Do you feel that the requirement to purchase car insurance is unconstitutional?

[Very_Boring_Name]

[sendero]

1. Any comparisons..

.... made between auto insurance and health insurance are ridiculous.

[Very_Boring_Name]

2. How are they ridiculous? If you get sick, have no insurance or money, guess who foots the bill?

[ixion]

4. health insurance is NOT health care n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

6. Can I use my auto insurance to cover routine maintenance or to correct manufacturers defects?

Nope.

Just one of several important differences between auto and health insurance.

[customerserviceguy]

33. That's probably one of the chief reasons

your auto insurance is probably cheaper than your health insurance.

[Hello_Kitty]

36. Exactly.

It's not cheap because it's mandatory. It's cheap because the circumstances under which you can use it to pay for repairs on your car (or person) are very limited.

[liberal N proud]

12. You are correct that the two can't be compared but a little off on the explanation

If someone drives a car without insurance and hits you we all know who pays the bill too.

The difference is, you don't have to drive a car, but living is not something we can easily opt out of.

To be forced to buy insurance to live is wrong. But that was put in the bill so that it would be ruled unconstitutional and therefore the whole bill would be taken down. The republicans win again.

[laconicsax]

14. Driving is a privilege, living isn't.

You only need to buy auto insurance if you choose to drive a car.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

29. I'll take ridiculous for $500

If you don't have a car, you don't need car insurance. I live in a big effing city and didn't have a car for 17 years because public transportation is that good.

I have had a body for 44 years and have needed health insurance all 44 years. And because I need it, I've not been able to get it.

[ixion]

3. spot on, that...

:applause:

[Cronus Protagonist]

7. +1000

And they make me wonder about the motives of people who do want to compare them.... why?

[palm_to_forehead]

5. Start this poll...

Do you understand the difference between a state requiring insurance based on usage and the federal government requiring insurance based on merely being alive?

[bbinacan]

11. Good point. n/t

[OmahaBlueDog]

15. There's actually very little differnece in one key respect

We don't leave people on the street to die in this country (OK, we do, but o with this for a moment). Whether you are hurt in a wreck, or you slip on ice and bust your head open on a streetcorner, someone will take you to a hospital. You will get treated. In both cases, if no one has sufficient coverage to pay the medical bills, the taxpayer will end up on the hook for the treatments through Medicaid.

[palm_to_forehead]

18. Which is irrelevant

to the constitutionality of either requirement.

[OmahaBlueDog]

24. Promote the general Welfare

Mortgage holders have to protect the interest of lenders by purchasing homeowners insurance

Vehicle owners have to protect the interests of the public and the taxpayers by purchasing auto insurance

Business owners employing workers have to purchase workers compensation and employers liability insurance to ensure that taxpayers aren't on the hook supporting the widowed and disabled

HCR requires all citizens to make themselves responsible for their health care coverage. Tax payers may assist with obtaining the insurance, but the ultimate goal is to shift the burden away from the taxpayer.

[palm_to_forehead]

27. Not a single one of your examples

are things that a person is automatically required to purchase or take part in just by being alive.

Until you understand that very important difference, this entire issue will go right over your head.

Regardless, it's not the federal government requiring people to purchase car insurance. There are things states can do that the federal government cannot.

[OmahaBlueDog]

44. If you are in business, driving a car, or alive - you are a potential tax liability

Until you understand that is what this is really all about, you are clueless

[palm_to_forehead]

50. What sport

did your high school government/civics teacher coach?

You obviously have no grasp of the differences between state and federal powers.

[pnwmom]

8. No. Because it ensures that if you cause damage to someone else,

you'll have the means to pay them for the damage.

[palm_to_forehead]

9. And not even that is correct.

A state could require its citizens to buy health insurance.

The federal government cannot.

[OmahaBlueDog]

10. Only if your state enforces adequate liability minimums

As often as not, people have insufficient coverage to pay for the damage to the vehicles, much less injured passengers. I point this out because I suspect when HCR is "tweaked", we'll have a bunch of people with just enough coverage to maybe pay for a good outpatient procedure.

[enough]

13. Big difference. You don't have to buy a car. You can decide not to own a car. One of the reasons

you might decide not to own a car is that insurance is too expensive.

The health insurance mandate is totally different. Under the mandate, if you are alive, you must buy health insurance, contributing to the profit of a private company. Your very existence as a human being becomes a profit stream for a corporation.

[Khan Descend]

16. It's not an unconditional 'requirement'. I don't purchase it because I don't drive on

public roads. I don't even have an automobile.

[LibDemAlways]

17. Apples and oranges. Buying a car is optional. Having

a body is not.

[david13]

19. No way Jose. You take the bus. Or get out there and get some

exercise with the shoe leather.
dc

[Marr]

20. Why do some people keep making this argument?

The response has been offered a million times. You do not have to buy a car. Requiring citizens to pay money to a for-profit industry simply because they are alive is not the same thing as buying car insurance.

[TorchTheWitch]

22. No kidding, I'm so tired of this loser comparison

It's like comparing apples to igloos... and it's the same comparison the GOP always made.

[Marr]

34. I have to assume they don't actually care about making sense, and just want

to advance the same talking point, over and over and over.

[RegieRocker]

23. That is a lie. Most people do have to buy and own a car.

Not everyone lives in your world nor wants to!

[Marr]

31. You are not required by law to buy a car, simply because you're alive.

Does this really have to be spelled out a millionth time?

[RegieRocker]

40. Does it have to be spelled out to you a million times

that it is car insurance and not buying a car that is mandated.

[Balbus]

21. 18 idiots and counting...

[RegieRocker]

25. Was actually 27 when I last checked

[Balbus]

42. I'll count you twice...

because of your asinine comments above. ;)

[RegieRocker]

43. I will count you as nine asses.

[PVnRT]

26. Irrelevant, the federal government does not require anyone to buy car insurance

[NuclearDem]

28. Car insurance isn't mandated by the federal government

States have separate requirements for their minimum coverage requirements.

[ShadowLiberal]

30. If people don't have car insurance and get into accidents they pass the expense to all tax payers

The reason for car insurance being required is because if you don't get it you don't just hurt yourself, you shift the costs of your accidents to all the other tax payers.

Also, the whole argument some people make that a car insurance mandate is constitutional because you don't have to have a car is just baloney in my book. I mean, unless you live in a big city with lots of public transportation available, not having a car in order to avoid having to buy car insurance is not realistic. It's impossible to survive in the suburbs or a rural area without a car, unless you want to go through the hassle of forcing your family and friends to drive you to work, the grocery store, and everywhere else whenever you need to leave your house and go do something.

[customerserviceguy]

35. If people don't have health coverage

and they go to an emergency room, then that expense gets passed on to others, too.

[Hello_Kitty]

38. If you have insurance your ER expenses get passed on to others.

And uninsured people are no more likely to use the ER than insured people are.

[customerserviceguy]

39. I was just objecting to this responder's reason

I do make a distinction between the two types of insurance, I just was pointing out what I thought was a flaw in his reasoning.

[Hello_Kitty]

37. So should blind people and five year olds be forced to carry auto insurance?

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. Total Bullshit. Not every accident results in injuries or property damage.

In fact, most don't.

Liability automobile insurance is about making the driver who is not at fault whole again, by returning their car to pre-accident condition.

[frylock]

32. do you feel that the requirement to purchase a car is unconstitutional?

oh, you're not required to purchase a car? nevermind

[Yo_Mama]

41. No

It's a state requirement, not a federal requirement, and driving a car is an activity, whereas waking up in the morning breathing is not commerce as I know it.

[TheKentuckian]

45. I'll tell you that no state in the nation causes your employer to select your auto insurance

and you just have to take whatever they choose.

You folks are actually fighting to be mandated to purchase a product from a for profit entity, that is sold on an open market but insist your employer do the shopping.

What the fuck is fascism? This bullshit scam you are pushing.

[Unvanguard]

46. Not for states, though if the federal government did it, maybe.

Health care reform, though, is constitutional in its entirety.

[Stinky The Clown]

47. You seem to be defending the health insurance reform law

You're off base a little.

[kudzu22]

49. Not at all

Car insurance is a state mandate, and is required only if you want to drive on public roads. States can mandate stuff all day long without running afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

Health insurance is a federal mandate with a lot of constitutional problems.

Why do people have such a hard time grasping this concept?

P.S. that was supposed to be a reply to the OP

[Iggo]

51. It's.Not.The.Same.Thing.

Have a wonderful day.

:hi:

[rucky]

52. I think it's ridiculous to say "driving is a privledge" in this day and age.

Without a good public transportation program (public option?) to assure that people have a means to make a living.

I wouldn't go as far as saying it's unconstitutional, but it's cruel to poor people.