Because driving is a choice in itself.
because it is liability insurance for the liability that you assume in driving on public roads.
Unfathomable, unplumbed, bottomless, yawning chasm of ignorance. Car insurance is protection of others from your actions--what normal people call "liability". Health "insurance" has NOTHING to do with liability; it is a bunch of people paying into a collective money pool, hoping that not too many of them drain too much money out of it by being sick so their premiums don't go up.
If I’m some rich Hollywood jerkweed and I own a multi-square mile in ranch in Montana, have a car that I drive only on my ranch and never on a public road, do I need to buy car insurance for it?
They don’t. They only require care owners to have it. Duhhhhhhh
They don’t. They only require care owners to have it. Duhhhhhhh
Because you are insuring against liability when you buy car insurance. There is no liability if you get sick, your disease cant hurt me, well not if it is communicable. HIV insurance anyone?
This is a question that a fifth grader would ask. Everyone older than that would already know the answer to this question.
The federal government does not require anyone to buy car insurance. The mandate comes from the states.
The states have broad “police powers” to protect the health, safety, welfare and morals of their citizens. The feds do not enjoy the same powers—absent an issue such as interstate commerce.
I hope I got this right. I’m not a lawyer by a longshot.
Because driving endangers others, and automobile insurance covers what I might do to them. I’m not required to buy insurance to protect myself.
Health insurance, on the other hand, is for my protection.
The government has no right to tell me that I can’t take risks with my own safety, but it can require that I not risk the safety of others.
1) The feds dont force you to do so.
2) You dont have a “right” to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.
PETERSON! If your state mandates it, it is law.
The FED GOV cannot.
Stupid SH1t
People are not forced to buy car insurance.
You know, under the democommie understanding of this we should be able to mandated all gays and iv drug users to buy hiv infection insurance, as well as umbrella liability insurance, in case the infect partnersor other addicts. Wonder how the radical gay community would react if being gay forced and enhanced healthcare rider.
Actually, the argument for forced insurance is pretty week. I’ve driven 38 years with only a bumpr tap, why should I have paid out $50,000 to support the reckless and illegals?
Now, that said, if you are driving without insurance and cause a wreck and can’t pay for the damage, I don’t have a problem with hard jail time (this would also diminish the illegal problem).
Right now, insurance is a gift to insurance companies and illegals.
What a dumb question.
1)It’s not mandatory that I have a drivers license. No need for a car . No need for car insurance.
2)But if I wanted to buy a car and paid cash, I could have it deliver to my house and store it without buying car insurance or tags.
3)I could have it deliver to my house and if I owned a large enough property, I could dive it on my property without car insurance or tags and deduct the fuel (road) tax from my income tax.
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.