CNN's Morgan Presses Bachmann from Left on ObamaCare
On Monday's Piers Morgan Tonight, as host Morgan debated guest Rep. Michele Bachmann on ObamaCare, after the Minnesota Republican explained that a government requirement to purchase health insurance differs from a requirement to buy car insurance because "no one is forced to buy a car if they don't want to," her answer went over the CNN host's head as he continued to press the same flawed comparison.
After asking his guest, "Do you have car insurance?" and the followup, "Who told you to (buy it)?", Bachmann had responded:
But car insurance is a very different thing from health insurance because no one is forced to buy a car if they don't want to, but here, in the case of ObamaCare, every American is forced to buy a health insurance policy just because they breathe.
Morgan seemed not to notice that she had already addressed his faulty comparison of the two types of insurance as he interrupted her to continue pressing the point he was trying to make in defending the ObamaCare mandate:
Yeah, but hang on a minute. Let me jump in. You just hit the nail on the head. You talked about buying health insurance. You have to buy car insurance. If you want to drive a car in America, you have to buy insurance or you will be driving illegally, you will be fined, and if you keep defying it, you'll be put in jail.
He continued:
What is the difference ideologically to a Republican like you that is so opposed to this, what is the difference between Americans being forced by law to have insurance to drive a car and being forced by law to have insurance for their health?
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
This guy needs . . .
Submitted by rickbren on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 8:15am.
. . .to learn to speak American. . .
CNN can't figure out why
Submitted by P. Aaron on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 8:29am.
CNN can't figure out why their ratings are tanking, they ain't gonna understand other concepts either.
Piers is the Peter Principle
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 8:33am.
Piers is the Peter Principle at work. From Britain's Got Talent to CNN.
It doesn't matter how many times the difference is explained to people like Morgan; it's a canard that just won't die.
They are like the 5 year old who asks his dad...how is Santa going to get into the house because we don't have a chimney? The father, seeing an opportunity, explains to the boy how Santa is a story, he's not real, and where the gifts really come from, and then asks "Do you understand?"
And the little boy says, Yes, but how is he going to get into the house ???
MB,
Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 8:52am.
A very appropriate comparison, considering liberals, like Morgan, are like little kids demanding that Santa bring them all the goodies they want - and never stop bringing them - even as Santa is near bankruptcy and about to lose his North Pole workshop to foreclosure....
People like him will never understand that the car insurance
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 8:56am.
analogy is apples and oranges. I work with an individual who thinks it's the same thing. "But I HAVE to drive a car, if I don't, how will I get to work, the store, etc???"
What they fail to grasp is the nature of liberty, that you are not given a birthright to live where you choose and somehow the means for you to travel to and from there is the responsibility of society. You CHOOSE to drive a car because you have chosen that for your money and your quality of life, you CHOOSE to live where you do and you CHOOSE to work where you do. Within a free society, you must therefore endeavor to contract with other people, other institutions and companies to make your life work around those choices.
If you want to give up those choices and have the gub'mint provide all these elements for you, then you will eventually not like where they tell you to live and work.
So if you prove yourself unreliable and unworthy of driving a car, you will lose that privilege, so you would then need to find another method of transport, or move closer to your necessities. So you obey speed limits, traffic laws, you budget yourself so you have gas in your car, etc.
NONE OF THIS IS A BIRTHRIGHT!!!!!!
Why is Piers even here?
Submitted by c5then on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 9:03am.
I mean appart from hiding from the authorities because of the phone hacking scandal...Why has he decided to live in the US. I bet the healtcare system is a big part of the reason. Now he want's to change it to resemble the monstrosity that they have over in Brittain.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Someone...
Submitted by BBallleaper on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 9:04am.
want to explain to me why these GOP nitwits keep going on CNN, MSNBC etc????? Are they that hard up to fill an evening???? Good gosh these people are stupid. Led by the idiot of all time, Mitch 'No Switch' McConnell.
They do it so they can get
Submitted by CM on Wed, 07/04/2012 - 7:31pm.
They do it so they can get the conservative message out to people that otherwise wouldn't be hearing it.
Auto financial responsibility laws
Submitted by KornKing on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 9:48am.
Are state laws, there may even be a state or two that does not have them.
Also, the laws specify minimum limits of liability protection that are generally quite low, not all the bells and whistles that many wish to purchase.
and might I add
Submitted by KornKing on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 9:54am.
The Governor of my state is not authorized to grant me a waiver from this law based on my being his buddy or a member of some special group
The Commonwealth of Virginia
Submitted by misterbee241 on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 10:22am.
Also has an uninsured motorist fee. You do have to pay that if you cant get insurance. Used to be $400. Not sure what it is now.
one more thing. Auto insurance protects the other guy from me and vice versa. If somebody injures me and cripples me for life he is responsible and his insurance will pay my medical expenses. Obamacare protects nobody. That's the difference.
And it's just money for the state
Submitted by Model850 on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 4:43pm.
Not only does VA require an uninsured motorist fee, that money doesn't cover any damage the driver may cause.
The Virginia Uninsured Motor Vehicle (UMV) fee allows a motor vehicle owner to register an uninsured motor vehicle. At the time of registration, the motor vehicle owner must certify whether the vehicle is insured or uninsured.
If the vehicle is uninsured, the motor vehicle owner is required to pay to DMV a $500 uninsured motor vehicle fee in addition to normal registration fees. Payment of the $500 fee does not provide the motorist with any insurance coverage. If involved in an accident, the uninsured motorist remains personally liable. This fee is valid for twelve months but may be prorated for a shorter amount of time.
So not only do I pay for auto insurance to protect others from me if I screw up, I also pay a small premium for "uninsured motorist" coverage to protect me from the drivers who choose to go without insurance.
If a claim is filed due to an accident caused by an uninsured driver I don't know if the insurance companies have any recourse against the state to recover money from the uninsured motorist fund, but I doubt it.
10th freaking amendment
Submitted by pcantidote on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 10:36am.
Sometimes I get so frustrated with the republicans and conservatives that cannot answer this question and the romneycare question. It is called the 10th amendment. Read the freaking constitution. Next question?
I once commented on this site on the 10th amendment
Submitted by action on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 1:27pm.
with the respect to TARP,and the response from a supposed conservative was "where in the constitution does it say that congress can't pass TARP." Probably from a republican, not a conservative.
You can't fault fools for
Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 10:51am.
You can't fault fools for being foolish.
Piers is one of the biggest fools on what is considered news today.
Actually and unfortunately, Pierced Morgan is right in a way.
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 11:07am.
If you drive a car, you have to have auto insurance. Likewise, if you have a health issue (and everyone does sooner or later), you should have health insurance. The differences are: #1. Auto insurance is a STATE issue, while Obambi-care is FEDERAL. BIG difference (same argument applies to Romney-care vs. Obambi-care). #2. Driving a car is a privilege, having access to healthcare is not. You can live without a car, you could die without healthcare.
The problems with our healthcare system are fixable, but this monstrosity of a bill is definitely NOT the answer. They could start with 3 basic things: Tort reform - stopping the lawyers from making frivolous lawsuits and collecting mega-bucks from them, interstate health insurance availability, and finally, eliminate healthcare for illegals except for emergency life-saving situations.
Tort reform would significantly reduce doctor's malpractice insurance premiums, thereby reducing their cost of practicing medicine, as well as minimizing extravagant settlements. Interstate health insurance would force competition onto insurance companies, thereby reducing costs through said competition. And illegal aliens cost us in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year for routine healthcare.
Once these three things are accomplished, they can work out other more minor details causing problems in our system (which, BTW, is STILL the best in the world DESPITE the problems we have).
Why liberals continue to insist on implementing programs that have repeatedly failed, often catastrophically, both in this country and around the world, mystifies me. It really must be true that Einstein was dead-on: Trying something over and over expecting a different result is a sign of mental illness. It also happens to be the liberal philosophy.
And when the programs fail
Submitted by KornKing on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 11:35am.
They insist they're the only ones that can fix them
That makes a big assupmtion Korn
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 11:50am.
The assupmtion that they admit their program failed in the first place. Which is something we rarely see. Look at welfare, food-stamps, Medicaid, the housing market, the economy, foreign policy, etc. If you can get them to even admit a program failed, you can almost guarantee it will have been the republican's fault...
Morgan is right
Submitted by Suilbup on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 11:52am.
There is NO DIFFERENCE because if I choose to quietly sit on my sofa and watch his show and never leave my home, the State will still force me to buy auto insurance - right? I mean, we're ALL forced to buy it - even if we don't own cars or ever leave our houses. Our states MAKE us buy auto insurance. The fact that I have a face means that my state requires me to purchase auto insurance. Come on guys - we have to be big enough to admit when we've been outsmarted by our betters.
Sometimes it amazes me how someone this "famous" could be so aggressively stupid.
First off, it isn't just
Submitted by TheLoudDreamer on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 11:55am.
First off, it isn't just flawed, it's EXTRMELY FLAWED.
There is a differance between being forced to buy something just for being alive, and being forced to buy something as a pre-requesetto or as part of purchasing something else.
There is an even bigger differance between that and the actual law for owning car insurance, which you ONLY need to have if you drive on public roads (common sense says that you most people do, but still, you have a CHOICE here.)
The Democrat/Liberals always
Submitted by viperfl on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 1:48pm.
The Democrat/Liberals always use the auto insurance analogy and it's not working. They are digging for straws because they have no leg to stand on. The Democrats/Liberals want Socialized medicine plain and simple. Healthcare was the last big frontier for the Democrat/Liberals to conquer. They were not happy with just Medicare.
First of all, if you own the car outright, then you are only required to get liability insurance. This is to protect another person that you cause injury to. If there is a lien on your car from a bank, then the bank will require you to get comp and collision on the car. This is to protect the bank's investment if you decide to wreck the car. Getting collision on your car is not required by the state. If you don't own a car, then you are not required to get auto insurance.
The same goes for owning a home. The state don't require you to get homeowners insurance. If you have a mortgage, then the bank will require you to get insurance. If you rent the state don't require you to get renter's insurance. There are some landlords that may require you to get renter's insurance.
"There is no law stating that you are required to get car insurance to protect you from yourself."
Let the Democrat/Liberals continue bringing up the auto insurance analogy. They are the one's that are making themselves look like idiots when they do.
That bogus car insurance argument
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 3:42pm.
No matter how many times this bogus argument is debunked, liberals continue to use it.
After all this time, conservatives should know how to address this talking point without blinking.
Insurance is required because you are operating a 2,000 plus pound vehicle on PUBLIC roads subject to PUBLIC restrictions ... which include buying insurance to protect OTHERS from your mishaps.
No one needs to buy insurance if they don't drive a car ... although it's not past the liberal mind to determine that people SHOULD buy auto insurance because they MIGHT buy a car in the future.
Actually, the precedent has been set and Robert's switch has created the possibility that the federal government CAN tax you for "possibly" buying a car in the future.