Posted on 04/07/2010 5:41:52 PM PDT by PaulZe
I have been engaged in an ongoing debate with a liberal friend of mine ever since Obama became president. The current thread is on health care, specifically my questioning the legitimacy of the Federal Government forcing every American to buy health insurance. Below is a copy of her last email to me commenting my my previous email to her. I have noted who's comments are who's.
Her:
Anyway, we're forced into buying auto insurance, if you want to drive. And for most people driving is a necessity. Before you can buy a house, you have to have proof of insurance (this is to protect the bank, not you
Me:
You finally took the bait. This is another example of the illogical logic of liberalism. Your analogy is wrong on many levels.
1. I am not forced to buy a car nor am I forced to buy a house.
Her:
Bait?! ROFL! Yes you are forced to pay for the insurance. Let's say you rent. Who owns the building? THEY are the ones forced to buy insurance. Don't buy a car? Fine! Ride the bus. Think they aren't forced to buy insurance? They are, and the cost of those insurance policies gets passed on to YOU.
Me:
2. The state in which I lives sets the laws that I must abide by to drive on public roads (that rascally 10th amendment again) I have to have a valid driver's license issued by the state in which I live and many states (not all) requires car insurance.
Her:
Remember "55 to stay alive"? That was a country wide, government mandate. Ditto seat belt laws. And find me a state that doesn't require auto insurance.
Me:
In regard to a house that's part of the agreement with the lending co.
Her:
Oh if you live in a coastal or flood area, you're FORCED to buy flood insurance via FEMA. I'm not in either place but I choose to carry flood insurance. Interestingly, although it's through Hartford Flood Insurance, I still am contacted by FEMA to register it.
Me:
The Fed government has little if anything to do with either apart from interstate commerce issues,
Her:
FEMA is part of the Fed government
Me:
The fed gov has more important responsibilities like protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic to be concerned about all of us having health insurance
Her:
Spoken like someone who's been fairly healthy all their life.
It’s so simple, a caveman can understand it, but not a liberal.
The Constitution does not give the gov. the power to force us to BUY anything.
Caveman gets it.
Liberal is unable or unwilling to read The Constitution.
Ask her...If her Cat had kittens in the oven...Would she call them biscuits??......She wont get it...but u can go on to explain...once u start down a slippery slope and accept a small infraction.. (for the good of all)..the rest of the new and worse infractions seem logical in that same light!!
“...And find me a state that doesn’t require auto insurance.”
New Hampshire.
Great point about the states but what do I do about the Militia Act of 1792 (where everybody in the country was required to get a gun & ammo?)
You guys are the best! I’ve been hanging fire on the Facebook reply for a week now, stewing about this.... should have Vanitied my question earlier! Duh!
The owners of the building are not forced to buy liability or fire insurance. These are voluntary. If the building is financed, the lender may require fire insurance ONLY but not any form of any other insurance. Therefore, the analogy is completely false.
The bus is another failed analysis. The city or municipality that runs the buses uniformly "self-insures", which is a polite way of saying have no insurance. Private bus lines are not required by any government to purchase insurance for the their passengers, but may do so voluntarily.
If you buy a car, the state may force you to buy liability insurance to protect the other driver minimally. These policies ALL have been found cheaper when sold by private insurance companies for minimal coverage.
If you want an "assigned risk" health insurance policy, the coverage is always inadequate, horribly expensive, and limited for purchase to at most two (sometimes three) years of ownership due to the extreme cost.
The states had to comply or lose federal highway funds.
It's a perfect example of what will happen with federal health care - kill all the grannies or your state won't get health care.
-There is no federal seat belt law; such laws are left to the individual states. However, the first seat belt law was a federal law which took effect on January 1, 1968 that required all vehicles (except buses) to be fitted with seat belts in all designated seating positions.
States have different speed limits- there is no national speed limit of 55. HER FACTS ARE WRONG.
Driving is a privilege, and you don’t have to drive OR take a bus. the reason why auto insurance is mandatory goes back to MacPherson v. Buick, where the Court held that a car is a dangerous instrumentality (Translation- people will sue if you cause an accident, so you better buy insurance).
Building owners also get sued- so they buy insurance- the liberal trial lawyers are ambulance chasers and their librul clients specialize in hiring shysters to get money for things like spilling hot coffee- so businesses need insurance, too.
The govt has no right or constitutional authority (the “good and welfare clause” doesn’t count, ROFTL) to order the citizens to buy a particular product, especially when the goal is to eventually monopolize the product in question.
If you choose not to drive, you dont need insurance. If you choose to not go to a doctor, you shouldnt be required to buy health insurance anyway.
Show him this article from the NYT:
In Medicine, the Power of No (Denying medical care is a pillar of Obamacare)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2488672/posts
Only New Hampshire and Wisconsin do not require you to buy auto insurance:
http://www.carinsurance.com/kb/content20009.aspx
Texas used to be on this list, but is no longer.
Flood insurance is a perfect example of how the Government screws things up. People keep building and re-building in places that are prone to flood, because they can now get insurance to minimize their risk. It’s a waste of money.
The same thing will happen with health care. People may be less likely to eat healthy, exercise, avoid risky behavior and generally take care of themselves because govt. will take care of them when they get injured or sick.
That’s a good one! I’ll definitely try that angle, that it is bankrupting MA. I was trying to get her on purely Constitutional/law grounds, since she “claims” to be sooooo fond of the law and the Constitution. Right.
Then become Muslims.
Then feel free to beat her if she still gives you a hard time...
Bay State health insurance premiums highest in country
Rein in health costs, Massachusetts urged
By Kay Lazar
Globe Staff / August 22, 2009
Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country, according to a new analysis that highlights the state’s challenge in trying to rein in medical costs after passage of a landmark 2006 law that mandated coverage for nearly everyone.
It looks like as of June 1, 2010, Wisconsin will be requiring liability insurance.
And that's an interesting point: Most (every?) states requires only liability insurance to cover injuries or damage to other people. Although a no-fault state may be different.
There is no example anywhere of the federal government forcing people to buy a product from a private company.. just because you’re breathing.
For her other points, like the 55 mph speed limit, or drinking age... yep, those are pretty obviously not constitutional... and should be repealed. But, even those didn’t REQUIRE you to buy a product from a private company. This is, fundamentally different.
And... it’s socialistically messed up. It’s not really even INSURANCE! What is insurance? It’s something you buy, hoping you never have to use. You buy it, just in case you get sick.
With this system, they HAVE To sell it to you. They can’t vary your rate based on any logical system of risk. How is that insurance?
They keep saying it’s NOT a government takeover... because, the insurance will still be sold by private companies. Oh really? The government MANDATES to the insurance companies what has to be in the policies, and how much they can charge for it. If that’s not a take-over, what is??
If you’re 25 years old, no kids, no plans to have kids... you still have to buy a policy that includes maternity benefits. Whether you drink or not, you have to buy coverage that includes alcoholism. That’s not a free society.
http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2010/03/mitt-romneys-achilles-heel/
Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, was responsible for implementing Commonwealth Care, the closest thing in the nation to Obamacare.
Massachusetts not only has the highest health insurance premiums in the nation, it also has the fastest rising premiums in the nation. And Boston has, by far, the longest wait in the nation to see a doctor.
The plan is costing the state billions of dollars and is more than $100MM overbudget this year because the vast majority of new insured in Massachusetts pay little or nothing for their insurance. They simply steal money from taxpayers to pay for it. How does that “health care is a right” feel now?
Now the state is already cutting services and blocking or delaying insurance coverage for many of its residents – especially its poorest – in order to stem the fiscal hemmoraging caused by their version of ObamaCare. No wonder Massachusetts voters believe by a large ratio that Commonwealth Care has damaged the quality of health care in the state.
Some states took the money and posted the signs but refused to enforce the 55 limit. I think Montana was one of them.
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.