The gov't already makes us buy insurance

[VanillaCone]

Perhaps someone can explain why they consider Obamacare's mandate clause to be so fundamentally different from car insurance, which everyone who drives a car must purchase by law.

Is mandatory car insurance OK Constitution because it is the states and not the federal government imposing the law? If the authority to mandate health insurance rested solely with state governments, would that make it all better?

 

[Alt+F4]

Perhaps someone can explain why they consider Obamacare's mandate clause to be so fundamentally different from car insurance, which everyone who drives a car must purchase by law.

The difference is you don't have to own a car.

 

[VanillaCone]

The difference is you don't have to own a car.

Lots of people do have to own a car.

 

[Brainster]

The difference is that it is state governments that require auto insurance. The US Constitution is a document that mostly binds and restricts the Federal Government. It restricts the state governments in a much more limited way (for example, state governments may not engage in foreign policy, and must honor the contracts of other states). In short, state governments have much more rights than the Federal Government.

 

[willhaven]

Medicare + Medicaid

At least the individual mandate gives one the choice of what they want to buy. And at least then, you're paying for your own care.

 

[VanillaCone]

The difference is that it is state governments that require auto insurance. The US Constitution is a document that mostly binds and restricts the Federal Government. It restricts the state governments in a much more limited way (for example, state governments may not engage in foreign policy, and must honor the contracts of other states). In short, state governments have much more rights than the Federal Government.

Still, it's mandatory in every state and territory in the U.S., so the practical effect is no different than if it were federal law. I'm sort of curious now to find out how the mandatory-car-insurance system was established, and if it was considered controversial at the time. I imagine it was.

 

[theprestige]

Actually, it's not mandatory. You only need insurance to operate your car on public roads. At least in California, you can always forgo the insurance for the cars you own as long as you refrain from operating them in public.

So auto insurance is mandatory if you're operating a car on public roads.

Obamacare's health insurance is mandatory if you're alive.

 

[VanillaCone]

Obamacare's health insurance is mandatory if you're alive.

Umm, no.

It's mandatory if you are in a position to utilize the U.S. healthcare system at some point in the future. The assumption is that every U.S. person ultimately will seek and receive some form of medical care. It seems to me like a reasonable assumption.

ETA: North Koreans will not be required to obtain health insurance under Obamacare, and I am 99 percent certain they are alive.

 

[Neally]

Not sure why there is yet another thread presenting these same tired arguments that have been debated in other threads extensively, but here we go yet another time...

Lots of people do have to own a car.

The law requires them to own a car?

Still, it's mandatory in every state and territory in the U.S.

No, Virginia, Mississippi, and New Hampshire have alternatives available.

It's mandatory if you are in a position to utilize the nation's healthcare system at some point in the future. The assumption is that every U.S. person ultimately will seek and receive some form of medical care. It seems to me like a reasonable assumption.

Receiving medical care <> needing insurance.

 

[VanillaCone]

Not sure why there is yet another thread presenting these same tired arguments that have been debated in other threads extensively, but here we go yet another time...

The law requires them to own a car?

The realities of the modern era and the need to earn living to feed their families require millions but not all people to own a car. It depends largely on where you live. In Phoenix, where I live, it would not be possible for me to keep my job without owning a personal vehicle. Public transit here is simply inadequate.

No, Virginia, Mississippi, and New Hampshire have alternatives available.

Is one of the alternatives not having to buy insurance? The way you worded that statement sounds a bit weaselly.

Receiving medical care <> needing insurance.

Only if you are fabulously wealthy. For the rest of us it most certainly does =.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Car insurance is a State issue, not a federal one.

 

[bynmdsue]

The auto insurance you must purchase covers you in the event you damage someone else's property. You can also post a bond with the state instead. It does not cover oil changes or tire rotations. The state does not attempt to justify mandated liability insurance thru the commerce clause.

 

[Brainster]

Is mandatory car insurance OK Constitution because it is the states and not the federal government imposing the law? If the authority to mandate health insurance rested solely with state governments, would that make it all better?

It might make it legal; that would depend largely on state constitutions and state supreme courts.

 

[maxpower1227]

I find comparing human lives to cars about as silly as drawing analogies between national and household budgets.

 

[crimresearch]

Perhaps someone can explain why they consider Obamacare's mandate clause to be so fundamentally different from car insurance, which everyone who drives a car must purchase by law.

Is mandatory car insurance OK Constitution because it is the states and not the federal government imposing the law? If the authority to mandate health insurance rested solely with state governments, would that make it all better?

There is no government requirement that everyone is a certain category purchase car insurance.

You don't need to get it just because you are a certain age, you don't need to get it to have a driver's license, you don't even need it to own a car.

If you want to take a fairly new car out on the road, a bank may require you to insure the car against damage.

All the government requires is that when taking a car out among other people, you must be able to pay for the damage you might cause.

If you are able to be self insured, then you don't even have to buy liability insurance.

So there is no strong comparison between the situations involving car insurance, and health insurance.

 

[Neally]

The realities of the modern era and the need to earn living to feed their families require millions but not all people to own a car. It depends largely on where you live. In Phoenix, where I live, it would not be possible for me to keep my job without owning a personal vehicle. Public transit here is simply inadequate.

Sorry, driving is still a privilege not a right or something required by law, therefore the states can impose whatever requirements they want and you don't have to comply if you don't drive.

Is one of the alternatives not having to buy insurance?

Yes.

Only if you are fabulously wealthy. For the rest of us it most certainly does =.

So everyone should be forced to buy something even though they don't want or need it, simply because you do. Poor rationale.

Everyone will eventually die, that doesn't mean everyone should have to buy funeral insurance just because some should.

 

[VanillaCone]

Car insurance is a State issue, not a federal one.

This, in a nutshell, is the whole thing. You're right. It's different.

However I cannot understand people coming on this forum and acting like mandatory health insurance is a horrible and un-American idea.

Last summer I had to have an emergency appendectomy. If I'd been born 100 years ago that would have been the end for me, dead at 38. The hospital bill had two prices on it: $34K if you're uninsured, and $7K if you are insured, of which the insurance company paid about $5K and I paid the other $2K.

So what would my "options" have been in that situation if I had been without insurance? Dead or destitute. I think we can and therefore should do a bit better than that for our citizens in the world's richest and most powerful nation, don't you?

 

[Newtons Bit]

This, in a nutshell, is the whole thing. You're right. It's different.

Right.

However I cannot understand people coming on this forum and acting like mandatory health insurance is a horrible and un-American idea.

Last summer I had to have an emergency appendectomy. If I'd been born 100 years ago that would have been the end for me, dead at 38. The hospital bill had two prices on it: $34K if you're uninsured, and $7K if you are insured, of which the insurance company paid about $5K and I paid the other $2K.

So what would my "options" have been in that situation if I had been without insurance? Dead or destitute. I think we can and therefore should do a bit better than that for our citizens in the world's richest and most powerful nation, don't you?

We don't have to shatter our legal framework just to make healthcare more accessible (and more expensive).

 

[VanillaCone]

Oh, wow, I didn't realize the SCOTUS had ruled on this already. You must have 4G wireless or something.

ETA: Nobody dies bleeding on a gurney thinking about the state of our precious "legal framework." Most people would rather live, and not have to spend the rest of their lives paying for it.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Oh, wow, I didn't realize the SCOTUS had ruled on this already. You must have 4G wireless or something.

Can you make a post without using a straw man?