"Somebody help me understand why it's unconstitutional...."

[Bubba]

You aren't required by law to carry insurance against damage to your own car. You are required to have some sort of way to reimburse other people if you cause damage or injury to them through your negligent operation of your vehicle. If I were to gamble and say that the risk of losing my transport is worth the money I save by carrying liability only auto insurance that's perfectly kosher. In exchange for having some sort of insurance I am afforded the privilege of driving on government owned roads. If you want to continue asserting that auto coverage justifies health coverage you will need to start asserting that the protections in the constitution are a privilege and that the federal government owns all the air and all the land and merely grants us the favor of occupying their property.

What the new healthcare plan does is mandate that I insure my own property (my body) against things that can't harm others. Now, you might say that any illness I might have can be transmitted to others, and you'd be right, but to make that argument stick you'll have to expand the bill to not only force me to pay for insurance but to actually compel me to see a doctor.

 

[Bubba]

 

[singlestacksig]

is there any state that requires Insurance ? and not just financial responsability ?
and you don't need any of those if you drive on private lands..

 

[rambone]

I wrote a thread about this once. Check it out.

Why_mandated_health-insurance_is_not_like_mandated_car-insurance

 

[5.56'aholic]

It's a terribly inconsistent position to support mandatory auto insurance whilst excoriating mandatory health insurance. Republicans use the armed power of the government to force people to fund private companies, and they like to say it's immoral to disobey the auto insurance laws. Republicans have a long history of cheerfully enacting laws that result in putting money into private companies' coffers, and they really only oppose this legislation because it limits the profit ability of private companies.

The government forces me to pay for mandatory police coverage, fire coverage, military coverage, transportation interrogation, etc., even though I would make different market choices in many of the above "services."

The government in Indiana, through the vigorous actions of Mitch Daniels, forces me to pay for the Colts, even though I hope they lose every game they ever play. The government forces me to pay for public-option football at Purdue, Indiana, Ball State, Indiana State, etc., and the Republicans go crazy cheering at the IU-Purdue games. The government forces me to pay for public-option local schools, even though there is no way I would willingly give money to the Indiana public schools. Republicans are even well known to say things like "I'm moving to Boone County, because they have good schools there." I might take the Republicans more seriously if they were demanding the repeal of public schools and the Indiana University Basketball team.

The Republicans have picked an odd time to proclaim themselves fiscal conservatives and limited-government advocates. Republicans love funding big-government programs, just their type of big government.

This horse done left the barn, a long time ago, and Republicans have spent so much time in court arguing how extra-constitutional programs are legal that this will be seen by the courts as merely the next step on a path they built. If the courts overturn this mandatory government program, their ruling would put the rest of the system at risk, and there's no way they are going to create a pathway to suing to get out from under your local police department.

i have read the posts you have put up in this article, and in no way have you convinced me that healthcare and home owners/auto insurance are the same requirement. In fact, all I have taken away from your posts is that you blame republicans for everything you dislike about Indiana.

Now, if you are saying that the government is forcing us to purchase health insurance for the damage we cause to our bodies(like the state requirements for auto insurance liability), which seems to be the point you are arguing, then you are in fact implying that the government/state/someone else owns our bodies. Furthermore, just like auto insurance I assume you are advocating making those who are high risk policy holders (ie. the morbidly obese, sick, diabetic, cancer stricken, and frail) pay higher premiums just like we do for those who have high risk auto policies? After all the madates are one and the same according to you.

To me, it seems your argument is baseless, or ill-informed.

 

[smoking357]

i have read the posts you have put up in this article, and in no way have you convinced me that healthcare and home owners/auto insurance are the same requirement.

Of course, not. You like one restriction on Liberty, but not the other. I'm somewhat glad to see that there is a point where you'll say "enough," but it's hard to cage this beast that has been created over the years, and these lamentations may be too little, too late.

Anyway, I don't even want to talk about health care until I see Republicans repeal the Colts tax, mandatory auto insurance, seat belt laws, firearms permits (you don't pay for a right), and a few more things. When the Republicans show me that they're serious about Liberty, I'll believe their arguments regarding health care.

 

[T-rav]

Of course, not. You like one restriction on Liberty, but not the other. I'm somewhat glad to see that there is a point where you'll say "enough," but it's hard to cage this beast that has been created over the years, and these lamentations may be too little, too late.

Anyway, I don't even want to talk about health care until I see Republicans repeal the Colts tax, mandatory auto insurance, seat belt laws, firearms permits (you don't pay for a right), and a few more things. When the Republicans show me that they're serious about Liberty, I'll believe their arguments regarding health care.

I agree with the tax imposed for the stadium that should be funded privately by season ticket holders, owner, players, investors. Technically you could classify the state as a investor really though. BUT the state should leave their hands out of it.

Seatblets- If guys on motorcycles make a choice to wear a helmet I should get the choice to wear a seatbelt. I wear mine because its safe not because its law.

Firearms- I thinks its BS I have to prove Im not a criminal in order to carry my firearm. To buy not so much If I pass a check purchasing I should be able to carry.

Auto Insurance- If people are gonna be on the road they should be required to pay for the damages they incur in an accident weather it's my fault or theirs.

Healthcare- If I eat big mac's all my life, smoke 3 packs, and drink a case of beer every night that my choice and when I have a heart attack that MY FAULT. The government is intruding on my choice of my lifestyle

The government is telling me that I have to carry insurance only to find when I have my heart attack they will see I smoke 3 packs a day and drink a case of beer every night and they will deem me not worth saving.

Now if I want to pay for insurance MYSELF because I want to live after my heart attack at 35 then thats my choice.

We agree on a few things here but your case for healthcare holds no water.

Why exactly are you blaming just the R's when in fact everything BUT the HC Bill was im sure from both R's and D's
I think most of the members DONT play the R and D cards we stand for

 

[dross]

Of course, not. You like one restriction on Liberty, but not the other. I'm somewhat glad to see that there is a point where you'll say "enough," but it's hard to cage this beast that has been created over the years, and these lamentations may be too little, too late.

Anyway, I don't even want to talk about health care until I see Republicans repeal the Colts tax, mandatory auto insurance, seat belt laws, firearms permits (you don't pay for a right), and a few more things. When the Republicans show me that they're serious about Liberty, I'll believe their arguments regarding health care.

Every law is a restriction on liberty. The question is whether the law is morally justified, legally justified, necessary, and effective.

Healthcare is a legitimate issue to be discussed regardless of one's views on something else. Yes, some may hold other views that conflict with their stated principles. Point it out and move on to your defense of this healthcare bill. It doesn't prove your point to say that the Republicans pass socialist BS, too. Okay, conceded. Now, let's move on to healthcare, which is the greatest socialist travesty in my adult life.

 

[5.56'aholic]

Of course, not. You like one restriction on Liberty, but not the other. I'm somewhat glad to see that there is a point where you'll say "enough," but it's hard to cage this beast that has been created over the years, and these lamentations may be too little, too late.

so your saying that liberty means not having the means to pay/reimburse someone for your mistakes? I believe even in the bible it was an eye for an eye. We have simply moved from violence begets violence to monetary reimbursement for damages. When every American has the means to cover the damages they cause, I will see no reason to have insurance, until then, its better than footing the bill because someone else is irresponsible or cause damage accidentally.

 

[5.56'aholic]

Every law is a restriction on liberty. The question is whether the law is morally justified, legally justified, necessary, and effective.

this

 

[5.56'aholic]

Anyway, I don't even want to talk about health care until I see Republicans repeal the Colts tax, mandatory auto insurance, seat belt laws, firearms permits (you don't pay for a right), and a few more things. When the Republicans show me that they're serious about Liberty, I'll believe their arguments regarding health care.

while I can agree on most of these things (aside from the ongoing debate on auto insurance), To go off topic a bit here (and I do apologize for it) one thing we need to consider as a state is why we have no helmet laws for motorcycles but a seatbelt law. I have always been confused by that.

 

[Rizzo]

because the feds wont give us federal highway money without a seat belt law and don't put the same stipulation to receive federal funds for not making us wear helmets.

 

[5.56'aholic]

because the feds wont give us federal highway money without a seat belt law and don't put the same stipulation to receive federal funds for not making us wear helmets.

i understand that, but it makes zero sense other than to get fed money.

 

[38special]

Sorry. That doesn't work. When your only ability to claim a space of freedom is to ride a bicycle in a rainstorm, the argument is bankrupt.

The fact is that all those Republicans who say driving is a privilege have created the omnipotent monster that government can now use for whatever it wants.

When Republicans start saying that driving, the basic means of getting around the country, is a right, then they'll again be worthy of a vote.

BLAME BUSH BLAME BUSH BLAME BUSH!

Altogether now!

Republicans have a lot of problems, but this is NOT the issue here. It's not just Republicans arguing against the health care bill (though admittedly they are a majority). The only bipartisan part of this health care bill was the OPPOSITION.

As has been repeated several times in this thread, the health care bill that just passed is a FEDERAL mandate, and not a state mandate. These are two very, very different beasts in a federalist society.

Of course, not. You like one restriction on Liberty, but not the other. I'm somewhat glad to see that there is a point where you'll say "enough," but it's hard to cage this beast that has been created over the years, and these lamentations may be too little, too late.

Anyway, I don't even want to talk about health care until I see Republicans repeal the Colts tax, mandatory auto insurance, seat belt laws, firearms permits (you don't pay for a right), and a few more things. When the Republicans show me that they're serious about Liberty, I'll believe their arguments regarding health care.

I agree some here, though these again are STATE laws and entirely different from the subject at hand (health care bill).

I don't think we've got any business subsidizing the Colts, "permitting" firearms or mandating seat belts, but that again has NOTHING to do with the Constitutionality of the health care bill.

Every law is a restriction on liberty. The question is whether the law is morally justified, legally justified, necessary, and effective.

Healthcare is a legitimate issue to be discussed regardless of one's views on something else. Yes, some may hold other views that conflict with their stated principles. Point it out and move on to your defense of this healthcare bill. It doesn't prove your point to say that the Republicans pass socialist BS, too. Okay, conceded. Now, let's move on to healthcare, which is the greatest socialist travesty in my adult life.

Well said. I'd rep you but I already have

while I can agree on most of these things (aside from the ongoing debate on auto insurance), To go off topic a bit here (and I do apologize for it) one thing we need to consider as a state is why we have no helmet laws for motorcycles but a seatbelt law. I have always been confused by that.

I think this is a dumb and inconsistent mandate as well.

because the feds wont give us federal highway money without a seat belt law and don't put the same stipulation to receive federal funds for not making us wear helmets.

Therein lies the problem. The Federal government taxes the crap out of us, then entices the states with the money they took from us in order to overstep the original intent of their power. The Federal income tax may be the worse tax this country has ever passed.