Posted on 07/11/2013 9:22:56 AM PDT by Kaslin
The debate is going hot and heavy on Obamacare right now. This grand Democrat scheme is going to be a disaster … and the Democrats know it. The reality, though, is that it was designed to be a disaster. This coming health care debacle is no accident. It’s all part of a plan.
The Democrats, you see, wanted complete, total and absolute control over your health care. Their true dream was something they have maneuvered the media into calling a “single-payer” plan. Now doesn’t that sound oh so benign? Single-payer. How nice. The problem, though, is that the single-payer is the government. The government writes all the checks, which means the government decides who gets paid what for what and when.
The left just didn’t have the votes in the congress to get their single payer dream, so they hastily construct this Obamacare monstrosity. Now they just sit back to wait for it to collapse so they can pull a huge orchestrated “I told you so” and move on to their true dream of absolute government control.
You know what will be next, don’t you? Yup … the old “if you vote for Republicans they’ll take away your health care” ploy. Considering the ignorance of the average American voter (Obama. Twice? Really?) that translates into a permanent Democrat majority.
OK .. this really is about auto insurance. Let me make the connection.
Obama has delayed the insurance mandate for businesses. This was a purely political move. Dear Ruler knows that this mandate will mean lost jobs for many, and lower working hours for many more. He wants to avoid this jobs carnage until after the 2014 mid-term elections. Every person with a pink slip or fewer hours due to 0bamacare might represent three, four or more votes against Democrat incumbents. Republicans want the individual mandate extended as well. So now we have Democrat sycophants arguing with more agile-minded conservatives about the fairness of continuing with the individual mandate while businesses get a pass.
So there I was yesterday afternoon watching one cranially challenged Democrat arguing with a more informed Republican. Finally the pro-Obamacare lib drops what he thinks is the argument winner: “Well, individuals are required to buy auto insurance! So what’s the difference?”
Please! Dear Lord Please! Is there not one news anchor, talk show host, commentator, GOP strategist or talking head of any description …. ANYONE … who is able to counter this “individuals are required to buy auto insurance” Bolshoi?
They’re wrong! This is a falsehood!
In NO state are you required to buy auto insurance simply because you own a car, truck --- whatever. You are ONLY required to buy car insurance if the car you own or operate is going to be used on public roads. If your use of the car is limited to private property, no insurance required. If you own a thousand-acre ranch and have a pickup truck you only use for work on that ranch … no insurance required. If you own a large manufacturing facility and have vehicles that never leave the grounds, the government requires no insurance. Those cars running around that NASCAR track on Sunday … do you think that lizard insures them?
Fact is … no individual in the country is required to buy car insurance. If you decide that you just don’t want to buy this insurance, all you have to do is not own a vehicle that you use on public roads! Catch a cab. Hitchhike. Take the bus. No insurance! Borrow a car from someone who has purchased insurance. You aren’t forced to do anything! If you decide to use a car on public roads you enter into a contract with the people – through their government – to exercise that privilege. The state promises to patrol the roads to keep them safe, to keep them in repair, and to allow you access so long as you abide by certain rules. In turn, you agree to obey certain traffic laws … and to insure your vehicle if you own it. This is a voluntary contract! No compulsion. You are not being FORCED to buy auto insurance.
Really … why is this so difficult to understand? Why do conservative talking heads always – and I mean always – automatically adopt the “deer in headlights” pose when some proggie pulls this “well you have to buy car insurance” nonsense? Can’t these talking head shows come up with even one spokesman for goodness and light who would say: “Sorry, pal. But you’re wrong. The government does not make everyone buy car insurance.”
Maybe if this column gets spread around a bit we will be able to kill off this pathetic proggie nonsense once and for all.
Meanwhile … get ready for a health care disaster that is going to make The Loan Ranger look like the movie of the year!
You have to purchase auto insurance.
Unless your are an illegal alien. (Come on, you know this is how it works.)
You will have to purchase health insurance.
Need I fill out this part?
CW-II is indeed in the future.
:::::::::::::::
Obamacare never was about health care. It is about government takeover and control and hurting American capitalism and greatness. A very sick and disastrous situation that hopefully, the House will reject for the sake of America and its real people.
Every state trooper and judge in the nation will tell you, “Driving is a privilege, not a right.”
In order to drive, you must buy auto accident insurance.
If you don’t want to drive, you don’t have to buy it.
This whole Obamacare scam is based on a blatant lie...............
Pennsylvania used to have mandatory No Fault Auto Insurance.
The premiums were incredibly high. At the time it was determined that 2 out of 3 drivers in Philly were driving uninsured.
But “traveling” is an “Unalienable Right” that needs no permission
Auto insurance mandates are via the larger power of the individual states. The District does not have authority to demand such things, including health care. Facts no longer guide the District, even the USSC.
In order to drive, you must buy auto accident insurance.Maybe so but if you have the minimum required you and your car are not covered...Mandatory car ins. is for the other guy.
But “traveling” is an “Unalienable Right” that needs no permission
After we secede from the "progressive" oligarchy and reassert and reestablish our original Constitution, I believe we're going to want to add amendments to it to define and strengthen our fundamental rights. I believe the founding fathers didn't include the right to travel because it didn't occur to them the feral government and state governments could ever deny such an obvious fact, and the same for the right to privacy, which is implied by the Fourth Amendment, though not directly stated.
Oh, by the way, would it be worth our while to limit all federal office holders to a single term? Would it be worth our while to draw up a list of all authorities and powers the federal government has, and specifically exclude any and all others? Would it be worth our while to make the federal government wholly dependent on the states for all its funds?
Just wondering.
There is even more, first off auto insurance is a STATE requirement, not a federal one, all powers NOT DELEGATED to the federal government are reserved to the states, in reality states are supposed to have powers the national govenment lacks. Secondly only LIABILITY insurance is required to operate a vehicle on state roads, this is to protect OTHER people, not the owner of the vehicle. If you own the vehicle clear of debt there is no requirement for you to have insurance to protect you in any way. It is astounding that Americans have become so stupid that they can say with a straight face that auto liability insurance requirement is in any way comparable to the health insurance mandate.
Every time I decide that I am as dumb as a rock I run into evidence that there are millions in this country who make me look like da Vinci by comparison.
Even idiots should be able to see the idiocy of that.
Only if you own a motor powered vehicle that goes on public roads. I can choose not to own a motor powered vehicle. I can choose to drive it only on my private land. I can choose to keep it stored.
I can not choose not to have a body.
It would be idiotic to purchase auto insurance if no one is driving the car.
That may be so, but there’s no stopping you from walking.......
Actually the founding fathers were originally inclined to NOT include a bill of rights in the constitution because it could lead to the idea that any rights NOT enumerated were lost. I think this was the better idea and the inclusion of the bill of rights was an error because it is obvious that now we are fighting to keep the few rights that ARE included in the BOR and anything not listed can be considered lost.
The worst idea I have heard recently is the call for a constitutional convention. Any rewrite of the constitution in this age would likely result in an obamanation that would be ten thousand pages long and we would have to ratify it to find out what is in it. Our original constitution is being trampled in the dirt daily, there is no reason to believe that adding to it would change that.
You said;
“Oh, by the way, would it be worth our while to limit all federal office holders to a single term? Would it be worth our while to draw up a list of all authorities and powers the federal government has, and specifically exclude any
and all others?”
The constitution already lists the powers delegated to the federal government by the states and the tenth amendment states that all other powers are reserved to the states or to the people. I am ambivalent concerning term limits, I can think of arguments for and against. My first inclination is to say that term limits should be the prerogative of the voters but maybe mandatory limits would lessen the tendency to do something just for the purpose of getting reelected without regard to the validity of the legislation.
In short if we could “reassert and reestablish our original Constitution” we would PROBABLY not need to ADD anything, we should REMOVE some amendments but I don’t think additions would help as much as they would hurt. I think we have gotten ourselves into an impossible situation by doing something when we should have just stood there. Unintended and unforeseen consequences are often disastrous.
While insurance covering damage to your automobile is available in all states, there is no state that requires you to purchase it. States do require demonstration of financial responsibility for potential damage to a third party and that is usually, but not always, covered by a liability policy. The two policies are usually sold together, but there is no requirement that you buy both. If your automobile is old and of limited value, it would be foolish to insure it, but you would still need to demonstrate financial responsibility for potential damage to a third party by having a liability policy.
There is no equivalency between auto and health insurance.
excellent point
As far as Auto 'insurance' what would truly be comparable to the canard that is called health insurance would be an auto maintenance and repair policy that covered oil changes and other such expected and predictable maintenance requirements.
In essence, to talk apples with apples as far as auto versus health one would have to change much in regards to how auto maintenance is now done and the free market that premises auto maintenance.
For instance:
FIRST, auto maintenance would be classified a right AND then government would impose additional requirements and regulations.
Insurance companies would collude with each other and with suppliers and establish pricing and preferred supplier lists ALL THIS with the aid of bought off government officials that would impose these requirements thereby creating a monopoly subsidized by tax payer dollars and immune from free market forces that would otherwise choose winners from losers and seek value based pricing.
The worst idea I have heard recently is the call for a constitutional convention. Any rewrite of the constitution in this age would likely result in an obamanation that would be ten thousand pages long and we would have to ratify it to find out what is in it. Our original constitution is being trampled in the dirt daily, there is no reason to believe that adding to it would change that.
I certainly see your point, RipSawyer, and appreciate your taking time to outline your thoughts. Let me rephrase that, please: "your worthy thoughts."
A constitutional convention today under the "progressive" oligarchy that's taken the place of our lost constitutional republic in all but name and flag? I'd be not merely opposed, but adamantly and even vehemently opposed: the loudly self-proclaimed "progressives" would pervert the occasion into an opportunity to concoct a nakedly socialist document.
I'm thinking in terms of additions to our restored Constitution after a handful or larger number of states have seceded from the oligarchy. Would additions be necessary? Not at all—but if and only if the new nation adhered to both the letter and spirit of the original Constitution.
If Marxism could pervert, subvert, and ultimately eviscerate our Constitution, couldn't another ideology do so again even after the (presumed) failure of leftism in all its numerous guises and iterations? After we abolished slavery, didn't the nearly equal monstrosity of Jim Crow soon take its place? Even if we secede from leftist tyranny, couldn't wannabe tyrants of some other kind do approximately as the "progressives" did and undertake a century-long conquest from within?
In all fairness, I freely concede no constitution or set of laws can prevent criminals from indulging themselves in criminal enterprises, so perhaps it's naive of me to hope a restored and strengthened Constitution could hold up better or longer than our original Constitution.
I think a severely constrained federal government would be less likely to declare its indpendence of the people and gorge itself beyond all recognition on the corpses of law and tradition and decency—but prove it? No, I can't. You wrote:
...maybe mandatory limits would lessen the tendency to do something just for the purpose of getting reelected without regard to the validity of the legislation.
I believe that alone would be more than sufficient justification for limiting all office holders to a single term; that said™, I can all too easily imagine one Kennedy or one Bush or one Clinton "passing on" his or her office to the next Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, or unrelated representative of the Chicago way. Idiots and criminals are the most ingenious people of all. In any event, I doubt it's too soon to start considering what to do after we extricate ourselves from the oligarchy.
Thanks again, eh?
Brings back memories, that’s what the Romneybots said in 2007.
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.