'Inside Washington' Host: Why is it Constitutional to Force People to Buy Car Insurance But Not Health Insurance?
Gordon Peterson on Friday asked either a staggeringly ignorant or intentionally provocative question.
On the most recent installment of PBS's "Inside Washington," the host queried his guests, "Why is it constitutional to require Americans to buy automobile insurance but un-Constitutional to force them to buy health insurance?" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
GORDON PETERSON, HOST: That’s Ken Cuccinelli. He’s the attorney general of Virginia. He brought the challenge to ObamaCare. The federal court and judge Henry Hudson of Virginia ruled it’s un-Constitutional to force Americans to buy health insurance, as the law mandates. Why is it constitutional to require Americans to buy automobile insurance but un-Constitutional to force them to buy health insurance?
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: Well, the argument is that you don't have to own a car.
Totenberg's only partially right about the argument.
Indeed, the analogy would only be valid if the government forced you to have a car. As it doesn't, not everyone is required to buy auto insurance. Only 89 percent of American households own a car.
But there's another facet of this issue that most folks like Totenberg miss: states only require car owners to purchase liability insurance. This covers damages drivers inflict on other people's property and not their own.
The concept here is that cars are dangerous vehicles that can cause financial or personal harm to others. The owner is therefore required to have coverage that insures that any damages one causes to others as a result of one's driving will be paid for. The only way of ensuring this is by requiring drivers to have liability policies.
However, states do not require drivers to have what's called collision and comprehensive insurance. Such policies cover damages to one's own vehicle and property.
As such, the auto insurance requirement is actually for the benefit of others and not the actual insured. By contrast, health insurance is exclusively a benefit to the buyer of it. This makes it far different than automobile liability insurance.
Of course, the position of ObamaCare supporters is that others benefit by all people owning health insurance in that medical costs and premiums are inflated by buyers in theory having to cover expenses incurred by the uninsured.
Whether the justices of the Supreme Court are going to buy that argument under the Commerce Clause is debatable.
That said, if Peterson is going to raise such a provocative question, it would have been nice if he or someone on the panel fully explained this issue as it is quite clear a large component of Americans doesn't understand why there is a huge difference between requiring car owners to purchase auto insurance and demanding everyone buy health insurance.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Why?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 2:50pm.
Because we're hostage-takers.
Wait.
Wrong talking point?
Oops.
Driving is a privilege that carries with it a responsibility.
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 2:52pm.
The price of that privilege includes the license fees and insurance for what is a purely voluntary act--that of getting behind the wheel of a car. No one's birth is a matter of their choice.
No, it's the mother's choice.
Submitted by Chris M-G on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:08pm.
No, it's the mother's choice. Or lack thereof. Depends on how you excuse it away.
Because we don't have to...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 2:53pm.
...own a car or drive if we don't want to???
This was a tough one, fortunately my house cat was here to answer it.
LOL
Submitted by mang on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 9:02am.
Awesome.
I guess we do need to give
Submitted by golfman on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 2:55pm.
I guess we do need to give NPR and PBS more money. it seems someone needs more money to take some logic classes at the local community college.
Logic class is not going to
Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:54pm.
Logic class is not going to help. You can't fix stoooopid.
While we're at it, why don't we just force everyone...
Submitted by Prester John on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:01pm.
....to buy $1,000,000 in life insurance?
The poor can get tax credits to pay the premiums and then when they die their children will be taken care. Now of course there won't be any underwriting standards since it wouldn't be fair for healthy people to pay less than those who aren't, and if someone is simply uninusrable, well, we'll insure them anyway.
As for they rich, well, they will just have that much more of an estate tax to pay.
Shhhhhhhh....
Submitted by miss911ninja on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 5:03pm.
........don't give the libtards any ideas!
Even better idea
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 5:32pm.
"While we're at it, why don't we just force everyone to buy $1,000,000 in life insurance?"
Force everyone to buy $1 million in life insurance, and then make the death tax apply to life insurance payouts.
Prester John, Very clever.
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:19pm.
Prester John,
Very clever. Of course, there would be an explosion of suspicious - er - fatal "accidents" in the aftermath of a Mandatory Million Dollar Life Insurance Law. :)
I wonder if we forced city
Submitted by Hunter12 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:09pm.
I wonder if we forced city dwellers with extensive access to mass transit and competitve taxi fleets to buy car insurance they'll never have to use as an offset for the poor-driving, low-income, multiple-accident, multiple-DUI component of the driving public who have a hard time obtaining low cost car insurance, they might see the analogies in Obamacare? The Obamacare bill does force young adults, who have traditionally foregone health insurance due to low incidents of health problems, to purchase health insurance they don't need to offset the costs for low-income and illegals. It's the same difference. Make people who don't need it buy something to drive done costs for the whole.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Great analogy, Hunter12
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 5:37pm.
It's evident everytime someone uses the auto-insurance/Obama-care comparison to rationalize the opt-out penalty, that they don't understand either auto-insurance or Obama-care.
Even more disturbing is the fact that elected politicians like Nancy Pelosi are so enthralled with the overreach of governmental power and their authoprity to wield it that they can't even grasp the unconstitutionality of it, as the US District Court for Eastern Division just ruled.
The calculus of socialism
Submitted by KC Mulville on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:16pm.
We are not a country built on the premise that individuals are required to sacrifice their own utility for the sake of the whole. That is the logical essence of socialism, and it isn't our style.
The premise of capitalism is that individuals who are seeking their own individual interest will, as a by-product, promote society as a whole. But the method is always from the individual to the society.
It is astonishing that people who aggressively promote the idea of privacy, to the point of allowing the deaths of millions of fetuses each year, would claim that government has a right to force you to buy insurance ... because the intrusion into your personal buying decisions makes it better for others. How do you reconcile those?
You don't reconcile
Submitted by dscott on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 5:15pm.
You don't reconcile it because that is NOT the purpose of Liberal's supporting ObamaCare and the individual mandate.
The hidden agenda is for the federal government to LEGALLY cover the medical care of illegal aliens via Medicaid and force your the insurance holders to pay for it. RomneyCare is the template for ObamaCare. Look at what they did and you know what libs want for the country. This is why all the inflated (45 million) estimates in 2008 of how many people were uninsured. Like in Taxachuettes, those who had health insurance were forced to subsidize those who did not - DIRECTLY. RomneyCare pays for indigent care by levying a fee on rate payers via their insurance careers to suppliment Medicaid. Before Taxachuettes individual mandate, the state government had to cover illegal aliens solely via their Medicaid budget to reimburse Medical Care providers for indigent care. Does ANYONE really think that 12 million illegals are paying for their healthcare? If you do, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
ObamaCare is nothing more than an obfuscation just like the DREAM Act is for education of illegals. ALL of this is nothing more than a sleazy means to disenfranchise citizens by diluting their votes with newly minted greatful stooges (illegals) who will vote for anything a liberal proposes. There are two types of liberals, those (the self serving elites) who create the myths and those (the gullible) who believe them.
apples and oranges and they know it
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:16pm.
Car insurance protects others from your acts.
Health insurance does not.
Duh! What they do not bring up is that protection of your vehicle is NOT required by the state. If you have a loan then the bank requires it to give the loan. You may purchase third party only coverage in any jurisdiction I am aware of and you are NOT constrained to buy protection for crash, theft or fire on your vehicle.
A more appropriate comparison would be if states required concealed weapons folks to carry million dollar insurance against injury from their weapon. That is the same as car insurance.
Now do you leftards understand??!!??
"Car insurance protects
Submitted by Smartypants on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:40pm.
"Car insurance protects others from your acts."
This is the key difference that liberals do not understand, in addition to the fact that nobody has to drive a car. I'm sure there are lots of people in Manhattan, Chicago, LA and other large cities that do not even own a car. I doubt these people have auto insurance.
Anybody who does not see the distinction between mandatory health insurance and auto insurance is just plain partisan or obtuse.
Actually...
Submitted by retrocon on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:09pm.
"Car insurance protects others from your acts..." is pretty much irrelevant.
Two things differentiate auto insurance from health insurance mandates:
1) Driving is considered a "privilege" and, you agree to certain conditions to get your license, one of which is buying auto insurance.
2) It's the states mandating it, not the federal government. A state doesn't have the same limitations placed upon our rights that the feds do under the constitution (actually, the 14 Amendment tries to incorporate states, but one could argue that those are enumerated rights that are protected, not "all rights." Eh, maybe.)
Anyway, if it were simply that your acts affect someone else, you could argue that selling fast food affects the buyer by making them fat. Or not having health insurance affect others by raising their taxes.
Oh, on the "carry insurance," that doesn't fly, either. "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Unlike getting a drivers license, concealed carry permits are in a gray area... not necessarily a privilege, but an acknowledgement of an enumerated right. If a state with a shall issue permit attempted to force insurance, i'm sure the courts would have an argument. It's not so much that they can't claim that their permit is a privilege, but rather, they would have to explain why the wealthy have some form of "advantage" when it comes to exercise a basic human right. I'm not a lawyer, but i doubt it's happened in shall issue states because of this kind of potential hitch. It definitely not the same as the privilege to have a drivers license, however, in those shall issue states.
Anyway, was just in a contrary mood, sorry ;-)
yes and no (*grin*)
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:47pm.
It does work in the gun instance, you are not guaranteed concealed carry (although pretty much all the states are, thankfully, enacting that). Concealed carry IS a priviledge. Therefore requiring proof of indemnification of those harmed would be constitutional as it only affected a voluntary priviledge while still maintaining your rights to keep arms and bear arms (such as in hunting and protection of your home). I know this is a very tricky bit of argument but I bet I'm on safe ground with this.
I entirely agree with your states versus the Feds argument. That's what the judge hinged his judgement on. I think it would fail for mandatory health insurance in the states right now though as there does not seem to be a vehicle in their constitutions or laws that addresses it from the monetary damage stand point. Yet even that is a self inflicted wound. The taxpayers would not be getting hit with the bill if healthcare providers were not forced to take non-payers in their doors.
All this is caused by continuous government interferrence in the market place.
i would argue
Submitted by retrocon on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 8:11pm.
that concealed carry is a privilege that they don't want to test ;-)
Also, where they have instituted "shall issue," the "shall" takes the privilege part out of it. It becomes exception based... you can't if you are a criminal, or whatever, but they MUST let you have the permit if you meet the criteria.
not quite the same... technically, a state could probably say "Hey, your picture is terrible, no drivers license for you!" But i doubt they will, they make too much of the traffic cameras ;-)
There is a right to carry
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:19pm.
There is a right to carry that shall not be infringed. Deciding for me how I carry it is not within government authority. Neither is licensing itself. "Permitting'? Permission? I already have permission, it is a right. Remember now, concealed was only disallowed under a premise open carry being lawful and under the premise that and enumerated right, the Second Amendment in this case, didn't apply to states.
It is non-sequitur to say that our forefathers declared independence only to offer state governments limitless power over the exercise of rights, indeed the power to legislate them away entirely (as has been done here in Illinois), while retraining only the federal government. Inalienable rights apply to all levels of government.
I ask this about permission and licensing;
Must an American accept being required to gain a license, a permit, to speak or pray? For to say that is just regarding the Second Amendment is to say it is just regarding the First. SCOTUS has recognized "The Second is no different [than the First]. " And it isn't.
Mandatory vs NOT
Submitted by m1xram on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:39am.
2) It's the states mandating it, not the federal government. A state doesn't have the same limitations placed upon our rights that the feds do under the constitution (actually, the 14 Amendment tries to incorporate states, but one could argue that those are enumerated rights that are protected, not "all rights." Eh, maybe.)
But why did they do this? The states argued that it would be cheaper by forcing everyone to buy car insurance. This was a lie, in fact a lie in common with Obamacare. Mandatory insurance lets insurance companies charge more because you have to pay.
The next lie was that it was to protect others. It doesn't do that. A lady was driving her Caddy putting on makup and smashed my buddies brand new car so hard it went underneath his brothers Camaro and through the fence. Needless to say the lady did not have enough insurance to cover the damage. Imagine if she had hit a Mercedes or hurt someone such that they couldn't walk again. No way is minimum liability going to cover that.
If you want better insurance for less money, there has to be competition and no requirement to purchase it. That's the free market system. Every other "solution" makes it worse. NJ car insurance did not get cheaper or better when they introduced mandatory "no fault" insurance. And how about Mitt Romney's "solution" for state healthcare, an abysmal failure.
The opposite of Left is Freedom.
Actually...
Submitted by retrocon on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 8:08pm.
Actually, MR, i agree with you 100 percent, and i don't think states should require insurance, but that wasn't the argument i was making. Only that the CAN, not that they should, or that's it's good for them to do so.
The thing about the states that the founders intended... if you don't like, it's easier to mobilize and vote them out locally. Or move.
But, as you seem to be very aware, we have become a citizenry of sheep. A moderate middle of America let's the talking heads and their politicos make up their minds for them.
If most people had the facts, instead of the leftist emotional tripe, this country would be in great shape, unfortunately, they don't.
Keep up the good soapbox, it's all we have in the long run (and our second amendment rights, of course ;-)
The Constitution and Common Sense
Submitted by Lakewood Bob on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:22pm.
Constitutional Principle:
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." -- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty" 1859
Common Sense:
"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.” - H.L. Mencken
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx
The vast majority of politicians, lawyers, and judges have neither Constitutional Principles nor Common Sense!
nicely done Bob
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:49pm.
great set of quotes
Taxpayer Dollars
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:26pm.
Is it not wonderfull to know that our taxpayer dollars are used to pay these constitutional scholars! As Don King says: " Only in America"
Logic is irrelevant
Submitted by ajkrik on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:39pm.
All the reasons car insurance is different from health insurance are irrelevant to people who want to see some agenda fulfilled.
How do liberals seriously argue (4 supreme court judges) that the second amendment doesn't enumerate a specific citizen right to keep and bear arms? They don't rely on logic, they persuade by emotion and authority.
And, sadly, the population of net consumers (parasites) is growing. The question to ask is how the rest of us can survive the coming mess.
Most of the liberal agenda is
Submitted by Smartypants on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:42pm.
Most of the liberal agenda is supported only through emotional arguments, which is why it is pointless to debate a hardcore liberal. You cannot win an emotional argument; it's like arguing with someone about their favorite color.
There are too many people on
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:46pm.
There are too many people on both sides today using emotional arguments (whether their positions are right or wrong), and this makes having an honest discussion with anyone very difficult.
emotion
Submitted by m1xram on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:12am.
You attack the emotion. For instance, they claim they are compassionate by pushing "Social Justice." Ask them why stealing from others is compassionate and point out you don't want to steal from them. Ask them, usually we lock up thieves because they commit heinous acts against citizens, why do you wish to act like them?
All you have to do is reveal the real emotion behind the act, greed, envy, lust, and hate. The emotional argument is their way of justifying bad behaviour. Ask yourself what is really happening. In the case of providing education for illegals they steal money and resources from American children. You might ask what they have against supporting our children, why do they hate them? Ask them if they donate to missions in Mexico (or anywhere) like some local churches do. Ask them where is their compassion?
The opposite of Left is Freedom.
I didn't know people were
Submitted by Thoreau on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:44pm.
I didn't know people were forced to pay for car insurance when they don't own a car. The only way to not pay for Health Insurance is if I kill myself. I don't think that works for me.
You guys are all overlooking
Submitted by Bruzilla on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:49pm.
You guys are all overlooking the most obvious answer to that question. The Federal Government does not, and can not, order Americans to buy auto insurance. The mandate for requiring auto insurance is a mandate of the individual states, which is what these lawsuits are all about.
The idea is supposed to be that the states are free to do anything they want, and if their residents object, they are free to relocate to another state. Any Federal mandate affects all the states, which is why the Founders went to so much trouble to keep the Feds out of the state/local government business.
It's a good point about
Submitted by dscott on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 5:34pm.
It's a good point about relocating from places like Taxachuettes or California when politicians get overly generous with other people's money without their agreement. Certainly not a trivial point. And that Bruz I agree is why libs are insisting on forcing everyone into it via federal law since if you object you have the right to move out of their sphere of control. Few things make a lib more angry than people not believing or doing what they are told. Look at the vehemence of their hate against conservatives for not rolling over on ObamaCare. Modern liberalism is about power and control NOT the welfare or consideration of others.
However, the core issue is the false comparison of mixing apples and oranges.
There ya go...
Submitted by Army Brat on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 2:13am.
Saved me the trouble.
It really is quite basic. The States can get away with all kinds of un-Constitutional acts... Right abouyt now though they get a pass if they meet liberal standards. You know...the fairness doctrine and such.
The 4th Estate has become the 5th column. Michael Savage
Another Case Of Conventional Wisdom That Isn't True
Submitted by Junk Science Skeptic on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 4:00pm.
While it's true that auto liability insurance isn't analogous to health insurance from the beneficiary perspective, and it's also true that full auto coverage would need to include coverage of oil changes, car washes, bulb replacements, etc, to be even remotely similar to today's health insurance . . .
. . . What isn't true is the oft-repeated lie that "purchasing" auto liability insurance is mandatory if you plan to drive on public roads.
Some states only require "proof of financial resposibility," which in many cases comes down to an individual having $500K in proven liquid assets and maintaining certification of same. On a larger scale, many large companies outside the transportation sector are totally self-insured for auto risks, in other words, they pay out of pocket for repair costs and liability claims.
Yea, I know this is kind of a geeky exception, but the left routinely trots out far more arcane examples as supposed "proof" of one of their misguided points.
too true skeptic
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:53pm.
I don't know how many states say it that way but it is a financial responsibility law. I think some just tossed up their 'hands' and make it only insurance, but it used to be most of 'em allowed proof of self insurance.
Criminals??
Submitted by drydino on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 4:05pm.
Car insurance requirements are a state mandate, not a federal one. And like all laws, they are only followed by law abiding citizens. Do you think all illegal aliens and felons have car insurance?? There is a huge difference between supposed to have insurance and actually having an active policy covering your driving - and that difference is called reality. Leftist liberals usually refer to it as "unintended consequences"
Good in name only
Submitted by ebayer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 4:08pm.
First of all,this Obamacare,"Healthcare" bill is bogus.
This is a health care bill for the healthy.
It's big on preventative lifestyle choices, death panels and physician sharing.
This is a sinister monstrocity piece of legislation designed to sound good and benevolent while actually being of no use to anyone.That's why the politicians won't allow themselves to be mandated to buy it.
Those news reporters are sick twisted freaks
Okay, let's go there.
Submitted by Phryj1 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 4:40pm.
Actually, you can make an argument that mandatory car insurance is unconstitutional on the grounds it essentially treats every driver like a criminal. All drivers are, in essence, punished for the acts of irresponsible or reckless drivers. When a driver causes an accident, that driver alone should be held responsible. Under mandatory liability insurance, everyone is forced to be responsible for the actions of a few bad drivers.
And since the vast majority of Americans absolutely require a car in order to get to work (most places won't even hire you if you can't come in to work when they want you to, e.g. your transportation is dependent on the local bus schedule) among other things, there's really no practical way to opt out of car insurance.
Personally, I wouldn't mind one bit if the Supreme Court tosses out state car insurance requirements along side Obamacare's individual mandate. If I ever get hit by an uninsured driver, I would expect him, and ONLY him, to be held responsible. It would be unethical to expect everyone who needs to drive to pay for his mistake.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Phryj1
Submitted by MrShy on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 4:43pm.
You make a good point, and a good case.
- Driven Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
how?
Submitted by Ciampino on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 4:59pm.
Considering a recent case of an acquaintance who got hit by a 'foreigner' with a forged passport as his only means of i.d., we would have to put such a driver in jail until restitution was made (how or with what I may add). Otherwise it would be out of your own pocket as you wouldn't already be carrying insurance.
Not really as the state
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:48pm.
Not really as the state issues a drivers license, so for the privilege and it is a privilege you must prove to the state you are responsible. In Texas if you can put up the equivalent amounts or bonds or prove that you are good for it then you don't have to buy insurance
Well argued, Noel. I'm saving
Submitted by QueenMum on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 4:48pm.
Well argued, Noel. I'm saving your comments for future reference. Love it the way PBS claims neutrality and then neglects to offer an alternative view of the subject. Nothing but propoganda.
“If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain
I explain in this post that
Submitted by LFRGary on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 4:49pm.
I explain in this post that Obamacare doesn't even meet its own standards. I also argue from a Minnesotan's perspective that Minnesota state government imposes 68 different mandates in either the insurance policy or coverages. As you rightly note, the only requirement for car insurance is liability.
Finally, I'd note that it's state governments that deal with car insurance. States, BTW, that don't have to deal with the restrictions of the Tenth Amendment.
Completely Stupid
Submitted by rammingspeed on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 5:01pm.
The problem is Peterson and his fellows live in a hermetically sealed bubble, as it were, where nothing gets in or out. He can blither his blather all day, and no one within his confines will correct him. At least not in a meaningful way. Conservatives don't have such an edifice. Through their control of the MSM, the left controls how this is done. But conservatives are the winners, because they can't hide from public criticsm, which keeps them honest. Liberals are protected, and they can't keep from unreality.
Do lefties really think
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 5:22pm.
Do lefties really think everyone is as dumb as they are? Good god, the differences are so big that anyone who makes this claim should have stones thrown at them.
POINT 1: A car is not a requirement for life. Life is a requirement for life. If you do not want to pay this fee do not have a car, but if I don't want to pay my Obamacare fine what do I do? Die?
POINT 2: The insurance is only required if you own a car and drive it on public roads.
POINT 3: Car insurance is to ensure you can pay for the damages you might inflict on others. Health insurance is to protect yourself. Health insurance does not cover the healthcare of others that you may damage or infect.
POINT 4: Car insurance mandates are imposed by the states. Obamacare mandates are imposed by the Federal Government. The Constitution bans the federal government from doing all but a few specific things and allows the states the right to regulate a whole lot of other stuff.
Any talking head who makes this "Why can't we require health insurance if we require car insurance" argument is not intelligent enough to respect on any issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Bingo! We Have a Winner
Submitted by JustAl on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 5:59pm.
The leftists loose count of amendments after "1" and never got to "10"
There are ten? "Are you serious?" LMAO.
For bonus points, what in the Constitution gives the federal government the right to spend our money sponsoring propagandists like PBS?
none
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:58pm.
too true, I see no mandate in the Constitution for the Federal Government to provide news or entertainment, but then that's me.... what do I know?
Nor is there a mandate for
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:00pm.
Nor is there a mandate for the government to fund monuments to past presidents (Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington memorials), build Presidential libraries, commission artists to decorate the capital building, create TV advertisements to inform people of new laws, etc. The interpretation that it's ok for the federal government to do this goes back to Hamilton, one of the people who argued for the Constitution in the Federalist Papers. He believed the Constitution had limits on the government powers of interfering in state and personal spheres, but it was OK for them to engage in independent spending projects. Eventually Jefferson signed on to this when he used the reasoning to buy the Louisiana territory.
I'm more worried about people who don't care about the Constitution at all than people who support Hamilton's (and later Jefferson's) interpretation.
The individual mandate and direct taxes
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:33pm.
The mandate isn't only Unconstitutional because of the 10th amendment, but is because its something specifically prohibited by language:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
This is why in order to have an income tax, the 16th amendment needed to be passed
A tax (so-called a fine) on a consumer for not purchasing a good is also considered by law a direct tax, since the definition of a direct tax is a tax that an individual can't avoid by not participating in an activity. And the 16th doesn't provide that all manners of direct taxes are allowed, but only taxes on income:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Arguing that a tax on a lack of commercial activity can some how be a tax on income is sophistry at its worst.
This argument was present in the lawsuit by the FL attorney general: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/21/florida-attorney-general-promises-lawsuit-against-unconstitutional-health-care-bill/ .
A Michigan judge disagreed with this reasoning but his rebuttal is pretty shaky. His response was that this should be considered an economic sanction and not a tax, and that the government has the ability to impose economic sanctions in order to regulate commerce. Further he said, the language on taxes in the Constitution is only about taxes passed to raise revenue. He doesn't really get around any of the reasoning of the Constitutional objection. Sanctions on economic activity have been allowed, because they constitute indirect taxes, not direct taxes. There are no sanctions on factory owners by virtue of owning their factories, but for engaging in activity that creates pollution. Or on farmers by virtue of owning their farms, but for using certain types of pesticides. Putting a sanction on a factory or farm owner for owning their assets would be Unconstitutional.
The point of the original Constitutional language was not to create restrictions on how revenue is raised, but prohibit the government from using taxes as a way to punish certain economic interests as a way to benefit others. The South, for instance, didn't want Northerners to use the federal government to punish the cotton industry. In this case you wouldn't be punishing industries to benefit others, but consumers who don't make the choice that the government decides would benefit others.
Conservatives would not be out of line in arguing that the language is a way to prevent the government from using its powers to 'redistribute wealth'.
"in order to regulate
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:25pm.
"in order to regulate commerce"
And that is where the trouble is in the first place. I am not a State, an Indian Tribe or a Foreign Power.
Government was not delegated the power to "regulate commerce among the people". If it had been, no alcohol prohibition Amendment would have come to pass.
When Illinois State government does business with Wisconsin State government, the federal government has authority to regulate it. But when an Illinoisan does business with a cheese head, it does not.
We must restore our Liberty by putting government back in the box it was put into with the creation of a republican form of goernment. Restoring private two party contracts, where government is not a force third party, is the direction we must go.
Interstate commerce did mean
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:00pm.
Interstate commerce did mean the federal government could have a say over the trade policy of different states, such as preventing one state from placing tariffs on imports from another, or meaning that they could enforce restrictions. The purpose of the clause was to prevent inter-state war that would be caused if the states could all enact their own trade policies separately from one another. Here's an analysis by Robert Bork and another jurist: http://www.constitution.org/lrev/bork-troy.htm
The 18th amendment was necessary because the supporters wanted to ban the sale and manufacturer of alcohol even if it wasn't transported from state to state but stayed within a state's borders.
Auto Insurance Not Mandatory in Most States
Submitted by ConScott on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:42pm.
Sorry to have to toss the proverbial monkey wrench into the discussion, but unless there's been some major overhaul that I'm not aware of, most states do not require anyone to have auto insurance even if they own and drive a registered vehicle on public roadways. I think, but I'm not sure, that it is probably required in "no fault" states (12)?
Most states require proof of "financial responsibility." Insurance is only one method used to demonstrate that responsibility for you can show proof of being self insured or you can deposit funds w/an MV agency. In California you can hand the DMV a check for $35K and that takes care of it. If an officer asks you for an insurance card, etc. well, although probably not the best idea, you can simply tell him or her that there is no requirement. That's when you pull out your proof of financial responsibility.
Anyone remember when Olbermann stated that he'd go to jail before being forced to purchase an insurance plan? Yup, he's self insured.
Are you sure about your
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:05am.
Are you sure about your mandatory insurance? Here and HEre
Here's an Example of Financial Responsibility Laws
Submitted by ConScott on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 2:07pm.
Let's go w/a true Lib state:
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d07/vc16020.htm
Don't have the time to go searching every state, but it has been the same everywhere else I've lived. Folks just sort of take for granted that an insurance policy is required, but that's not usually the case. Common sense says that there's no need for a policy, that is, if you've got the money, the same amount that the policy would cover. Deposit the cash w/the DMV. It is the very same thing.
If you go deeper into the CA DMV site you'll find the section where financial responsibility can be a check for $35K.......It is also in the driver handbook.
Wow! $35K? In Virginia
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 3:03pm.
In VA (my home) you can drive around without insurance for a measly $500/year, and the state doesn't even indemnify you for that.
http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/citizen/vehicles/uninsured_fee.asp
Get hit by an uninsured driver in VA and you (or your insurance company) has to chase after the deadbeat for restitution. Good luck with that. If they won't buy (or can't afford) insurance how likely is they have any means of paying for the damage?
Of course you can purchase Uninsured Motorist coverage on your policy to protect yourself, but guess what likely happens after you file a claim against it?
I have always felt that if VA collects a fee from uninsured drivers then the state should be on the hook for any damages one of those drivers may inflict. But it doesn't work that way here.
Mandatory Health Insurance Is The Wrong Question
Submitted by Prince of Peeps on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:46pm.
The reason libs give justifing that everyone must buy health insurance is so that costs for the uninsured will not have to be born by the insured. Well if the federal govenment didn't mandate that emergency rooms MUST NOT refuse treatment to anyone, that problem would be solved. No insurance -- no treatment. Everyone pays their own way by whatever means they choose, insurance or out of pocket. If health insurance were banned and everyone had personal Health Savings Accounts, the cost of medical care could be cut by as much as 75% with NO cuts in service or benefits.
Taxes to Cover O's Health Care?
Submitted by ConScott on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:11pm.
Although libs love to cite other countries for their nationalized health care, I did notice that they didn't spend any time discussing just how those nations paid for it.
Of course, most countries have absurd taxation, some even placing the higher taxes on tourists and that's where they come up w/the funds.
Of course, libs will never suggest such a proposal for they know the outcome for their party. It must be done w/smoke & mirrors. Got to really appreciate MSM for all their help in educating the public on the reality...........
Rights and privileges are the
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:04pm.
Rights and privileges are the same thing. If they are not, then the 14th Amendment effectively made slaves of us all equally. Rights described in the positive and the negative are "privileges or immunities". If rights and privileges are different, the we have no Creator endowed rights, we have only government offered privileges. Sorry, I am not one to buy into the notion that the 14th amendment upended the 13th - regardles of what corrupt courts have said.
When it comes down to it, a Republican form of government doesn't delegate authority of this nature to government. If people drive without insurance and they do damage, they are responsible to pay for it. Insurance is just a way to mitigate such a risk. That is a choice for people to make themselves, not have made for them.
Mandatory insurance is a form of collective punishment. Americans aren't supposed to be punished until proven guilty. In a quarter century of driving, I have never harmed another, so why am I forced to purchase insurance against doing so, what am I guilty of? That I "might" do something? That is a dangerously slippery slope. Because others do and have? I am to pay the price for what others do and have done? Door dents I have paid for myself. That is how it should be.
When mandatory car insurance was being debated here, we were all told how it would make insurance cheaper, because more people would be insured. Sounds like Obamacare, huh? Well, needless to say, it isn't true in either case.
Point - Government is not empowered by the Constitution to regulate commerce between Citizens. Private two party contracts are the business of the people themselves. Governments' business is adjudication of disputes about them. Nothing more.
Another angle...
Submitted by Army Brat on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 3:03am.
"In a quarter century of driving, I have never harmed another, so why am I forced to purchase insurance against doing so, what am I guilty of? That I "might" do something? That is a dangerously slippery slope. Because others do and have? I am to pay the price for what others do and have done? Door dents I have paid for myself. That is how it should be." And I in 38 years can claim the same. i have a different view of the liabiity insurance I have. Living in Alaska htting the ditch or gettin' put in one is not that uncommon or unlikely. Lots of ice leads to lots of sliding, if not by me then by others. If I screw up and paste someone I will not lose my home etc to a lawsuit. If struck from behind and pushed in to the vehicle in front of me, i don't pay out of pocket or otherwise for the damage done to that vehicle. I'm also covered for any medical costs they may incur. I kinda like that. And requiring others to do the same insures that I will not be without a vehicle if someone slides in to me. He may not get a new car, but I will. Seems faiir to me. If yer gonna drive, you have to be financially responsible for the havoc you might inadvertently create in so doing. The results of stupid driving are felt by some more than others and for those few it sucks. They should be protected. The results of stupid driving are immediate and physical as well as financial. The results of me eating myself sick does not imperil my neighbor or his lifestyle. If I do or do not have insurance to cover my heart attack is not going to injure him or take away his ability to make a living. As a result of my lack of health insurance, he will not have to seek alternate transportation to work, meetings, shopping. It may indeed add to the overall cost of health care if I cannot make restitution but no ones life is changed by it No comparison. Sorry.No, the point is the
Submitted by dscott on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 11:14am.
No, the point is the government will do whatever it can get away with under the premise of a need. It is only by the apathy of the public that politicians get away with anything. The art of politics is to convince people of their need. The ability to project need and fill it is a form of power. The point of power is to exercise it.
Ever notice that the expansion of power by the government seems to parallel the growth of the population? The greater the number of rubes, the greater the ability to project need.
And these people
Submitted by sam12663 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:05pm.
are supposed to be some of the smartest among us?
(No subject)
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:20pm.
WTH? I didn't post a comment here - it just posted itself.
apples n oranges proves unconstitutionality
Submitted by politicalpaw on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 3:57am.
This Orwellian PBS Progressive-Liberal talking point compares apples and oranges..."Collision" health insurance with "Liability" car insurance. How fast would a mandate to carry "Collision" auto insurance be laughed at by the courts and declared unconstitutional? "Liability" car insurance doesn't cover your car (or your body and health costs), just OTHER PEOPLE or property that incur "assault, maim or damage" from your car. Using the Progressive-Liberal car insurance/ruse analogy, comparable "Liability" health insurance only would pay OTHER people that were victim to a physical "assault, maim or damage" from an individual that carries the "Liability" health insurance. Meaning, only OTHER people would get compensation when you, say, punched them in the face and "assault, maim or damage" or killed them like a car can.
The Progressive-Liberal car insurance argument actually assumes you won't realize "liability" car insurance is ONLY mandated because driving a car is brandishing a lethal weapon that can "assault, maim or damage" or kill.
If "Collision" car insurance is unconstitutional, why would Progressive-Liberals expect "Collision" health insurance to be constitutional? Furthermore, if "Liability" health insurance was mandated, it would financially harm the 30 million people that Barack is attempting give a free ride.
'you don't have to own a car'...true, AND you don't have to carry "Collision" auto insurance! It is "Liability" auto insurance you are mandated to carry. "Liability" auto insurance is specifically mandated to avoid a responsible insured driver from incurring the cost of the uninsured freeloaders that will "assault, maim or damage" with their car.
The health insurance mandate would be the equivalent of mandating "Collision" car insurance.
The car insurance mandate analogy actually accentuates the health insurance mandate's unconstitutionality!
but, Shhh, don't tell Progressive-Liberal they're arguing against themselves
Great idea or what!
Submitted by Injest on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 4:25am.
How bout this.
We force people/families who live in city’s like NYC, don't own cars and don't drive to buy drivers insurance for every member of their family 1 month to 100 years old.
These insurance policies could then be transferred to cover illegal aliens in California!
And the best part if the drivers insurance doesn’t cover the damage caused by the illegal aliens, the California victim can sue the NYC family for the difference!
Great idea or what!
Nothing personal, but I'm
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 4:37am.
Nothing personal, but I'm gonna have to go with "What".
Jer
talking heads explode
Submitted by Injest on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 4:44am.
politicalpaw on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 2:57am.
"Liability" health insurance only would pay OTHER people that were victim to a physical "assault, maim or damage" from an individual that carries the "Liability" health insurance.
LOL! Great idea! I want to see the talking heads explode when that analogy is presented to them!
Not a valid comparison
Submitted by CarlS on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 2:47pm.
The oft-repeated argument is that everything is like drivers licensing. Wrong. The imposition of drivers licensing under threat of force of arms is another facet of criminal activity by government.
The supreme Court of the United States has ruled that:
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty.... It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which the city may permit or prohibit at will.
Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 1929
If it was a right then, which assuredly it was, then it is a right now. The only valid, lawful means of changing Constitutional protections is via an Amendment. Passing a law is insufficient. Nor does any court have the lawful authority to declare those rights invalid.
Else we do not have rule of law. If that's what you want. then so declare and face the consequences. Anarchy is not pretty.