Let's Stop Trying to Use the "Car Insurance" Analogy to Justify the Insurance Mandate

[coti]

I think people are getting sick of having to repeatedly dispell this argument, so let's do it all in one thread. This is one pervasive, yet highly inaccurate, justification for the health insurance mandate.

There are three big reasons, each in itself effectively destroying the comparison, that the analogy between some states requiring drivers to carry car insurance and the new federal insurance mandate assuredly fails :

1) Choice. The health insurance mandate, with only few exceptions, applies to everyone living in the United States simply by virtue of their living here. Whereas requiring people to buy car insurance from a private party is a licensing issue tied to the choice of driving (and comparable to other licensing issues, such as requiring doctors to have malpractice insurance), there is no licensing or choice at issue in requiring Americans to buy health insurance from private health insurers. You live in the United States? Boom, you have to buy a product from a third party, by federal law. Yes, this is unprecedented.

Nor does the newer "Militia Act of 1792" example being offered give a better justification. That law did not apply to everyone, and required the ownership of a gun and supplies, not the year-after-year purchase of one, during the fledgling years of our country and the still-prevalent fear of it being attacked by outside forces. In fact, today such a law would likely be struck down as unconstitutional (it's no longer in-force, is it?) Can anyone say "Alien and Sedition Acts?" No, such laws do not make good constitutional precedent.

2) Rationale. The rationale behind the car liability insurance requirement (as well as other licensing issues) accounts for risk to others, not one's self. If you choose to drive on our public roads, given the heightened risk to which you are subjecting others, it is only right that you, beforehand, are required to provide at least a minimal surety against that risk. Notice that people are not required to purchase the collision or comprehensive insurance that would protect their own property. They are only required to provide protection against injury to the property and health of other people. The force of that rationale does not apply to the health insurance mandates.

3) Federalism. The insurance laws being analogized to were put in place by state governments, not the federal government. Attempting to use states' constitutional precedents to support an enormous, federal, individual-level requirement to purchase a product from a private party is at best shaky, if not totally irrelevant. The argument ignores the fact that the states and federal government play very different roles in our society- it is the states who address licensing issues, not the federal government. And this isn't even a licensing issue.


Overall, I'm seeing on this board very little critical thinking regarding or respect for the precedent being set by this health insurance mandate. I have to think that if the Bush Administration had ever tried to implement anything like this (and it was originally a Republican suggestion), there would be hell to pay. People are treating this as a political issue rather than a legitimate constitutional concern, and such blindness to the very real problem presented by this is very dangerous.

I really do have to ask- given this precedent, where does the federal government's power stop with regard to forcing people to buy products from third parties? Our "general welfare" would benefit from American citizens buying more American-made cars, rather than foreign cars. If this legislation is constitutional, what restriction would prevent the federal government from instituting a requirement that every American capable of driving (with some "merciful" exceptions or subsidies for the poor) buy an American-made car every five years, under threat of a penalty tax? It could be set up in exactly the same way, and, certainly, it would do much good for our economy, given the outsourcing of our manufacturing industries to other countries. Clearly, though, such an idea infringes on our individual freedoms.


Mostly, I'd just like to ask those who have been, to this point, arguing this bill's constitutionality more on politics than genuine legal reasoning to really think about its long-term ramifications. This law, I believe, is truly dangerous and actually gives the typically ignorant right-wingers quite good reason to be angry and plays into their characterizations of Democrats.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Making health insurance a mandate implies health care is a right. n/t

[ixion]

6. Well, not really

It makes sure insurance companies make lots of money, but doesn't really do much for 'care'

[joeybee12]

10. Not at all, not at all...it siomply gives money to insuranec companies...

access to healthcare is a whole different matter that can only be addressed with EFFECTIVE safegiards and regulations.

[kenny blankenship]

14. Obligation = Right

War = Peace

And so it goes.

[earth mom]

45. NO-the insurance robber barons are the only ones with the "rights" here.

The majority of people will be given the finger when they try to get their health care needs taken care of and paid for in full.

Make NO mistake about that!

[The_Commonist]

2. Yeah, I'm getting pretty tired of that one too.

Over and over and over again...

[Gravel Democrat]

3. K/R for a great post

Here's some pretty good reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison

I wonder how many here even know who this man was.

Hell we don't even honor George Washington with his own birthday.

"Presidents Day" lol

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

4. At lease we get to shop around for car insurance n/t

[customerserviceguy]

22. We can buy car insurance from a lizard

but for health insurance, we have to deal with weasels.

[sabrina 1]

63. Lol!

[AnArmyVeteran]

79. Love your quote!

"We can buy car insurance from a lizard, but for health insurance we have to deal with weasels"

WOW, now that's profound!

[Crunchy Frog]

55. The exchanges will enable us to shop around for health insurance.

A luxery that most of us do not currently enjoy.

[ixion]

5. Yes, let's

It's a tired, old, irrelevant argument.

[LWolf]

7. K & R nt

[Winterblues]

8. Wrong, the Mandate ONLY applies to those that don't have any Insurance

If you have Insurance through your Employer you do not need to do anything at all and that fact is for 85% of the population....

[coti]

11. So you're saying those who have insurance already have insurance.

That's true.

I fail to see how that insight makes me "wrong."

[joeybee12]

16. Having insurance now is no guarantee of having insurance in the future, so

essentially this affects every american.

[coti]

20. Exactly.

A less snarky way of putting it.

[Winterblues]

30. I am saying the BS about every American being forced to shell out to the Insurance Companies

is just not true. 85% of Americans have insurance right now, mostly through their employers and they will continue to have that. They will not have to fork out any more with this new Bill...There are going to be some Americans that refuse to buy Insurance and their employers do not provide it. They will be forced into the Market by Law..That number is actually quite small in comparison..

[coti]

33. Interesting- why do you think the other "15%" don't have insurance? nt

[Winterblues]

57. With the new Heath Care Bill 10% will now have it

Of the remaining 5% most are undocumented aliens and those that just choose not to get Insured...

[joeybee12]

12. 85%??

Wrong, wrong, wrong. As usual.

[Winterblues]

27. Right now 85% of Americans are Insured

This new Health Insurance Reform Bill will increase that to approximatley 95%. Most of those not being insured under the new rules are undocumented aliens. Most american will not see their Health Care costs rise by a single penny. So this BS about all Americans being forced to shell out to the Insurance Companies is just not true..

[Hello_Kitty]

Not all through their employer. Many are on government programs. eom

[eridani]

53. Yes, and tens of thousands DIE because they can't pay for actual CARE

--their insurance becoming worthless when they need it.

[kenny blankenship]

29. LOL. Everyone will have to provide proof of their current insurance on their income tax form

Think before you post. And if you aren't sure, look it up.

[treestar]

9. Equally as useless is the argument that insurance companies get money

but never pay any claims, leading to all the insanity that this is just a boon for insurance companies and that those covered get nothing out of having an insurance policy, and that deductibles are not deductibles but that it is "impossible to "use" the insurance. People get tired of battling that one, too.

Just because there are differences do not mean there are not similarities, either.

[coti]

13. Differences and similarities- the arguments against the practices of the insurance companies

aren't even analogies, though you may not like the statements others make about them. You seem to be saying that those claims are hyperbole or exaggerations- which they may or may not be.

In any case, I don't think any of that has any bearing on the failure to find a valid precedent through this line of reasoning.

[treestar]

48. Insurance companies pay claims from time to time

It is ridiculous to speak as if they never, ever do.

[juajen]

15. SS is mandatory, as are other taxes. This is no different.

People have been railing against payroll taxes ever since they were introduced. Doesn't matter. The populace as a whole must be considered and they do not exempt you. When one becomes disabled or retires, then the wisdom of the deduction is seen and experienced.

That said, I do not like the mandate; but cannot see an alternative that is passable at this moment in history. A public option or medicare buy-in for those who wish it would be best and perhaps we will get to that solution eventually. Not seeing a doctor when you are ill can lead to much more money spent in an emergency room where everyone has to be seen.

In the meantime, everyone who rushes to the emergency room for treatment instead of paying a reasonable amount for insurance costs you and me, and we can no longer afford it. Yours is a disingenuous argument at best.

[coti]

17. Yes, there is a difference, a huge one.

It's a mandated purchase from a third party. A private party. The ramifications of that difference are countless, from accountability issues to the power of respective political interests to economic issues, and on and on. There most certainly is a difference, and saying otherwise is what's disingenous.

Do you have a response to the question of where this stops? Can the federal government implement the suggestion I made above and mandate that every American capable of driving a car purchase an American-made car every five years?

[amandabeech]

23. I think that you have raised a legitimate question.

I went to law school ages ago, and don't really practice anymore, but this makes me queasy.

I do project work, and when my current horrid project ends and I have some energy, I'm going to check around the net and see if I can find some actual neutral legal scholarship.

I'm from Michigan, and I'd love to make everyone buy a U.S. car every five years, but I think that the Constitution stands in the way. There are limits to government power. The old white guys had seen the business end of too much government power, and they protected us from it.

Remember, what's good in the hands of the Dems may not be so good in the hands of the Teabaggers.

[customerserviceguy]

24. You do raise some great arguments

And the interesting thing is, they are from the progressive viewpoint.

I've noticed that the reich-wingers have managed to hijack the "mandate" argument, and when people like Governor Gregoire of Washington try to thwart the state Attorneys General from starting lawsuits against the mandate, it further makes it look like the wingnuts are on the side of the angels here.

[coti]

35. Agreed.

And thanks.

[Sheepshank]

61. The feds often have third party administer a Fed program....n/t

[coti]

71. It's interesting you mention that, because this HCR law may become the

precedent-setting, landmark case ushering in a slew of Third-Way type laws changing the nature of the federal government so radically that it could be fairly described as fundamentally corporatist. It does seem to be the New Democrats' way of doing things- passing out taxpayer money to corporations to administer services rather than administering them directly. If this law is constitutional, instead of the government collecting money from the people with its taxing powers, then giving it to those interests favored by our representatives, as they do now (which is bad enough), they could force direct purchases of products by all individuals under the threat of penalty taxes, with very few to no conditional restraints.

I'm not trying to be alarmist, here, but it's really not a good way of doing things. In a system without public or at least heavily-regulated campaign financing, it's pretty dangerous, actually.

[Sheepshank]

18. it's a tax

most pay taxes (via paychecks) toward social security and medicade, we all pay taxes to support schools and building bridges and roads and help maintain a military even in times of peace. use it or not, we are paying into it because we live this type of community. This health care tax is more like these.

If this were another payroll deduction, it would be even more like the above types of taxes. One day the money is going to be collected via state/fed payroll deductions and it will be based on percentage of earnings....I predict this.

[coti]

19. But it's not a tax. It's a mandated purchase from a third party, enforced

by a penalty tax, the payment of which does not insure someone. Very, very different.

Again, the looseness of your justifications for this cuts very close to giving carte blanche power to the federal government and throwing the rights of individuals right out the window. That the feds have the power to levy taxes and create federal programs does not mean they have the power to do anything at all that infringes on the rights of individuals.

[Sheepshank]

26. In court this will be regarded as a tax

....my justifications are not loose, but based on current more acurate analogy and talking points clearly defined by a tax attorney, as well as personal cognition. As a Tax, the Feds have the right to tax it's citizens. The current funding/tax payment mechanism is merely a stepping stone.

[coti]

31. A tax attorney would know that different kinds of taxes are subject to different restrictions.

More specifically, federal penalty taxes, such as this one, are subject to the restrictions of the Equal Protection Clause implied in the Fifth Amendment.

Not all taxes are the same, particularly penalty taxes that are meant to affect the behavior of those they are imposed upon.

[amandabeech]

34. Please provide cites to legal periodicals to back up your argument.

I don't have time right now to do research, but I'm not seeing a lot of references to serious scholarship in these discussions.

I see the OP as raising a serious question.

I went to law school, so don't hesitate to reference the hard stuff.

[Sheepshank]

59. 100+ years of convoluted interstate commerce cases

...and I didn't go to law school. :)

But by virtue of my employment, I know a little. Merely buying a service available in multi states or across state lines doesn't make it subject to broad interstate commerce provisions. Interstate Commerce clauses and dormant clauses were established primarily and to begin with, for the transportation of "goods" across state lines, and the attempts to unfairly tax or prohibiting the transportation of such.
The four pronged test to see if an activity may be taxed under the guides and restriction of interstate commerce:
1. Does the activity taxed have a substantial nexus with the taxing state?
2. Is the tax fairly apportioned?
3. Does the tax discriminate against interstate commerce?
4. Is the tax fairly related to services the state provides the taxpayer?

I don't see how this can apply to Health Care mandates? And even if it did, how is the mandate contrary to Interstate Commerce?

In my humble and non legal opinion, none of that applies to the delivery of health care. The fact that the bill's mandate measure will be enforceable via IRS seems to clearly imply the Obama administration is viewing this as a tax. Should it go to court, the prosecuting attorney would have to prove otherwise....please provide cites that would bolster the proof that this is not a tax.

[coti]

68. I'm not arguing that it's "not a tax," as it looks in my earlier subject line. You're missing the

point of this discussion.

It's a tax (what I meant was it's not just a tax, "like any other tax")- it's a penalty tax, like I said. It's not a direct tax for a government program or services, like Social Security or Medicare, as you were saying. It's a tax, the funds from which may go toward health care in some way or another (still without providing actual insurance), but that is ultimately meant to penalize. It's a disincentive to push people to buy health insurance- from private health insurance companies. And it's aimed at everyone.

So, yeah, it's a tax. And I'm not arguing that the federal government doesn't have the power to levy taxes. You're not understanding that there are two forms of constitutional arguments that can be made- one, that the government was not given the power it is attempting to exercise by the Constitution to begin with (i.e., like your argument regarding the Commerce Clause, which you think I'm arguing about, but am not- the test you laid out determines whether the government has the power to levy the tax to begin with), or, two, that the rights of individuals enumerated in the Constitution affirmatively prevent the government from passing such a law, which I very much am arguing.

You can't lump all taxes together as if they're the same when considering constitutional issues- i.e., it's not JUST "a tax." In the past, penalty taxes have been used to discriminate against people and affect their behavior in unconstitutional ways. Under the Equal Protection Clause implied in the Fifth Amendment (and tied up with substantive and/or procedural due process), if an individual is penalized based on the exercise of a fundamental liberty interest (which I would argue, in this case, to be the liberty interest of "freedom from (not 'of') contract," although I have no cites for it, as I don't think it quite exists- yet), it must undergo strict scrutiny. That means that the law at issue must serve a compelling interest of the state and also be narrowly tailored toward doing so. Where other laws upheld as constitutional involved infringements on freedom from contract (as in racial discrimination cases), I would argue that the state's ("state" including the federal government) interest in doing so was compelling, and that the laws were quite direct and narrowly tailored. In this case, the interest the state is serving- by forcing everyone to contract with private health insurance companies, without allowing a choice that thereafter subjects a person to a potential tax or the rationale of protecting others from direct harm- is not a compelling one, and doesn't pass strict scrutiny.

The choice and rationale distinctions (points 1 and 2 in the OP) still need to be more tightly worked into the argument somehow to distinguish other cases, so this is still nowhere near a fully coherent legal argument. I've been trying to piece it together for awhile, but have done no research. But what the federal government is doing here, based on all of those distinctions, really is unprecedented and should be struck down. It could lead to all kinds of laws that are pretty clearly unconstitutional.

[Sheepshank]

84. ignore

never mind.

We are just going to have to disagree on this point. I'm not buying it.

[DatManFromNawlins]

42. The Equal Protection clause kills your argument

And anyway, the courts have, in the past, struck down laws passed by Congress when Congress tried to use their power to regulate interstate commerce to regulate activities other than commerce.

One of the tests they use is to determine whether a party can be regulated is to determine if they belong to a class of people or businesses which engage in the type of commerce being regulated.

Guess what? Someone who doesn't purchase insurance isn't taking part in commerce.

[Sheepshank]

58. Interstate Commerce is quite convoluted and has evolved over 100+ years

and merely buying a service available in multi states or across state lines doesn't make it subject to broad interstate commerce provisions. Interstate Commerce clauses and dormant clauses were established primarily and to begin with, for the transportation of "goods" across state lines, and the attempts to unfairly tax or prohibiting the transportation of such.
The four pronged test to see if an activity may be taxed under guides and restriction of interstate commerce:
1. Does the activity taxed have a substantial nexus with the taxing state?
2. Is the tax fairly apportioned?
3. Does the tax discriminate against interstate commerce?
4. Is the tax fairly related to services the state provides the taxpayer?

I don't see how this can apply to Health Care mandates? And even if it did, how is the mandate contrary to Interstate Commerce?

In my humble and non legal opinion, none of that applies to the delivery of health care. The fact that the bill's mandate measure will be enforceable via IRS seems to clearly imply the Obama administration is viewing this as a tax. Should it go to court, the prosecuting attorney would have to prove otherwise....please provide cites that would bolster the proof that this is not a tax.

[libertad]

40. I don't think of it that way. It is a choice, buy insurance or pay the

tax. It doesn't require you to buy insurance.

[Uncle Joe]

21. I agree with your O.P. except as to your take on the general welfare ramifications.

I don't view this bill/law as "promoting the general welfare" so much as a "particular" welfare, that of the for profit "health" insurance industry.

"General" being the whole of the United States, if they seriously wanted to promote the "general welfare" we would have universal single payer health coverage for every American from the cradle to the grave and it would be supported by a progressive tax base.

That would be the greatest use of "general welfare."

Short of that a strong national public option could be a solid step in the direction of "general welfare," however I believe the current bill institutionalizes an adverse cash flow loop back to the congress from bribery/lobbying and the corporate media from advertising/commercials to this particular industry.

I also believe this adverse dynamic; will intensify as the population increases; thereby enlarging the profit pool from which to draw from and will ultimately only serve to strengthen the for profit "health" insurance corporations' grip on "We the People's" government and in turn on the people.

Thanks for the thread, coti.

[alarimer]

25. Also, health insurance companies have an anti-trust exemption

while car insurance companies do not. Car insurance is a much more competitive market and, thus, more affordable.

I want Congress to repeal the anti-trust exemption.

[coti]

32. A very important point. nt

[Orsino]

28. Yes, please. n/t

[gravity]

36. I use that argument all the time

When I don't want to get in some philosophical discussion. It's not the perfect analogy, but it serves the purpose when talking to independents who are on the fence about healthcare reform.

Keep your talking points concise and easy to understand.

[coti]

37. Do you believe this sets a good precedent? nt

[gravity]

46. It is not much different than a tax

Everyone will receive the benefit of healthcare, so everyone should pay into it. Subsidies make it like a progressive tax.

It would be nicer if their was a public option, but there is enough regulation in this bill to keep insurance companies in check.

[dflprincess]

47. I'd have no problem paying a tax if it was into a public, single payer system.

I have a big problem making a mandated payment to a private, for profit company that makes it's money by doing all it can to block access to healthcare.

As long as the for profits are involved and big out of pocket expenses are permitted, everyone will NOT receive the benefit of healthcare. There will still be a lot of people making payments on a policy who still won't be able to afford to see a doctor. And there is no regulation in this bill that the insurance companies won't find ways around - especially as the consequences for violating the regulations aren't all that bad and, odds are, the government won't fund the staff it would take to actually audit the companies and make sure they are following the rules.

[many a good man]

38. Smoke detectors is the better analogy

Local or state codes require that you buy a smoke detector from a private corporation to save lives in your house when it catches on fire. This saves everybody money through lower house insurance and it prevents injury, death and property destruction.

Health insurance is a heck of a lot more expensive, but the analogy still holds.

[coti]

39. The difference in cost is another issue I didn't mention.

You're right, but still running into the federalism issue and, while having smoke detectors is really just common sense, the magnitude of the issue is much less due to the cost difference. The economics of health insurance also comes into play.

[DatManFromNawlins]

43. The states have different rights to make law than the feds

Try again.

[Justice]

41. NE Journal of Medicine Article on Constitutionality

The Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate for Health Insurance - New England Journal of Medicine
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2764

"Taxing uninsured people helps to pay for the costs of the new regulations. The tax gives uninsured people a choice. If they stay out of the risk pool, they effectively raise other people’s insurance costs, and Congress taxes them to recoup some of the costs. If they join the risk pool, they do not have to pay the tax. A good analogy would be a tax on polluters who fail to install pollution-control equipment: they can pay the tax or install the equipment."

[hansberrym]

44. “excise” taxes a la Jack Balkin

“excise” taxes a la Jack Balkin (direct taxes magically transformed to indirect taxes)

The Senate wishes to regulate this or that item of commerce, so dear citizen you must pay a tax. However, if you don’t want to pay more than $700, you can opt to pay $700.

By generously providing you this option to avoid paying more than $700, Congress thus tranforms a direct tax into an indirect tax. According Balkin, the “event” being taxed is the non-payment of the higher amount.

[Art_from_Ark]

49. I don't see how that would be a good analogy at all

Polluters cause damage to the environment which poses potential health risks to the people who live in the area. Thus, it is only reasonable to make them pay for the POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS MESS that they make. On the other hand, I make an effort to take good care of myself and the state of my health does not pose a risk to anyone around me.

[coti]

50. I don't either.

Very similar situation to the licensing situations in the OP. Reasons 1 and 2 still apply.

Especially when standard operating procedure for the feds in such a situation is now giving such corporations tax breaks for installing the equipment, rather than taxing them for not doing so.


What I'm noticing with most of these arguments is that examples can be found that resolve one and, rarely, close to two of the three reasons for dissimilarity in the OP, but never all three. What this law does is truly unprecedented. It doesn't seem like most people truly realize how much power the federal government is claiming to have with it.

Legally, what's going on in this thread is probably very similar to the kind of process that those defending this mandate in the courts will go through attempting to support it with precedent. Ultimately, they're going to have to take a piece of this law, a piece of that law, and this other one here and try to splice them all together- a process called "synthesizing." It's not going to work very well, though, because this is such a tremendous leap.

[BlueIris]

51. Thanks. The analogy is crap and they never should have used it as justification.

[Kalun D]

52. Kick and Recommend

++++++++ 10

Kick and Recommend

[Crunchy Frog]

54. It's a practicality issue.

You cannot have universally accessable health coverage unless everybody is in the pool. Otherwise the young and healthy would opt out leaving only the sick and older people which would push the cost of insurance ever higher driving out even more of the healthier population.

Also, it's already mandated in law that if you show up in an ER, they HAVE to treat you if you need it. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to insist that people contribute something to sustain this right that they have to be treated (via a tax if they won't buy insurance).

I would have preferred a single payer universal Medicare type deal, but I know that is not politically feasible in today's America. I honesty don't care if the teabaggers are angry.

[Gravel Democrat]

56. Obama repeatedly slammed Hillary on the mandate issue

It was one of the few real differences between the two.

Some of us were stupid enough to believe the flip flopper, and
now we look like idiots.

If what you say in your post is so evident, does that make Obama a liar?
Or was he just not as informed as he should have been?

I'll not make the mistake of believing any politician again, I promise




Obama Campaign 2008

TV advertisement

[Crunchy Frog]

64. Sorry bud, primaries are over.

The simple reality is that in order for universal healthcare of any kind to work, everybody has to be in. It's that way in every other developed country. There is no such thing as American exceptionalism.

And yes, it's entirely plausible that Obama was being a politician. You would probably do well to get over any naive beliefs you have about any politician.

[Fumesucker]

70. You just made an excellent argument for not bothering to vote..

If politicians are going to lie about very important parts of their agendas then how do you pick between them in a logical fashion?

You appear to be arguing that there is no logical basis for choosing between politicians.

[Crunchy Frog]

86. If that's how you want to see it. Nobody's going to force you to vote.

And no, I don't expect 100% honesty from any polititian who expects to win. Doesn't mean your 100% in the dark concerning their agenda either, bu then I don't think in absolutes.

[Omaha Steve]

60. I have a loan so I MUST insure my home

?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

67. required by the lender...not law... n/t

[coti]

72. And still involving a choice subjecting one to that insurance requirement,

among other distinctions.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

73. still not the same as the gov't requiring it

but you auto/mortgage insurance people refuse to understand that...

sP

[coti]

74. You mean, like we people who wrote the OP?

Did you understand my point?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

75. please don't require me to read what I am responding to

or to tie it to anything that makes sense. however, you should please not allow me to post anything until I have had at least two cups of coffee...

forgive my ... well, suckiness...

sP

[nightrain]

62. knr. The purpose of insurance is to guard against loss if an unusual event occurs.

Not routine care.


So, if the health/auto insurance analogy were to hold, the auto insurance would pay for diagnostic testing, oil changes, tune-ups, engine overhauls, etc, and there would be deductibles and copays for those things.

BUT, having a body requires some routine assessment and upkeep besides accidents. That's NOT the purpose of insurance.

Bodies need CARE (oil changes, diagnostics, replacement of parts occasionally. And sometimes more extensive repair and care).

[coti]

65. It's still out there.....

Gonna have to kick this.

[pecwae]

66. Kick..too late to rec. nt

[Omaha Steve]

69. America voted for Obama and change

We won with HCR as a major part of his campaign. Doing nothing is much worse by far than this law. And it will get fixed. Funny thing is Republicans talked about this approach 20 years ago.

[marshall]

76. I think it's a matter of pragmatics

Health care costs money. At present we have people who need insurance and can afford it, people who need insurance and cannot afford it, and people who can afford insurance but don't need it (or don't think they need it). Just looking at it from a money standpoint, the only place where funds can be taken is from the third group.

[coti]

77. Of course. But we still have to be very careful of the precedent being set by this.

There's certainly no easy way to do this. Even the ideal plan would anger a lot of people and be heavily argued against.

I just think that taking the "middle of the road" approach with this specific issue, and particularly the idea of further entrenching health insurance corporations in our healthcare system (by mandating the purchase of their product, no less, by the force of the IRS), is dangerous. It's like one of those scenes in the movies- putting a plane into a steeper dive to put out a fire in the engine, and hoping to be able to pull out of it later.

[shimmergal]

78. You're exactly right, Coti.

And I fear the precedents. Wonder how long it'll be before some other industry decides to get in on the gravy train and argues a "compelling national interest" to force every American to buy their product. Cell phones or other devices with GPS-positioning technology, for sure. (Don'tcha know, it costs police departments extra to trace missing citizens who don't have them.) The "buy an American car" case is plausible, too. In just a few decades we could end up complete robots to corporate mandates.

This whole controversy could have been avoided by putting in a public option. Then the "it's a tax" argument would make sense. No matter how cleverly attorneys or courts may construe the commerce clause or the right to tax, it basically violates the "no involuntary servitude" amendment. And Omaha Steve, I hope it doesn't take nearly a hundred years and a war for it to get fixed. Even putting it on a "play or pay" basis might mitigate this problem some -- not altogether, IMO, but at least the penalty money would be going into the health system too. As it is, it's just going into general govt. coffers, isn't it? And federal, not state, who're going to be the entities charged with carrying out the new system and making up any shortfalls.

Thanks again, Coti. We need to keep talking and raving about this until it IS fixed. And I too regret that we've let this argument become the property of the teabaggers, who're likely to aim for a ruling that makes it even harder to attain a public option, let alone single payer.

[Pesci11]

80. I take the subway to work

As do millions in New York City. Others in rural areas carpool.

[Cleobulus]

81. You want to know what's funny, in other countries that require car/vehicle insurance...

some of them have a public option, how's that for ironic? Public vehicle insurance.

[truedelphi]

82. You say:

Overall, I'm seeing on this board very little critical thinking regarding or respect for the precedent being set by this health insurance mandate. I have to think that if the Bush Administration had ever tried to implement anything like this (and it was originally a Republican suggestion), there would be hell to pay. People are treating this as a political issue rather than a legitimate constitutional concern, and such blindness to the very real problem presented by this is very dangerous.


And I agree 100%. Really great insights you are offering.

Now: Where is the critical thinking on this board? For one thing, many who were the critical thinkers have been driven away - either out right TS'ed or else simply sick and tired of having to deal with the pom pom brigade every time they post something.

Charisma dos not equal competence. Charisma does not equal enhanced protection of our rights. Nor does it mean sensible policy is being put in place.

And Charisma united with Corporate Control still equates with fascism.

[mainer]

83. mandated purchase from private insurers: The Netherlands

I think that's how their national healthcare system works there. The Dutch must buy health insurance, but it's from a third party insurer. The rates are controlled, and so are the insurers' profits, as if it's a public utility.

If it works there, why couldn't it work here?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

85. I went without car insurance for ten years--

the ten years in which I did not drive.

I didn't have a car for the ten years I lived in Portland, and I wish I could figure out a way to be car-free here in Minneapolis. If you've never been car-free, you can't imagine what a financial drain car ownership is.

But in all my years, I've never been without a body.