RRC Archives

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? I still can't understand why we are resistant to this, but that is another story.

I think part of the problem is that auto insurance is $500/year or so, and you're lucky to get a health policy for that price per month. A public option would have really helped with this. Oh well, most Americans seem to enjoy being raped by private corporations, so who are we to legislate one's sexual predilections?

I believe it is because you get auto insurance to protect the other guy, not necessarily yourself.

Though health insurance doesn't really protect anyone, as I've watched several of those that I have paid monsterous amounts to over the years deny claims that would greatly help out our son despite the medical necessity of it. They always find a reason, and by the time you get them to pay what they should have paid from the beginning, you've exhausted yourself and your finances.

But I'm not bitter...

So I can be forced to protect you from me but I cannot be forced to protect me from myself. Got it.

But wouldn't I be protecting you (the taxpayer) from me (the fat ass smoker) by having insurance and not visiting the ER on someone elses dime?

You don't have to drive, so therefore you aren't forced to buy it. Also, I'm guessing you wouldn't need insurance if you never took your vehicle off of your private property.

pkananen wrote:You don't have to drive, so therefore you aren't forced to buy it. Also, I'm guessing you wouldn't need insurance if you never took your vehicle off of your private property.

I'm not sure about that. If you have a vehicle on your property it has to be licensed (in Ohio anyway). If it is licensed it has to have insurance, even if you have to call 1-800-the-general. I think that is how it works anyway.

The "driving is a privilege" argument is tired, outside the major city it is necessity.

I believe you only need insurance to tag the car, if its for track usage only, no insurance is required. mostly I believe the issuance requirements is legal because its on the state level and The "driving is a privilege" argument.

I agree that not needing to drive and not driving off your private property are probably 5% and .001% compounded probabilities, but we are talking about legal grounds here. The fact is, you have legal grounds to not buy auto insurance, even if it's unlikely to be the case. Not having legal freedom to not have healthcare, even if not abused now, is a potential slippery slope. Why wouldn't you want to hedge your bets against increasing government involvement in a very personal area?

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. If you want to continue your existence you pony up buy a car, some safe auto and pay a freaking insurance bill. If you really can't afford to pay it, you are likely below the limits where you are let off the hook anyhow. But don't feed me this "I can't afford it" while on the way to UDF to buy a 6 pack of the high life.

I would be happy with a provision that said 'you can pay $500 and get minimal coverage, or you can opt out of any care ultimately provided by tax payer money'.