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. “
Absolutely false.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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;
Whenever confronting liberal ideas, ALWAYS check the premises.