Toooooo much money

Hell they all spend. With few exceptions our national debt has increased every year…that one number should tell you all you need to know.

+1.

My state only requires that you have liability car insurance to cover who you may injure in the event of an accident. That is totally different.

With all due respect: How is this different?

The law requires you to purchase something. Unless you live in Socialist Alaska, you are forced to buy a product from a company that is making a profit from your legally required business.

If you don't have the liability insurance, and can't pay a claim -> you pose a financial burden on others. If you don't have health insurance, and can't pay. . you also create a financial burden on others.
 
Comsnark,
Driving is a privilege not a right. One can drive or choose not to drive as many city dwellers do. Therefore the requirement by States to carry insurance is not the same as requiring health insurance. Life is a right. The only way to avoid buying health insurance without violating this law is to die or kill oneself. Not exactly what our founding fathers had in mind so clearly an over reach by the current regime.

Covering pre-existing conditions is a much more debatable issue because it is economics on one side versus doing the right thing on the other. If covering pre-exisiting conditions would mean a 5% increase in everyone's premium, that is not an unreasonable social cost in my mind. However if it means a 20% premium increase, that is not. The cost of this provision was not publically discussed that I was aware of when it should have been.
 
Alaska sells insurance?

No, but the state regulates driving privileges. The only thing the feds regulate are commercial operations, but the license and insurance requirements are regulated by the state.

Hudson addresses this issue in his ruling.


Remember, you can choose to not drive or post a certain amount of $$ in place of insurance. If you choose not to drive, which is YOUR CHOICE, the state does not fine you.....
 
Why should a state have the right to regulate access to roads with a license?

Allow me to be pendantic for a moment. . .why does the state have a right to *restrict movement* on public land? 100 years ago, did I need a license to ride a horse? Why can't I ride a horse today to get from place to place? (can you ride a horse on most public roads? Can you get anywhere without using public roads or crossing private property). If I choose to use a motorized vehicle instead of a horse -> why do I need public permission?

Outside of a city, there simply is no REAL option for travel other than using a car. To drive or not to drive is a FALSE CHOICE. This is the same argument that allows TSA grope searches when flying. Just because I chose to fly, I grant the government the right to do a gratuitous body cavity search? That is prima facia absurd.

Now, don't get me wrong; I am not arguing against the concept of driver's licenses. There is a legitmate public safety need for regulation.

However. . how can anyone justify mandating insurance as a condition for driving? It's not like having the insurance absolves you of any additional fault or liability. If you have $25K of liability insurance, and you put someone in the hospital, I can almost guarentee that you won't have enough insurance. Guess where they are going to try and get the difference from.
 
Covering pre-existing conditions is a much more debatable issue because it is economics on one side versus doing the right thing on the other. If covering pre-exisiting conditions would mean a 5% increase in everyone's premium, that is not an unreasonable social cost in my mind. However if it means a 20% premium increase, that is not. The cost of this provision was not publically discussed that I was aware of when it should have been.

I agree fully.

The pre-existing conditions issue is my one big health care concern. Changing jobs -and health care providers- is almost a given over time. If you have, say, a long term heart problem, you are uninsured. Period.

I do not know what the cost is of eliminating "pre-existing conditions" exclusions. You are right that this is opaque. But "they" say that they need to increase the insurance pool to cover (mitigate?) the cost. That is where the "mandate" comes from. Just like car insurance.


This is not a simple issue. Health care is not a simple free market commodity. Can you get competitive bids for heart surgery while in an ambulance? Can you realistically do it as an individual in a non-emergency? Health care costs are exploding for companies that CAN competitively bid. I understand the legal twist of "Driving a car is an privilidge, not a right" but seriously: isn't that thinking a tad (like, 50 years) outdated?
 
Last edited:
... I understand the legal twist of "Driving a car is an privilidge, not a right" but seriously: isn't that thinking a tad (like, 50 years) outdated?

Today, compared with 50 years ago, public transportation in most urban areas is more available and cheaper than driving. Therefore one could reasonably argue that it is more of a privilege today than it was at the time of "Leave it to Beaver!"
 
Terrific argument!

You are right. . the days of growing suburban sprawl are long past. I actually do know lots of people who have to drive to the train station because it is too far (several miles) to walk.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
112,948
Messages
1,422,825
Members
60,930
Latest member
Ebrown69
Back
Top