Sunday, July 4, 2010

Is a requirement to carry health insurance really so different from a requirement to buy automobile insurance


Is a requirement to carry health insurance really so different from a requirement to buy automobile insurance?
Technically, you don't have to own a car, but for most families, not having a car is not a practical alternative in modern society.
The distinction is purely academic for most families. I don't think there are many people who choose not to own a car simply because they have a philosophical objection to automobile insurance. I suggest that the whole argument that the new requirement for carrying health insurance is a novel requirement because the government has never before required people to purchase any specific thing is a red herring.
Politics - 22 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Yes, it is. Government requiring you to buy a service simply for breathing is outrageous.
2 :
You can drive a car without insurance policy purchased from insurance company. In California you can make a $10,000 security deposit with the DMV, and it will serve as insurance of you civil liability.
3 :
You have to have a license to operate a car. That license can be revoked. Let us hope that those too are not part of your analogy. One must live the choice to die is against the law.
4 :
You're right. The reason we have to carry car insurance is if we don't, our accident costs others more in raised premiums. The reason we should all carry health insurance is if we don't, our trip to the emergency room costs others more in raised premiums. However . . . Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/wyden-health-care-lawsuit_n_511748.html ##
5 :
dude..if you do not know the difference,then God help us...you are part of the problem.
6 :
yes. if you don't own a car, you don't need to buy it.
7 :
For car insurance I only have to purchase liability insurance! I do not have to cover my own car.
8 :
According to Conservatives "you're not forced to own a car" . This is from the same people who live in Michigan backroads and literally live miles from any paved roads so...... where exactly can you live outside of a big city where you can get around without a car?
9 :
The democrats have been bringing socialism into this nation in small baby steps since FDR, some say as far back as Wilson. Right now, all of the professional non working people in America are entitled to FREE HC. Medicade and Medicare. That leaves the working people who support the non working people, and they are out on their ear if a preexisting condition comes up, but supposedly that has been fixed with 0bamaCare... NOT SO!. BTW, my HC went up 50% directly due to 0bamaCare, it will increase greatly until I am forced onto the roles of the uninsured. Great HC reform, huh? The problem is, the self reliant, the self supporting that make just enough to have a life of their own with no governmental entitlements... We do not rate the socialism entitlements that others have. Entitlements. Socialism. Things will get a great deal worse because of the ObamaCare. BTW, 0bama is a liar, he said it would save one trillion dollars... Liars are evil rotten people. .
10 :
No it is not very different at all. And a State could make one do so. Massachusetts did, as I understand. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can not do so. There's nothing in the charter of its powers that allow it to. That charter is also known as the "Constitution". --- Hold on now! A LOT of folks say that driving is a privilege not a right. That's simply not so. Driving, or any other human action a person may do for the good is a RIGHT. Did you know that in colonial America residents of some places, free men and women as we today understand that term, had to get permission to TRAVEL. Travel was a PRIVILEGE of the feudal land holder. (See Anti-Rent Wars, Patroons.) That kind of thing is typical of many NON-FREE times and places. What we have in the US of A is RARE, exceedingly rare. That is, FREEDOM. But the states have the same DUTY to regulate travel and set standards for drivers on public roads as did ancient harbormasters to set regulations upon types of ships, upon way and handling of ships, and upon who might captain (pilot) a ship in his harbor. That does NOT make driving on public ways a privilege, it is still a right, but a right but that can be regulated.
11 :
All people sooner or later need healthcare. If we want people to buy or not buy health insurance based on their free choice, we should allow people to die on the streets if they don’t have any. It would be consequences of their free choice. Now they don’t buy it, but expect taxpayers to pick the bill if they need healthcare. Those who can’t afford it or are discriminated against because of pre-existing conditions, have no choice. Argument of “optional car ownership” sounds ridiculous keeping in mind that public transportation in USA is non-existent. Why can’t I sell my house or go bankrupt if I need to pay liability for car accident? Why can’t I have this option?
12 :
Soooo, if you get sick, you'll cause property damage. And what happens if you get stolen. I assume this is your first day with a new brain.
13 :
Even if you reject the argument that driving a car is optional, there is also the fact that the car insurance law requires you to have only LIABILITY insurance. That is, it requires drivers to take financial responsibility for damage and injury they might cause to OTHERS. Health insurance covers only YOUR OWN health care costs, and the health care of your dependents. Do you skydive? SCUBA dive? Hang glide? Climb mountains? We have the freedom to take risks with our own well being. Going without health insurance is a personal choice that has no direct effect on others, so we should be free to choose. The government should step in only if we are taking risks with the well being of OTHERS. That's the difference with requiring LIABILITY insurance to protect others.
14 :
I totally agree. We're required by law to have car insurance to keep car insurance costs down. And God help you if you're stopped by a cop and don't have insurance to show him/her, you're taken to the police station. It should be the same with health insurance. If everyone had health insurance, emergency room wouldn't have to give free service, or transfer you to a county hospital, who will still be obligated to care for you. The cost of all this free service is passed down to people, through their insurance companies and we pay for the uninsured's health care.
15 :
Yes, these are two different issues. Auto insurance is mandated by the state (owning/driving a car are optional), while health care insurance will be legislated by the federal government under the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. Someday you will get sick or injured. That's not an option. It will happen. And if you are not insured other people will have to pay for your care. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031901470.html
16 :
The 2 things are not related. The individual mandate in health care reform was put there as a means to regulate the health insurance industry and cost of premiums. The argument is that mandatory participation is necessary because it is the only way the fed gov can effectively regulate premiums. They claim that this is valid under the commerce clause. This has nothing to do with car insurance because mandatory car insurance has nothing to do with regulation. It is also something done at the state level, not the federal level. Any power not specifically given to the fed gov in the constitution falls to the states by default. Whether or not mandatory purchase of a product is a constitutional method to regulate an industry under the interstate commerce will be decided fairly soon when the various state lawsuits make their way to the supreme court.
17 :
It will be overturn just like SS was. The courts said the Feds had no authority to make individuals by a retirement plan, so to they will say the same about the Feds making you buy Health Ins. Wait XX we have SS - that's crazy talk. The Feds can do anything they want (Kagan said so in her hearing). The Dems will disregard the Constitution (as they do all the time) will make it a simple TAX (the courts agree they can Tax). Look at your pay check it's called SSI tax.
18 :
NO ONE FORCES YOU to buy a car. Many people that live in the city do not own cars. In fact I live in a small town of under a population of 5,000. Many do not own a car. They use the bus. This is a CHOICE!. Obamacare forces you to buy insurance. That is the difference.
19 :
Just where in the constitution do you see it giving the federal government the right to force people to purchase anything from a private corporation ? If Congress passed a law, saying you had to purchase a car from nissan, would you think that was legal ? Is the way to solve the homeless problem, just to pass a law, that all homeless must buy a house ? 2. The government would have a better argument, if they required everyone to buy insurance directly from the government, then it would be a tax, like the medicare tax. But requiring everyone to buy something from a corporation, just plain is not constitutional. 3, Again, what if Congress required everyone to but pepsi, and not coke ? is that legal ?
20 :
*sigh* yeh, at least with the car insurance, you don't have to pay for other peoples bruises... the country is gonna be in Deep sh*t if the obamas don't go back to chicago, or hawaii, or where ever that guy says hes from... crumbble, grumble...
21 :
The state may require you to provide proof of personal financial responsibility, in case of an accident, not necessarily in the form of insurance. Also, the state does not administer or dictate terms as the Feds do. Driving an automobile is a privilege not a right therefore in order to qualify you must provide proof of financial responsibility in case of accident to protect others from you in case of carelessness or irresponsibility. Conversely a doctor (properly certified) has a right (as opposed to privilege) to practice medicine and may or may not choose to protect himself from malpractice in any number of ways but it is his/her choice. So it is with health insurance for the individual. The individual has the right to choose how to cover themselves from loss of health including choosing not to cover themselves at all without interference from a federally mandated program without their consent. It is a violation of due process and an infringement of their individual and states rights. Congress has no right under the commerce clause to regulate insurance since it is not allowed to be sold across state lines. Big difference between privilege and right.
22 :
Hello, Here is the cheapest website for health insurance, I know.I saved 30%.Most of the other sites that offer discount are actually scams. http://FreeQuotesForYou.Info Really hope I'll help you


Read more discussions :
Posted by Health Insurance at 10:28 PM