AZ ‘Birther’ Bill Passes Senate

The Right Wing brain trust has spoken. (And you don't even know that you defeated your own argument, as per usual.)

 

Enjoy:

So one more time, let’s go through the various ways that ObamaCare is not like auto insurance. For one thing, auto insurance is pegged to risk, while ObamaCare is explicitly intended to remove the link to risk — that’s what ObamaCare’s pre-existing conditions mandate does. If you’re a driver with a clean record, you pay less than a driver with a terrible record, and if you live in a high crime neighborhood, you pay more for your insurance than residents of lower crime neighborhoods. And at some point, a terrible driving record can make you uninsurable. Auto insurance is also not used to pay for services before they’re needed. Auto insurance pays for damage done, not routine maintenance. And driving itself is not a right, it’s an earned privilege licensed by the state, done mostly on roads owned and maintained by the state, giving the state a great deal of say in who gets to drive and what they must do in order to maintain their driving privileges. Auto insurance also is not tied to employment. That coupling of employment and health insurance is itself an unintended result of government intervention in the marketplace. ObamaCare just piles on more unwise intrusion into the private sector, rather than cleaning up the government’s previous mess.

Whereas auto insurance is tied to a privilege, ObamaCare is essentially a tax on your heartbeat. The state didn’t start your heartbeat, it doesn’t maintain your heartbeat, and it doesn’t license your heartbeat. But it does want to tax your heartbeat, and if you don’t comply it will send the IRS after you.

The auto insurance and health insurance markets are simply not analogous. No amount of sophistry will make it so.

Now get back to directing traffic in your pants.

 

Will I be able then to just buy liability health insurance? Ya know, so I can protect ONLY you?

 

Here's the disconnect. I can only imagine that someone of your remarkable means, being a Right Winger and all, assuredly has the best health insurance coverage available. If that is indeed the case, which it certainly must be (your being a Right Winger and all), then it only follows that you would want everyone to have sufficient coverage so as not to make the system more expensive due to uncovered liability. It would be in your interest that there is no uncovered liability which would add to total health care costs and which would then, in due course, be passed on to gentlemen of remarkable means such as yourself. And yet, you are against what would ultimately be in your interest? That's the disconnect.

 

The only disconnect is you comparing health insurance to car insurance.

 

That comment has no bearing on the post you just quoted. Try to stay on topic. You didn't like the auto-health insurance comparison, so I tried a different tack. But you continue to respond to a post other than the one you quoted?

Here, try again. And remember, no cars this time:

 

The real issue is not whether the health care mandate is comparable to the auto insurance mandate, rather the question is "is it constitutional".

According to experts in this field it is.

One example:

"The question is whether the Constitution permits the federal government to legislate in an area that has generally been left to the states. A further question is whether the federal government can require you to buy a particular insurance product from a private company.

The answer to those questions is almost certainly yes. And by the same token, the federal government can also make your employer provide you with health insurance, as Congress also proposes.

Although the federal government has only certain enumerated powers under the Constitution, some of those powers are quite broad. The three broadest powers given to the federal government are the powers to tax, to spend, and to regulate interstate commerce. Any one of these powers would be sufficient to support the Senate’s proposal regarding the purchase of health insurance. In addition, the so-called Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution requires state courts to uphold federal laws, even if they conflict with state laws.
"

http://blogs.law.widener.edu/health...ral-government-make-you-buy-health-insurance/

http://www.slate.com/id/2224258/pagenum/all/#p2


Seneca

 

Let me try again.

The only disconnect is your fairy tale belief system that everyone having health insurance will make the system less expensive due to covered liability.

Do you know what waiver means?

 

Do you follow the news?

 

How is that relevant to the constitutionality of the mandate? Some of the relevant precedents go back 70 years or more.