Posted on 03/17/2012 10:45:17 AM PDT by God-fear-republican
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.
ML/NJ
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.
Mark
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.
Mark
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.
Mark
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, 1253. 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.
Mark
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.