Aren't people now required to purchase Auto Insurance by law...

[WCGreen]

You have to provide proof of insurance if you are stop by a police officer, you have to have proof of insurance to get your registered...

Last time I looked there was no public option for auto insurance.

Why would requiring people to have health insurance be unconditional if requiring people who want to drive be required to have auto insurance.

[Donnachaidh]

1. it's NOT federally mandated

This argument is so old it's got hair on it. :sarcasm:

[CanonRay]

2. I guess that's unconstitutional too.

I bet State Farm doesn't want to hear that.

[WinkyDink]

6. Logic is not your strong suit.

[CanonRay]

9. Actually, I don't believe that the states can mandate something

that is Federally unconstitutional. so you may want to check your own suits. Actually I think that crooked Virginia judge's ruling is bullshit.

[WinkyDink]

Yes, I'm wrong. Because people paying for car insurance just never thought to challenge the states'

laws. We're all just happily paying for something that is unConstitutional. The ACLU doesn't care. Nobody cares!

Don't want to buy auto insurance? Don't drive.

Don't want to buy health-insurance or be fined? Don't breathe.

IT CANNOT BE MORE SIMPLY STATED. PLEASE STOP THE ATTEMPT AT REFUTATION.

[Statistical]

25. You aren't mandated to purchase auto insurance.

If you want to use public roads and own a vehicle you need to purchase auto insurance (liability only) to protect others (not yourself) from your negligence.

If you don't want auto insurance:
a) don't purchase a vehicle
b) keep vehicle only on private property (very common on farms)

It isn't a universal mandate. Now if a state forced everyone to get auto insurance with no exceptions because they might need it in the future well then you would have a comparable analogy. Such a system would likely also be Unconstitutional.

[notesdev]

36. I would love it if it were

I use my car maybe once a week, never gotten in an accident in decades of driving, and I'm quite frankly sick of subsidizing people with luxury cars (which is the net effect of mandatory auto insurance). Let them insure their own property, I shouldn't be required to insure on their behalf.

[ixion]

3. A tired red herring debunked hundreds of times

Once again, you are NOT required to own a car. You have no choice about owning your body. Ergo, your example is not a valid comparison.

[WCGreen]

12. If you want to get health care, which is not a right but a priveledge

you would have to buy insurance.

Simple as that.

Workers are required by the federal government to pay into Social Security. There were exemptions but those exemptions are falling by the way side fast.

And excuse me. I happen to have a full rich life outside of DU and am not privy to all the questions put forth or discussed as obviously you are so cut the snark, DUDE.

[WinkyDink]

26. Not so simple. Even if you DON'T want health-care, as a citizen you WILL have to buy---or be fined.

[ixion]

27. Health insurance is NOT in any way health 'care'

and the two should not be confused.

And being forced to purchase a private, for-profit product is also in no way health 'care'.

I'm sorry if you feel it was snark, but it wasn't. This is one of the primary spin arguments that has been tossed around, quite literally, hundreds of times here on DU. This topic has been a heated point of contention for over a year, and that particular debate point has been tossed out, and debunked. If you missed it, you should check out the archives.

Health insurance is NOT social security (which is another topic all together), is not auto insurance, and is not health care. Health insurance is a private, FOR PROFIT product produced and sold by a private company. It should not be inextricably linked to wellness in any way.

[WinkyDink]

4. For the umpteenth time, and slowly: "People who want to drive" are volunteers. Only suicides would

be excluded from "People who want to breathe."

[MadHound]

5. People aren't required to drive

Thus you have an alternative, and many people take that alternative. Mandating that you purchase a product from a corporation, simply because you are alive, that's unconstitutional.

[area51]

42. +1

How many more times will Obamabots post this ridiculous argument?

[DrDan]

7. you do not have to own a car

[jberryhill]

8. Jesus - you aren't required to own or drive a car

You CHOOSE to own a car.

[NightWatcher]

10. FAIL! People who ride the bus don't have to buy auto insurance. FAIL!

The mandate will not hold up to Constitutional scrutiny... Unless Big Health CEOs have bought off the Supremes too

[X_Digger]

11. 1) You do not have to own a car, and 2) if you never go off private property, not required. n/t

[hobbit709]

13. and car insurance has it's own version of "pre-existing condition"

Some years back I finally bought a car again. Because I hadn't been previously insured, it cost me almost double. It didn't matter that I had no tickets or accidents-I hadn't been previously insured. It's called CAR insurance, not driver insurance, but that doesn't matter if you don't own a car.

[rug]

14. If they drive, yes; if they breathe, no.

[Davis_X_Machina]

15. Let’s play "Jeopardy".

A. A purchase that Congress finds worth encouraging, so it passes a law that gains its purchaser a tax advantage, a tax advantage withheld from those who do not make such a purchase….

Q. What is a thirty-year fixed mortgage from Wells Fargo?
Q. What is an ACA-compliant health insurance policy from Aetna, or Anthem/Wellpoint?

There's a reason why the tax code, and the IRS, was chosen to embody and police the mandate.

If the mandate is unconstitutional, the tax deduction for mortgage interest is unconstitutional.

[X_Digger]

21. It may be legal judo, but the two are different..

Encouraging a purchase, and even giving breaks to those who make a purchase is entirely different than requiring a purchase.

If this is found unconstitutional, look for a similar revision.

Another option would be to withhold federal funding for non-compliance, just as congress did with federal highway funds and states raising their age to purchase alcohol at 21.

[Davis_X_Machina]

30. Withholding funds to states..

...for non-compliance is distinguishable, because the entity not receiving the funding is not receiving funding -- direct transfer of $$$ -- and is not an individual, but a state govt.

You can't distinguish the tax advantages just because you hate the mandate -- you've got to keep them both, or can them both, and there are too many sacred-cow tax advantages.

And I don't see an argument beyond your merely disliking the mandate, that saves the sacred cows, and kills the mandate.

"Encouraging a purchase, and even giving breaks to those who make a purchase is entirely different than requiring a purchase."

The legislation clearly uses the IRS and the tax code to reach its end, and courts have given Congress a virtual clean slate on what and how and where to tax.

[X_Digger]

33. You mistake me.. I'm for the mandate..

But it has to be done in such a way as to pass constitutional muster.

[Davis_X_Machina]

40. It's constitutional...

...if it isn't, the entire neo-liberal system of using tax expenditures instead of transfer payments to provide the fundamentals of a social democracy goes down.

This would leave us with a stark choice of models going forward between the Netherlands-Germany-France today or the US in 1905. They'd be the only two constitutionally kosher paths left.

I can't see the Supremes, even with Roberts and Scalia and Thomas, going into that coffin corner. Too many of those tax expenditures go directly into the pockets of the people who own the Justices.

[X_Digger]

45. A bit hyperbolic, no?

No, chicken little, the sky is not falling.

[LiberalAndProud]

16. There is no Federal auto insurance law.

Auto insurance is mandated and regulated by individual states. There is no federal auto insurance law to be challenged in the courts. If this is the argument for federally mandated commerce, the argument fails.

[DainBramaged]

17. You ask good questions, go away, politicians don't like good questions

[WinkyDink]

24. Illogic is now good?

[DainBramaged]

32. Republicans use 'illogic' to undermine us at every turn

[Stinky The Clown]

18. A-No federal mandate. B-Applies only to people who *choose* to drive

edit to add: These are the stated right wing lines. I am just reporting them.

[Obamanaut]

19. No, you do not. You can buy a vehicle and drive it on your own property

without registration or insurance. If you use it on your property, no need to register it, only if you drive on public roads.

You don't even need to purchase an auto, many don't.

I think the insurance requirement is to protect the other people who may be involved in an accident, and/or the lien holder.

[MindPilot]

20. You are only required to buy LIABILITY insurance.

That simply is to financially protect _other_ people from damage or injury you may cause with your car.

Two different animals and not a reasonable comparison.

On edit, some states allow you to post a bond in lieu of buying an insurance policy. So it's not about being forced to buy insurance.

[noamnety]

22. Because auto insurance is about liability for damage to others.

The people saying the reason is because driving is voluntary have part of the answer. The real reason though is that you are driving a piece of equipment that can do a huge amount of damage to other people and their property. The insurance is needed so that if you kill or injure someone else or drive into their car or through their house, they are just screwed when it comes to paying the cost for your mistake.

[Statistical]

23. Nope.

People without cars aren't required to purchase auto insurance.
People with vehicles that will remain on private property (no use of public roads) aren't required to purchase insurance.
People with cars on public roads are only required to purchase liability insurance which provides no compensation to the person purchasing it (only protects others from the negligence caused by the insured).

So the car = mandated health insurance meme is utterly stupid.

[kitkat65]

28. The type of auto insurance you are required to buy is liability

It is to protect the costs for the lives and property of the other people you affect if you cause an accident. These laws were enacted because people were going through financial hardships through no fault of their own due to car accidents caused by uninsured drivers. Collision insurance, which takes care of your property interests is not required.

The same principle goes for house insurance requirements if you have a mortgage, because it protects the lending institution that has a vested interested in your property. If you own your property outright, you are not required to purchase home insurance since the risk is yours alone.

Both auto and home insurance involve some form of personal choice. I do not have to drive and I do not have to own a home but when I do, it is understood that that I am responsible for certain parts of those decisions that directly affect others. We also have choices about what car to drive and what kind of house to buy. They are objects.

We do not have a choice about the body we are born with, though, and the choice of what we do or don't do with it doesn't affect anyone but ourselves, loved ones notwithstanding.

[MindPilot]

29. Well said! n/t

[lildreamer316]

31. Everyone *alive* in the US does not own or drive a car.

Simple as that.

[mike_c]

34. auto insurance is a condition of public automobile operation, not of citizenship....

eom

[elocs]

35. The way this analogy does fit is if auto insurers cannot turn anyone down,

then why should I buy auto insurance until I have an accident. I can simply wait until I have an accident and then purchase insurance.

If health insurers cannot turn anyone down, then why should I buy health insurance until I am sick or hurt. I can simply wait until I am sick or hurt and then purchase insurance.

Yes, people are not required to own a motor vehicle. That is certainly an obvious point, but it in no way totally trashes the auto insurance/health insurance analogy. Not every analogy made about things perfectly fits, but many serve to make a point.

[WinkyDink]

37. Sorry. Analogies are to be, you know, analogous. And you are focusing on an element other than the

TOPIC.

Besides, what is your point, that health-insurance companies SHOULD be able to turn people down?

[elocs]

38. That point of the analogy fits. If an insurer cannot turn you down and you are not required

to be insured, then there is no incentive to buy insurance until you need it. That element is perfectly true. That is also the point. What is not to get? :shrug: If you are not required to buy insurance and cannot be turned down, then you wait until you are sick or have an accident to purchase it. Simple.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

39. ffs..not this shit AGAIN... n/t

[Crabby Appleton]

41. Most states do not require purchase of auto insurance

to own or operate a motor vehicle, they require proof of financial responsibility, which most people who choose to drive satisfy by buying auto insurance. There are other options such as surety bond, cash deposit, real estate bond. For example see the Ohio requirement below. Other states I've lived in have had similar provisions.

Required Proof of Financial Responsibility < - >

* When required, proof of financial responsibility may be shown by one of the following documents:
1. Insurance policy;
2. Insurance identification card;
3. Section A (Insurance Information) of a State Crash Report;
4. Surety bond of $30,000 issued by an authorized surety company;
5. BMV bond secured by real estate having equity of at least $60,000;
6. BMV Certificate for money or government bonds in the amount of $30,000 on deposit with the Ohio Treasurer;
7. BMV Certificate of self insurance, available to companies or persons who own at least 26 vehicles.


http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/insurance_requirements.stm#tog

[social_critic]

43. It depends on the state, I suppose

People are not required to carry insurance to cover their own injuries in most states. They do have to carry liability insurance to cover the damage they do to others - in some states they pay for no-fault insurance, which amounts to the same thing.

I think this is a little different. I would modify the law, those who say they can't or won't pay for health insurance can sign a piece of paper saying they wave all rights to medical care beyond basic services - I use basic quite broadly, to include preventive health care, care after an accident, and of course apendicitis, gall bladder removal, and cancer treatment (up to a limited amount). Such basic care should be paid for by all of us on a pooled basis, and administered under an expanded Medicare. If we want more, we can pay for it. If we refuse to pay for more, then we sign the waver, when we end up with some kind of weird disease or need a heart transplant, we're toast - or we pay for it with our savings.

Isn't this a better answer?

[Xicano]

44. Since the 'PUBLIC' owns the highways the Public can set requirements on its usage.

Does the PUBLIC own your health? NO! Ergo, the public has no legal right to make you purchase private for profit health care insurance.

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

[reflection]

46. Nope. n/t