Obamacare Turns into "Healthwreck"

I live in California, not Massachusetts.

I’m not aware of any insurance the State of California requires me to buy to protect myself. None.

My bank requires me to have homeowners insurance because they hold the deed. Once the home is mine outright, there is no law that says I must insure it against fire or other damage.

I choose to have flood insurance but there is no requirement.

I choose not to have earthquake insurance and it is not required.

I am required to have auto collision and medical insurance in case I damage someone else, but there is no California law I am aware of that requires me to have collision or comprehensive insurance to repair or replace my own damaged vehicle. So no, my state does not require me to buy any insurance of any time, to protect myself. It only requires that I protect others from the liability I am exposed to if I damage them.

As far as the US constitution not covering the states, I hear that a lot.

So just to be clear, are you saying that Massachusetts or California could pass a law REQUIRING every household to purchase a Chevy Volt, and that would pass constitutional muster?

I just want to be sure I understand you clearly.

So just to be clear, are you saying that Massachusetts or California could pass a law REQUIRING every household to purchase a Chevy Volt, and that would pass constitutional muster?

My statement was that the STATE requires you to buy insurance - I made no statement on who's behalf or protection that demand was made. That part is true. California demands you purchase automobile insurance - how much you buy over the minimum is up to you. Also, you are free to 'shop around' for the best service/coverage/cost you can find. But, this is a case where the state is forcing you to buy something you might otherwise (foolishly) not buy.

Given the cost of the Chevy Volt - I think there would be grounds that this was an onerous demand, so it would likely be thrown out. But, say the state demanded that everyone buy a belt, so their drawers don't hang down - then 'yes'.

The US Constitution allows the states a bit of lenience to create mischief. But, the specifics as to your STATE CONSTITUTION may further limit this. Obamacare was simply stated, a Federal power grab into the jurisdiction under control of the individual states. This is why Romneycare was legal - it was a STATE requirement. Now, I have not said that this was a 'good' thing - I oppose Romneycare - but at least this was at the level it is Constitutionally required to be - at the individual state level.

So just to be clear, are you saying that Massachusetts or California could pass a law REQUIRING every household to purchase a Chevy Volt, and that would pass constitutional muster?

My statement was that the STATE requires you to buy insurance - I made no statement on who's behalf or protection that demand was made. That part is true. California demands you purchase automobile insurance - how much you buy over the minimum is up to you. Also, you are free to 'shop around' for the best service/coverage/cost you can find. But, this is a case where the state is forcing you to buy something you might otherwise (foolishly) not buy.

Given the cost of the Chevy Volt - I think there would be grounds that this was an onerous demand, so it would likely be thrown out. But, say the state demanded that everyone buy a belt, so their drawers don't hang down - then 'yes'.

The US Constitution allows the states a bit of lenience to create mischief. But, the specifics as to your STATE CONSTITUTION may further limit this. Obamacare was simply stated, a Federal power grab into the jurisdiction under control of the individual states. This is why Romneycare was legal - it was a STATE requirement. Now, I have not said that this was a 'good' thing - I oppose Romneycare - but at least this was at the level it is Constitutionally required to be - at the individual state level.

But that is it. The State does NOT require me to insure myself, auto insurance or otherwise. It is not legal for the State to require me to insure myself against damaging myself. About the closest they come is making me wear a car seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet. These are not insurance casualty policies I must take out on myself.

Obamacare requires me to have to insure myself. The State does nor require me to insure myself, not as a home owner, not as a driver or car owner.

"if this is struck down in toto, I predict it will have the side benefit of deterring Congress from passing any more 2700 page catchall bills in the future."

Unfortunately, I disagree with you. Future progressive congresses will have no compunction about passing hideous legislation.

I like a Congressional rule that requires all bills to be posted online for 5 days for each 100 pages. Then, a 2700-page bill would be online for almost five months. This would discourage Congresses from these g-d-awful abominations they call legislation.

“My approach would be to say that if you take the heart out of this statute,” Justice Antonin Scalia said, “the statute’s gone.”

Hmmm..... it stands to reason that if the core is rotten then so is the rest.

Pray for America.