The Democrats’ analogy between car insurance and health insurance works perfectly

A video that illustrates why the Democrats’ recurrent analogy between mandatory car insurance and mandatory health insurance works perfectly — works perfectly, that is, if you want to show the absurdity of mandatory insurance.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. jj says

    A little strained, though the Pythons often enough were a little strained.  Probably simpler to just point out – as the Supremes should – that as a Constitutional matter the federal government is supposed to be among the smallest and weakest of the BS-generators we pay for, and we allot different powers to it, and to the states.  The states can indeed mandate purchases (though off the top of my head nothing occurs other than car insurance), and can do a list of things the federal government cannot.  It surprises me (well, on second thought: no it doesn’t) that this is news to a member of congress.
     
    But then, it seems so much of what I pay for nowadays surprises me. 

  2. FunkyPhD says

    Not all states mandate the purchase of insurance.  Many–including California–require that operators of motor vehicles provide proof of insurance or assets sufficient to meet the liabilities that might be incurred in the case of an accident.  You don’t have to buy insurance, in other words, to own or operate a car.  If you don’t buy insurance, you must set aside an amount of money determined by state law to pay for damages you might cause by driving the car.  The video–and the argument–miss the point.  The comparison between car insurance and health insurance is invalid because someone who does not drive or own a car does not need to purchase car insurance.  

    Someone please check my logic and tell me how I’m wrong.  If I don’t want to pay for car insurance, in other words, I simply need not to own or drive a car.  Owning or driving a car is therefore a necessary condition for purchasing car insurance.  The necessary condition under the new health care law for purchasing insurance is being alive.  So the question is, does government have the right to compel us to purchase a product (and a highly regulated, inflated product at that) simply because we exist?  Does our constitution allow the federal government to compel me to buy something whether I want it or not?  Will Christian Scientists be required to purchase health insurance?  Would the government be within its constitutionally-sanctioned role if I were forced to buy a neon cowboy hat every year?  If not, what’s the difference?  

    The closest analogy I can think of between the Obamacare’s mandate and prior practice would be the draft.  Those who refused to be drafted–that is, to give up, for a period, their freedom of self-determination and do something under federal compulsion–were subject to criminal prosecution and imprisonment.  The car insurance analogy strikes me as self-evidently fallacious, since people who don’t drive (the blind, the elderly, etc.) are exempted from buying car insurance.  Am I right?  Help me out, Bookworm readers!

  3. JKB says

    A bit off the mark.  Car insurance requirements are only applicable to cover your liability for damages you do, also, they only apply if you wish to operate your vehicle on public roads.  You are not required to carry automobile liability insurance on a vehicle you don’t take off your or someone else’s private property.  

    But even given that, a similar requirement in healthcare would be to carry a policy that covered catastrophic injury and illness.  It wouldn’t cover routine maintenance, minor repairs, discretionary enhancements or inhibitors or services, such as birth control, which you cannot use in your body.  It would also permit you to reduce your costs by carrying a large deductible before claims could be made for unanticipated health care.

    Now, we know Obama doesn’t understand auto liability insurance but it appears to be a widespread ignorance. 

  4. Mike Devx says

    Gosh, Book, I hope you remove this video from your main page and change it to just a link.

    It’s on auto-launch and fires off every time I visit your page.  Then I have to go find it turn the damned thing off.

    VERY irritating.  I usually boycott sites that auto-launch videos at me, against my will.

     

  5. Mike Devx says

    FunkyPhd asks in #2: The car insurance analogy strikes me as self-evidently fallacious, since people who don’t drive (the blind, the elderly, etc.) are exempted from buying car insurance.  Am I right?  Help me out, Bookworm readers!

     Funky, you are absolutely correct on this matter.  Legally, morally, by principle, you are correct. This is a matter of Constitutionality, and you are correct.

    If the government can compel you to buy health insurance, then *legally* it can compel you to buy ANYTHING.

    Suppose you take that side in the argument: Suppose you support the idea that the government can compel you to buy health insurance.  ANY argument you make in support of this can then be used to support the idea that the government can compel you to buy anything else as well.  Just try it out.  It is truth.

    The government need only decide that your purchase of any item X is “in the national interest”.  That’s it.  That’s all.

    The Obama Administration even argued this way once – that yes, the government DID in fact have the right to force Americans to purchase anything, given sufficient national reason.  Yes, they did argue that – briefly.  Before they realized what a loser proposition it was going to be. They were going to have their hat handed to them in total defeat.  They abandoned that form of argument quickly.

    After that, the Administration then tried to argue that this was a TAX, not a forced purchase.  And everyone knows that the government has the power to tax.  Whew, solved that one!  But then they found significant resistance to the idea that health insurance could actually be a tax that the national government could impose.  Reading the Constitution, it’s TERRIBLY difficult to find this among the powers of national taxation.  Since then, the Administration has been back and forth and back and forth on whether ObamaCare is a tax or a forced purchase.  It depends on which day of the week, which way the wind is blowing, and really, which argument works better on that particular day, for which argument they choose.

    Americans have such incredibly short attention spans…

    Where are we vulnerable?  The argument of expediency.  The truth is, very very few people choose not to drive in order to forego auto insurance.  And in that small group, most of those without auto insurance cannot drive, or do not participate in community or business activity, such that they don’t NEED to drive.  So as a PRACTICAL matter, 99.99% of those who have any compelling reason to drive, do so, and need insurance.  And therefore there is no PRACTICAL difference between auto insurance and any other kind of insurance.  We have already accepted that auto insurance is mandatory for driving and that the government can enforce it.  Therefore, the government, as a PRACTICAL matter, can enforce any other kind of insurance as well.

    In the past, in any court of law, any such “argument from expediency” would have been laughed out of the room within moments of even attempting it.  But in this day and age, when the rule of law is violated at every whim by the Obama Administration – and more and more people will follow the Obama example and abandon rule of Law in favor of Rule Of Man, which means: FORCE – the abandonment of the rule of Law is an easy path for even our courts to take.

    Isn’t that an amazing thing to believe?  That the abandonment of the rule of law is an easy path even for our COURTS to take?  But that’s what seems to be happening these days, in this land we used to call, America.
     

  6. jj says

    We have already accepted that auto insurance is mandatory for driving and that the government can enforce it.


    Yes, Mike – the state can enforce it.  Not the federal government.  There are different powers allotted to the states than there are to the federal government.  They’re different branches, and the states can do lots of stuff the federal government cannot.

  7. Mike Devx says

    I hope you’re right, jj, that such a distinction based on federalism – state powers vs national powers – would make a difference.

    Those who want to force ObamaCare upon all of us already don’t give a damn about the Constitution.   I can’t see them making any distinction between levels of government power either.  If they’ll argue anything, they’ll argue expediency.  But I don’t even expect them to argue that; I don’t expect them to argue anything.  They simply seize power, period.  They will always claim “It’s for the greater good”.

     

Leave a Reply