Posted on 12/14/2010 1:22:29 PM PST by jazusamo
my sister doesn’t have a car. Does she still have to buy car insurance?
Spot on.
1. We also have to have a license, for the ‘privilege’ to use the public ROW. They have equated this privilege with having a pulse.
2. Individuals can choose to not drive - thus there is no requirement to purchase auto insurance. We cannot choose not to live (or should be be forced into that choice, since we are guaranteed life, liberty....).
3. If they want to go down that road, and use the commerce clause...since health insurance is currently regulated by states, and not purchased across state lines, it doesn't even apply.
She can see this as justification for the individual mandate, but she CAN'T (WON'T) see that it utterly destroys the argument for covering pre-existing conditions.
According to the Marxist in the WH she probably should to help defray the costs, it’ll be a great day when he’s out.
I love the Car insurance comparison. Please let them keep using that as an argument. What a joke this administration is!!
Yes. From now on (following Obamacare metaphors) the following people will have to have car insurance, even though they don’t have or drive an automobile:
1. Pedestrians.
2. Bicyclists.
3. Mothers pushing strollers.
4. Toddlers on trikes.
Isn’t that a great thing???? Now EVERYONE is covered!! Wooohooo! The world is a safer place!!!
Timely article.
Someone at work tried this argument on me yesterday. I quickly dismissed his point by citing the fact (unlike health insurance) that almost all roads are government owned and thus the government can stipulate what insurance is needed to use them.
However, I didn’t have the other points. While I was successful in winning the point, he was a soft target.
Freepers - you’re going to get this argument a lot. Read the article and be prepared.
Correct, and she doesn’t address the fact that poor drivers pay a lot more or can’t buy it at all as in the article.
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Driving is a selective choice made by the individual. You DO NOT have to drive...you choose to.
The fact is you don’t even need a license, let alone insurance, if you do all your driving on your own property.
“Yeah, Both are Unconstitutional.”
No they’re not. Driving on public streets is a priviledge regulated by the state and it’s perfectly within their powers under the law to make sure you are insured when exercizing that priviledge.
Living is not a priviledge but a right and forcing someone to pay for that right is truly unconstitutional.
Yes, Preston makes great points in the piece.
I’d rather have the gecko in charge of my hearthcare than Barack Obama...or Michelle in charge of my diet!
Okay, even when disregarding the obvious difference between privilege and the unconditional right to benefits of citizenship, if the asshole aide has any idea about comparing health insurance with ‘car’ insurance, then he/she/it should know (because he/she/it is an all knowing damned Democrat) that the only time the Federal Government has a sayso about car insurance is when someone tries to drive on Federal installations... So in MY book the only one who HAS to purchase the damned insurance is Obama and Biden, who live on Federal property....
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.