RRC Archives

pkananen wrote:You don't have to drive, so therefore you aren't forced to buy it.

Yeah, this is the main argument. There are many people who can't afford car insurance, and for those people the alternative is public transportation or walking. Often it's not practical, but it's possible if it's something you have to do.

The argument with health care is that there is no way for people to avoid either paying for the plan if they can afford it, or paying a penalty tax if they can't.

bcombs wrote:You are right, you don't have to drive. You also don't have to visit a doctor (much less not pay for it). You have the right to stay on your property, not pay insurance for your car and die of the common cold because you can't get to some anti-biotics.

A bit off topic, but the "common cold" is typically caused by rhinoviruses or coronaviruses, and would not respond to antibiotics. This would be another example of waste/overspending in healthcare, and in the end could actually contribute to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

I agree with you for the most part otherwise, although it is kind of sketchy forcing people to buy health insurance from ruthless scumbag private corporations when there is no cheap public option offered. The bill has some good points (regulation of said ruthless scumbag corporations, cost reduction in healthcare), but this no public insurance thing is a fine example of the perils of compromise in democracy. It could ultimately doom the bill to failure as it is such a half-measure. I support it otherwise, as does the AMA and the majority of US physicians.

interesting thoughts guys, thanks.

from Slate-

Toggling back and forth between the various federalism revolution cases of the 1990s, Vinson then concludes that what Congress requires here is unprecedented; that “never before has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private company (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States.” He finds that “it would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause” and that “if Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power and we would have a Constitution in name only.” Citing Erwin Chemerinsky appearing on Reason TV to reject the argument that there is a unique health care market, Vinson concludes that the economic decision to forgo participation in the health care market is not “activity” for commerce clause purposes, warning, with proper citations, that “everything could be said to affect interstate commerce in the same sense in which a butterfly flapping its wings in China might bring about a change of weather in New York.”

seems like the majority of the burden is being put on corporations to buy the insurance..not the individuals. not sure of the limits, but I think any company that has over 50 employees (could be 250) must provide helath insurance or face fines. those same companies do not have to insure your vehicle..so we are really comparing apples and grapes here. the way Bush hated the working man, this is Obama's way to hate the corporations.

why all the hate pig? corporations are people too

I like the op-out idea.  If you don't want to pay for health insurance your name would be flagged and you would be required to pay cash up front for any medical service.  No cash = no service.  That way all the people who oppose health care reform and don't have insurance would die off.  Problem solved. 

OK, educate me.... Is the reason that forced health insurance is unconstitutional and forced automobile insurance is not based on who is doing the forcing? State vs Fed?

The fact that you only need auto liability insurance if you own a car is part of the argument; however, the state vs. federal government is perhaps a more important (and probably less understood) part of the argument here.

We have a federal form of government, meaning that power is divided between state governments and the federal government. By ratifying the Constitution, the states ceded some of their power to the newly-created federal government. The federal government is one of limited power--its powers are limited to those powers granted to it in the Constitution. In other words, for the federal government to do anything, it must find a basis for that action in the Constitution.

Most of these powers are in Article I, Section 8. Among these powers is the power to regulate commerce among the several states. This power, called the commerce clause, is the basis for all sorts of federal laws. Congress has used this power quite widely, and the courts have generally interpreted it quite broadly, allowing Congress to regulate anything that has any connection with commerce. (Conservatives will argue, with some merit, that Congress and the courts have gone way too far in what they'll allow under the commerce clause. But, regardless, the commerce clause has been used as the basis for lots of federal laws, and that isn't going to change any time soon.) The commerce clause (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) clearly gives the federal government the power to regulate the health insurance industry. However, the question here is whether it gives Congress the power to require individuals to buy health insurance. At least one court has said that it does not.

State governments, however, have no such limits on their powers. States do not have to point to a provision granting them the power to pass a law. So, a state can require its residents to buy insurance. Of course, there are limits on states' powers. States cannot pass laws that violate people's federal constitutional rights. (For example, a state can't require people to go to church, or as the Supreme Court recently held in a case out of Chicago, a state (or locality) cannot prohibit gun ownership.) Another significant limit on state's powers is that, if a state's law conflicts with federal law, then federal law trumps the state law (Article VI of the Constitution).

So, in conclusion, the federal government's power to regulate people's behavior must be rooted in a power granted to the federal government in the Constitution. No such limitation on power applies to the states.

I hate the fact that I have to purchase Uninsured Motorist insurance in order to protect myself from someone who is driving without insurance, which is against the law.

Another insurance scam in my eyes!

You have to buy health insurance within the state in which you reside, how can the interstate commerce clause apply when in fact there is no interstate commerce in the debate, the dickheads who wrote the healthcare debacle could have given us about three pargraphs that address the concerns 98% of the country have but instead they dropped the ball, the nov 2010 elections reflect the disdain for their failure.

yep, broken system indeed. so isn't it a good thing that someone is taking steps to improve it?