If forcing someone to purchas health insurance is unconstitutional, does the same apply...

[TheMightyFavog]

For auto insurance?

[Hello_Kitty]

1. Oh FFS. How many times do we have to go through this?

Health insurance =/= auto insurance

[AngryAmish]

3. agreed

[hfojvt]

10. how is that relevant though?

water =/= oxygen

and yet both are needed to survive.

At least for carbon units.

[Hello_Kitty]

16. Okay, you explain how it would be Constitutional to require everyone to purchase auto insurance.

Go ahead.

[ET Awful]

24. Not every human being owns a car and needs it to survive.

However, every human being owns a body and needs it to survive.

[damntexdem]

19. True -- health insurance is much more important.

Health coverage should trump auto coverage any day.

[Sherman A1]

22. Someone asks a question and that is your response?

More than rude....

[Hello_Kitty]

26. I did respond

Auto insurance and health insurance are not the same thing. They're not even close.

[Sherman A1]

43. Yes, you did with

Oh, FFS.........


Auto & Health insurances granted, do not necessarily equate, but there is this thing called civility.

[JVS]

48. Not someone, a brazillion people over the last 2 years have asked it.

[Sherman A1]

90. And they should be disrespected? Because we disagree?

The two types of insurance may not equate, yet there is no need to be rude or uncivil. Would it not be a bit more civil to either not answer or to simply suggest the two do not equate with some specific reasoning beyond "Oh FFS.............."?

[JVS]

91. There comes a point when a question has been asked and answered so many times that one suspects...

a rehashing of the question not to be happening out of sincere curiosity, but as an intentional spreading of a talking point.

Especially when done in hit and run fashion.

[Sherman A1]

98. There also comes a point where comments & responses become

simply rude. This was one of those points.

Perhaps the argument was made, the question settled (at least in the mind of the responder) and the world was safe for democracy. Yet did the OP participate in any of those discussions? Do we know? I certainly do not and I suspect the responder does not as well. Was the OP posting in a "hit & run fashion" (whatever that means) or were they simply being brief?

I do not for one minute believe that the types of insurance equate, but that does not require me to be uncivil to someone who does believe that or questions that they might?

We have seen numerous posts over the last week or so about the Merchant Seamen Health Program in the early years of our nation by various posters as they discover the information for themselves from various sources. Should we be nasty to anyone who has not been the first to post this story? We each enjoy the information & discussion on this, other boards or other media at various times and may very well miss things that were posted. I believe that a response that starts with "Oh, FFS....." is not only uncivil & rude, but is mostly a very, very sad commentary on the person responding.

[villager]

2. Damn good question.

n/t

[lildreamer316]

45. Your automoblie is not your body.

You do not need your automobile to survive.

[RegieRocker]

65. Another person recommending homelessness

or living in the big city. Not everyone wants to be like you.

[lildreamer316]

92. What are you talking about?

Of course it makes sense for most ppl in America, especially, to have a car. We're in agreement that it's ridiculous to expect a majority of people to give up their cars and use public transport in a country as big as this (and with the sorry state of most public transportation). But I can actually continue to physically live if something happens to my car.

If something happens to my body; not so much.

It's a false equivalency. We're complaining/talking about health care and the right to live ("life, liberty and the pursuit...."); not weather or not there is a right to have a vehicle, and by extension, be required to buy insurance for it. Of course it's true that most people cannot live any kind of life without a car. I myself live in a small town, and my husband works over an hour away. But in the basics-a-human-must-have-to-survive category, we have to clear the health care hurdle first. By equating this debate to being required to buy insurance for a car (which also, btw, is usually a LOT cheaper than health insurance..and I do know, because my husband has THREE DUI convictions, on MY insurance..and my ex fiance died on my motorcycle that, of course, was insured in MY name), we are cheapening the issue at hand, and deflecting the seriousness of it. If other developed countries can provide health care for their citizens without requiring them to buy into a bloated private system, we can too.

Not everyone wants to be like you, and have to pay an extra amount of money for insurance that I don't currently have (and am not likely to get), or pay a fine for not doing so. Frankly, I don't have the money. And I just do not see how this is constitutional. But I do see how the public option is.

Eh, it actually is probably moot anyway. When the mandates go into effect, I'll probably qualify for the government help, so same difference. It's just a shame that we have to go through all the BS of paying the insurance corporations the money when we should just cut out the middleman. It's a waste of time and money. And there will be plenty of people who do not qualify for help, and so will bear the extra burden of paying for insurance; which may be care, or may not be; or paying a fine for not supporting a private corporation. What's gonna happen to them? Do you really think the economy is going to be so very wonderful in 2014 that those families can afford the extra output?

Never known a dead guy to drive a car to his job. But I could be wrong. He'd probably hit someone,anyway....

[Mimosa]

93. ^ Recommending Lil Dreamer's excellent post! ^

ITA!!!

[WinkyDink]

64. No, actually it is silly.

[hfojvt]

4. I am guessing no

because, even though it is almost impossible to survive in this country without driving, the courts have ruled that driving is a privilege and not a right.

Apparently, surviving is also one of those privilege-thingys.

[FBaggins]

5. Yes...

...but you aren't forced to buy auto insurance.

And you're certainly not forced by the federal govt.

[cbdo2007]

6. Do you know where the previous thread search box is???

You should find a thousand of these.

[hugo_from_TN]

7. Yes. Which is why we aren't forced to buy it.

[Maine-ah]

34. depends on where you're from

up here, you have to have insurance or you lose your registration. You'll be ticketed and fined.

[WinkyDink]

66. You aren't forced to buy a car. THAT is THE POINT.

[Xithras]

8. Nobody is forced to buy auto insurance.

You only need if if you CHOOSE to drive. You are free to opt-out of driving, and you'll never have to pay them again.

Many states (including California, where I live), also allow you to pull a bond to cover it, and opt out WHILE you drive. If you have the credit and the money, a $35,000 bond will get you out of insurance entirely. You're "self insured" at that point.

Car insurance isn't required.

[SoCalNative]

15. No, actually

you're only forced to do it if you own a car.

[Hello_Kitty]

20. And only full coverage if it's required as part of your car loan.

Otherwise the only insurance mandated by state law for a driver is liability.

[virgogal]

9. No. Driving is a privilege,a choice. If you choose to do it

you can be required to buy insurance.

Health insurance would be required if you exist.

[Yavin4]

11. Hospitals Are Morally Obligated To Treat You Even If You Don't Have Health Insurance

If one of the victims of that terrible shooting in AZ was not covered, they would have still received medical coverage. Thus, the government has a duty and obligation to see that everyone has coverage or at least some access to it.

[prolesunited]

21. You do realize how limited this ER "coverage" is, right?

They are only required to keep you alive and stabilize you. Need further treatment or surgery? Too bad? Medication? SOL Therapy? Oh well.

And, they will still bill you at full, overinflated price -- not the discounted rates provided to insurance corporations. And, if you have a house or any assets, they will come after them. And don't tell me if you have a house, you can afford insurance. I have a *very* modest house and no insurance. I could pay my mortgage or for insurance, not both.

[Yavin4]

28. They're still obligated to perform some kind of treatment

They won't let you bleed to death in the street if you don't have coverage.

[markpkessinger]

36. My ER experience . . .

Some years back, I was working at a job where my employer did not provide health insurance, and I couldn't afford to carry it myself. During the two years or so I worked at that job, I began having periodic attacks of intense, unbearable pain in my upper right abdomen, close to the center and just below the rib cage. The first couple of times, the attacks came and then went away after a few hours. But then I had a series of attacks, separated by a few weeks or a month or two at most, that made it utterly impossible to function. The pain was so intense that with every intake of breath I felt as if a knife were being plunged deep into my abdomen. For four days straight, I would be unable to lie down, unable to sleep, eat or even move, reduced to sitting upright on my couch, rocking back and forth and moaning in pain.

I had three of these severe, extended attacks, and each time, I went to the ER (at two different hospitals in New York). Each time, I was given medication for nausea (even though I wasn't particularly nauseous and I told them that), some intravenous pain medication and sent home without the ER having performed a SINGLE diagnostic test: no blood workup, no urinalysis, really nothing other than the most cursory examination. They issued a diagnosis of gastritis, an official way of saying I had a stomach ache. I've had stomach inflammations -- I know what they feel like, and where they are felt. This was NOT my stomach.

Shortly after the third such attack, I was (fortunately) able to secure a job that provided decent health insurance benefits. Eventually, I found out I had been experiencing gall bladder problems.

I wouldn't wish my experience on my worst enemy. I've got a fairly high tolerance for pain, but that was simply unbearable, and to go to a hospital three times without having it addressed left me really depressed. No one should have to go through that.

[Pool Hall Ace]

44. After reading your first two sentences, I was pretty sure you had a gallbladder problem.

And I'm not a healthcare practitioner. About ten years ago, I had those very same symptoms, but I had health insurance. It turned out that my gallbladder was full of stones, and it was promptly removed.

You should share your story with everyone who cries, "Poor people can always just go to the ER!!!"

[markpkessinger]

53. IIf you went through it . . .

. . .then you know the pain I'm talking about!

[Pool Hall Ace]

60. Fortunately, I was not in a great deal of pain . . .

. . . yet. At the time, I was working for a biotech firm. I asked one of the docs if he had anything like simethicone, because I thought it was a gas pocket. He asked me where the pain was, and I pointed to the right side, just under my rib cage. He said, "That's not your stomach; I bet it's your gallbladder! Make an appointment and try to get in ASAP with your doctor" And he was right. :)

If I had put it off, I probably would have wound up in the ER, just as you did!

[Hello_Kitty]

23. Then they should have done a better job of it than this shit-ass botched up travesty of a HCR. eom

[Yavin4]

29. I Concur

My point is that it's folly to say that providing health care, or least mandating health insurance, is unconstitutional wherein the goverment is charged with the well being of its citizenry.

[bvar22]

95. Then they should have mandated access to Health Care,

not purchasing Health Insurance of questionable quality from For Profit Corporations.
Health Insurance =/= Health Care

Many people buying the Mandated Minimum Policy won't be able to use it due to high deductibles and high Co-Pays.
Medical Bankruptcy will STILL be Big Business in the USA, even after ALL the provisions kick in.

Did you know that the term "Medical Bankruptcy" in unknown in civilized countries?

[Statistical]

12. You have no Constitutional right to own a car.

You can choose to not own a car.
You can choose to not drive car on public roads (no insurance needed for private ownership).
Even when required to purchase insurance it is not for your protection. It is to protect OTHERS from YOUR LIABILITY.
There is for example not state requirement to purchase insurance that protects YOU or YOUR property from your negligence.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. You are under no obligation to own a car or drive either.

I guess the people who pose this question over and over and over again don't know anyone who doesn't drive.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Does any federal law require people to do that?

[slackmaster]

14. Auto insurance mandates are state laws, not federal

Read the Tenth Amendment.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. I wish people would remember that we have a FEDERAL government and not a NATIONAL one. n/t

[guitar man]

25. ....

[subterranean]

27. No one will be forced to purchase health insurance.

Uninsured people will be incentivized to buy health insurance (with subsidies) and penalized for not buying it (with higher taxes) unless they qualify for an exemption. But the law explicitly states that failure to have health insurance will not be treated as a crime.

[madinmaryland]

30. Please stop trying to compare the two. nt

[sabrina 1]

31. No, not really. You can avoid paying insurance for a car

if you can't afford it, by not owning a car.

But you can't rid of your body so there is no choice.

[RegieRocker]

56. I need a car to have a job. I need a job for money to buy food to

eat and sustain my body. If I have no car to use to get to job then I have no money to buy food to eat then I starve and die. Then I will not need health insurance.

[sabrina 1]

57. You can car pool, use public transportation, find a job in a city

None of these are great options, but you won't die because you don't have a car. People adjust to these things. But there is nothing you can to about your body.

[RegieRocker]

58. So you're saying I have to move where I have been

living my whole life so you can say it's not mandated car insurance. Don't think so. Car insurance is mandated period. Driving is a right. Just like owning a horse and riding it. Walking. It's a form of transportation. Proficiency testing is understandable (License). But as much as you folk want to twist this, the fact remains automobile insurance is mandated. The reason for the mandate is people wanted government to enforce protection from drivers that had no money in case they caused bodily or property damage. They did this by requiring insurance. The key word is requiring (mandated). To say I can or should go without a car is asinine and totally unpatriotic.

[Hello_Kitty]

68. That's why the insurance you're required to have by the state is liability.

It's for the damage you cause to others. You are only required to have full coverage if it's a condition of your car loan. If you own your car outright you do not have to have insurance on yourself.

[RegieRocker]

69. That means nothing auto insurance is still mandated.

By the state of course but mandated.

[Hello_Kitty]

73. No it's not.

There's no law in any state requiring you to drive or own a car.

[RegieRocker]

74. Twist twist twist

The op stated that auto insurance was mandated not buying a car. Damn Damn Damn

[Hello_Kitty]

78. It's mandated if you drive. If you don't, you don't have to have it.

[RegieRocker]

80. The majority of the population has to drive

Damn! Why can't you people get this. I made it clear and you still try and fork out nonsense. You think people enjoy rush hour? Are you that unaware to think that if they could step out their door and into transportation that would take them to work they wouldn't? Brick Walls!

[Hello_Kitty]

81. Okay, so let's make 5 year olds and blind people carry auto insurance then.

I mean, why not? It might make your auto insurance premiums go down a bit.

[RegieRocker]

83. Wow

Just wow! Yea go ahead and create a mandated rider insurance program to help lower the cost of public transportation. Then deduct that cost from my auto insurance. Great idea! I'm tired of you no car owners getting a free ride from my tax dollars! And for you walkers you definitely have been getting a free ride with sidewalks. There should be a mandate on that. Mandated walkers insurance.

[Hello_Kitty]

85. Considering that every mile of public road is subsidized, as is oil.

I'd say you're the one getting the free ride. Enjoy your commute!

[RegieRocker]

86. And so is public transportation and those

sidewalks you walk on. So it's high time you pay insurance also!!!!

[sabrina 1]

89. Well, I agree with you that driving is a right and I'm all for

not having auto insurance mandated. I am against mandated health insurance also. However there is a big difference between a human body and a car. You cannot get rid of your body. You can't live without it. But you CAN live without a car if you have to.

[BlueDemKev]

79. How can you car-pool....

...without owning a car?

[WinkyDink]

76. No. You need a car to have a job YOU WANT; not to have A job.

[Yavin4]

32. Do Hospitals Have the Right Not To Treat You?

Even for an emergency?

[Hello_Kitty]

35. They are only obligated to stabilize you in an emergency.

They're actually not required to treat you in a lot of cases.

[markpkessinger]

37. Absolutely right

You are 100% correct, as my experience (see message #36 in this thread) attests.

[Yavin4]

38. Even Stabilizing You Is Performing A Service

If you're shot by a crazed gunman and they stabilize you, they have performed a service. Should they not be required to perform that service on you?

Literally, do they have the right to walk away from you and let you bleed to death in the streets?

If emergency health care has the right to completely walk away from you knowing that doing so would cause immediate death, then yes, the government has no stake.

[Hello_Kitty]

63. If they want to keep their fucking gov't funding and tax exempt status they'd better.

And they will present my uninsured ass with a bill when they're done, too.

[WinkyDink]

77. 1. Yes. 2. No.

[markpkessinger]

33. No one will be "forced" to buy health insurance!

The way people talk about the "individual mandate" is utterly misleading in that people will still have the option not to purchase health insurance. It's just that if they elect not to purchase it, they will be assessed a fine (a tax) to help offset any expenses that will get passed onto taxpayers when (not if) they eventually get sick. The proposed fine to be imposed ($695) is still very modest relative to the annual cost of an insurance premium.

The best, most cost effective-solution, of course, would be go with a single-payer system, but Republicans would resist it every step of the way and Democrats, sadly, don't seem to have the stomach to fight for it. So we're left with this system of private insurers (that ultimately only adds to the overall cost of health care). Given that we're stuck, for the time being, with a system of private insurers, if we are going to meet any of health care reform's overriding objectives (i.e., preventing people from being denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions, preventing insurance companies from dropping people from coverage when they get sick, making sure most of the population has access to health care when they need it, etc.), then we have to find a way to make the economics work. The entire insurance model is based on pooled risk; if you cannot turn down people based on pre-existing conditions, then you have to make sure the risk pool is significantly large enough to accommodate both the medical care of those who have been long-term insurance customers and those who waited until they got sick.

The really legitimate criticism of the "individual mandate" is that the proposed fine is far too small relative to the cost of carrying health insurance, and that many people may thus deem it more profitable to simply pay the fine/tax than to carry insurance.

The new system is far from perfect, but it is an improvement over the old one. But if people are really unhappy about the "individual mandate," then lobby your legislators for the program they should have been fighting for all along: single-payer or "Medicare for all."

[hansberrym]

39. What stops Congress from raising the penalty?

Why would anyone believe the "trust me" line. Congress has tried to tax our refusal to follow commands they have no power to give.

We are not subjects!

[markpkessinger]

42. I hope they do raise it!

The proposed penalty actually creates an incentive for non-compliance because it is too small.

[WinkyDink]

67. An IRS fine is insignificant to you as a PENALTY?

[RegieRocker]

40. I want discounted Government

health, auto, life, accident, home etc. insurance now at low low cost with no exclusions. Let's insure ourselves and not pay these greedy bastards called private insurance companies!

[Obamanaut]

41. You can buy a car, not register it to drive on the roadways, keep it on your property, and

not have to have it insured.

You do not have to buy a car, and thus no insurance is needed.

[dsc]

47. no you can't

most towns won't let you have a car without current plates on your property. If you own a car you pretty much do have to have insurance.

[begin_within]

51. Not true in California though...

California DMV allows two special situations, "NON-USE" and "NON-OPERATIONAL" and neither one requires insurance. NON-USE is an affidavit that keeps your car's registration but does not require insurance, and is designed for periods of one year or less. NON-OPERATIONAL (sometimes called PNO for PLANNED NON-OPERATIONAL) is for a car that will not be used for 1 year or longer, and you lose the registration on your car, and it also does not require insurance. Both of these options involve a fee with the DMV, but it is lower than the annual renewal of an active registration. Neither one requires insurance on the car while the car is stored under those conditions.

[Obamanaut]

52. Yes you can. Trucks and old cars are in abundance in farming communities,

and when they stay on the farm and off the public roads, they often are not registered, do not have current tags, and no insurance.

Additionally, farm equipment (tractors and other large motorized equipment) travel on public roads sans tags/registration, etc.

[beevul]

88. No, most towns don't.

"most towns won't let you have a car without current plates on your property."

No, most towns really don't.

[RegieRocker]

61. A person could take their body out of the country

also and not have to buy health insurance. What the hell does any of that crap have to do with the price of eggs in China?

[WinkyDink]

75. Exactly; you get it, albeit unwittingly. One would have to leave.

[RegieRocker]

87. Obtuse

What the hell does any of that crap have to do with the price of eggs in China? This went way over your head!!!!

[Ilsa]

46. Or what about forcing employees to pay a Medicaid tax? nt

[Hello_Kitty]

55. How about forcing employERs to pay that tax?

If you don't provide health insurance and pay low enough wages that your workers qualify for Medicaid you should be paying a surcharge for every one of them.

[JVS]

49. unrec

[BOG PERSON]

50. forcing people to buy health insurance is more akin to forcing them to buy actual cars,

not car insurance.

[markpkessinger]

54. Not really

Sooner or later, virtually all people (except those who die either suddenly from an unknown illness or in accidents) will, at some point in their lives, become sick enough to require serious medical care. If they wait until they are actually sick to purchase insurance (which, under the new law they could technically do), then the system has to absorb the cost of providing their care without having had the long-term benefit of having them in the system when they are healthy, thereby driving up costs for everyone. There is simply no comparable situation in the car market, where an individual's decision not to own a car (a decision I, as a New Yorker, have actually made), or my waiting until some point in the future to buy one, impacts anybody else (except in its positive contribution to the environment!).

The fact is, if a person waits until he is seriously ill to buy health insurance, there will likely be a delay from the time he applies until coverage takes effect. In the case of a serious illness, that lag, even if only a couple of weeks, could be long enough to incur massive medical expenses; expenses which, if he cannot pay, will be absorbed into the premiums of those who have been paying all along, both when they were healthy and when they became ill. Why should this individual be permitted to push his costs onto others?

And the fact is, nobody is forced to do ANYTHING under the new law. It merely imposes a tax -- one that is very modest relative to the annual cost of a health insurance premium (about 1/5 the annual cost) -- that enables the system to recoup at least some of the costs the individual has selfishly imposed on everyone else.

[WinkyDink]

72. There are "ifs" and "ands", but the "but" is that the

govt seeks to force citizens into a purchase from a for-profit company under threat of a fine from the Internal Revenue Service, with the full weight of the Federal Govt behind it.

Jurisprudence is deciding the Constitutionality of a law which functions as a de facto AMENDMENT, to wit: adding private health insurance ownership as a requisite to citizenship WITHOUT penalty.

[RegieRocker]

59. That would be more akin to buying a clone of yourself.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lynne]

70. Oh, heavens, its actually embarrassing to see supposed -

- intelligent people beat this dead horse over and over again. Embarrassing and just sad.

[yodermon]

71. True. Single Payer Auto insurance sounds good to me. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

82. Actually, it's been proposed.

A surtax on gas put into a liability pool to cover accidents.

[Synicus Maximus]

84. There are only a few differences.

1. Laws about purchasing auto insurance are state laws not federal.
2. If you (a) don't drive a car you don't have to buy insurance or if you only drive on private property.
3. Or if you are self bonded (at least in Ga) there is no requirement to buy auto insurance at all

[jonnyblitz]

94. this is the most asked STUPID question on DU, like a

broken fucking record. i wish i could UNREC this idiocy 1000 times and I wish they would immediately BAN the person who asks it.

[bemildred]

96. No. nt

[mdmc]

97. just don't drive