Posted on 12/18/2010 8:03:56 PM PST by Nachum
Gordon Peterson on Friday asked either a staggeringly ignorant or intentionally provocative question.
On the most recent installment of PBS's "Inside Washington," the host queried his guests, "Why is it constitutional to require Americans to buy automobile insurance but un-Constitutional to force them to buy health insurance?" (video follows with transcript and commentary): ---
GORDON PETERSON, HOST: That’s Ken Cuccinelli. He’s the attorney general of Virginia. He brought the challenge to ObamaCare. The federal court and judge Henry Hudson of Virginia ruled it’s un-Constitutional to force Americans to buy health insurance, as the law mandates. Why is it constitutional to require Americans to buy automobile insurance but un-Constitutional to force them to buy health insurance?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Unless you're an illegal alien and you don't have to do anything... nor suffer any consequences.
In any event, the business exemptions you cite were provided to various companies so that they could continue to provide coverage to their employees. If that coverage goes away, the individuals employed by those companies would still need to obtain coverage. And if this is not the case, then the exemptions provide yet further grounds for why Obamacare is unconstitutional because you don't get an exemption from the auto insurance requirement just because you work for a particular company that has ties to the Obama administration.
People are not forced to buy car insurance.
Some cities have ordinances that require insurance and plates on cars that just sit.
FYI, every taxpayer pays for what the Feds call flood insurance. Why? Because the NFIP/FEMA program which is called flood insurance runs out of money and is subsidized by the US Treasury. It is a PONZI scheme.
A question asked on a false premise. The Federal Government does not force people to buy car insurance, so he’s flat wrong to begin with in his comparison on that alone, and also he’s wrong in his comparison due to the fact no one is forced to buy or drive a car. No one is forced to start their own business and hire employees, but if they do, a requirement of state governments is that they purchase workers compensation insurance. We could go on and on...the real question is whether this host who asked this question is really this ignorant or he’s trying to start a false narrative as part of the debate over the health care law.
Why is it Constitutional to Force People to Buy Car Insurance
First of all, insurance is not required - proof of financial responsibility is. In Texas, all one has to prove is that they have the ability to cover damages $20k per person up to $40k, and $15K for property damage. Bonds, letters of credit, or do what most folks do - third party insurance policies. The penalty for failing to prove financial responsibility is suspension of driver's license.
In absence of Collision/Comp coverage, lien holders want to minimize their risk on vehicles worth over $3000 NADA with an LSI (Lien holders Single Interest) paid for by the borrower. Again, like PLPD this isn't for the benefit of the motorist, rather it is protects the interests of the lien holder.
Now compare that to medical "insurance". Unlike automobile financial responsibility, wealthy people are forced at gun point to participate in a public plan rather than "self-insure". You can be a billionaire and still be required to have insurance. In auto insurance, the State wants to make sure that victims of other driver's recklessness are somewhat compensated. In this medical insurance scam, it is all about looting, power and control.
There is nothing really in common here.
The collision and comprehensive coverage you're referring to is not required by the state. The states only require you to carry liability coverage for harm you may cause to others. (A lender may require you to carry collision and comprehensive coverage as a condition for getting a loan for the vehicle.)
Another good point - you aren’t forced to buy car insurance to protect yourself or your own property but to protect the person and property of others that you may damage while operating a motor vehicle. Purchasing insurance to protect your own person and property is a choice.
I vote he's staggeringly ignorant...
You don’t have to, you can put up a cash bond!!!
How do we KNOW the court would find it constitutional to force people to buy car insurance? So far as I can tell, there is no federal mandate to buy car insurance.
Meanwhile, states may force you to buy insurance, but only if you own a car. So far as I can tell, no state requires car insurance just for having a drivers license. So I’m guessing the requirement is that if you want to put a car on one of the state’s roads, you need to have insurance the state approves of.
That seems like a somewhat rational requirement, given that your presense on the roads could damage other people’s property, and they want to make sure you can pay for it.
So far as I can tell, my state doesn’t require me to have collision insurance for my own car, only for others. So I don’t have to insure myself, OR MY car — I just have to have insurance for the damage I could do to other people’s cars.
The car insurance analogy is so far off, that it is almost juvenile to bring it up.
Oh, one more thing. As somebody already posted states require that a person prove financial responsibility when it comes to legal liability regarding vehicles. You are not required to buy insurance. I know several people with big bucks that “self-insure”.
Well, I don't know about you but I have looked into obtaining certification for my Indian background to opt out of Obamacare. I'm not sure a Mennonite church would obtain the religious exclusion, but if so, perhaps I'd consider joining a congregation.
Liberals. There is no limit to their stupidity.
Gordon Peterson on Friday asked either a staggeringly ignorant or intentionally provocative question.
It’s not only just staggeringly ignorant but moronic trolls have been calling talk shows everyday asking the same thing for a month now.
IMO, the answer to this lies in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. As others have pointed out, requirements to carry insurance for liability on the road are mandated by the states.
The power to force individuals to purchase health insurance is not a power granted to the federal government, and would therefore be deferred to the states to make that determination, as per the 10th amendment.
That is what Massachusetts has done.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Long live the Tenth Amendment and the Tenth Commandment!!!
(As well as the Ninth (and all others) which commands that:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"))
These are the NEGATIVE words the founders insisted the feral govermint live by or they would not sign up to be the "United States" at all!!! Yes, Obamanites, I said NEGATIVE!!! (That means not positive)
Your lender required it as a condition of loaning you the money, the government didn't require it............Unless it was the government that loaned you the money.
I know of no state that requires "full coverage" insurance, states require liability insurance only. However if you borrow the money to buy that car, your lender will almost certainly require that you have that "full coverage" to protect their investment.
Car insurance is for protecting someone else, not you. Plus you are not forced to buy a car either.
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.