“I am not quite clear why it is OK to require insurance to drive a car, but not require insurance for guaranteed care in an emergency room. What is the constitutional difference?”
2 other people had address the legal difference between a State and The Federal goverment, as well as the difference between regulating an existing intrastate action(even if you uses some twisted logic to call it interstate) and calling into existence a new action.
I will also point out that Until 1986 hospital rooms could refuses people who did not demonstrate their ability to pay. The Democrats forced thou at the last minute the COBRA bill which made it illegal for a hospital to turn away anyone for not paying. The Effect was naturally a lot of hospitals going into backroom and a massive consolidation of the healthcare provider industry.(Which in-turn led to a consolation of the insurance industry)
The reason we can’t do that is because Congress passed a law in 1986(COBRA standing for: “Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act”) effectively mandating hospitals give out free goods and services. This is also in no small part the reason for the high cost of healthcare.
I love the driving a car insurance mandate response.
I heard it at work from a co-worker that said since we have to have insurance to buy a car..why not for health insurance?
I gave him a quick newsflash “NOT EVERYONE DRIVES!! If you don’t want car insurance, mass transit works, walking, riding a bike. But you cannot escape Health insurance because everyone that lives would be required to get it”
I go on & explain it further to the Obama bot but it still doesn’t sink in.