Bull Ring @Penelope: States requiring Car insurance vs. Federal mandates on health insurance

Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by emilynghiem, Dec 11, 2016.

  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,553
    Thanks Received:
    2,703
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,022
    “Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.” Allowing Congress to exert such authority, he said, “would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”

    Compelling vehicle owners to carry accident insurance, as states do, is considered a different matter because the Constitution gives the states broad police powers that have been interpreted to encompass that. Furthermore, there is no statutory requirement that people possess cars, only a requirement that they have insurance as a condition of doing so. By contrast, the plaintiffs in the health care case argue that the new law requires people to obtain health insurance simply because they exist."
    -- Judge Hudson, Federal District Court, Richmond VA

    ===========================================================
    Penelope is one of many arguing
    that people who agree to State laws requiring car insurance
    ought to agree to Federal laws requiring health insurance.

    I argued that
    * State laws involve a different process of representation for local citizens
    than Federal laws that are harder to change because they affect citizens in ALL 50 STATES
    * Car insurance is different from health insurance
    * Just because people consent to one law doesn't mean we "should be forced to comply with other laws"
    I compared this to Penelope agreeing to mandates, restrictions, and penalties in "right to health care" laws;
    but NOT agreeing to "right to life" laws that are DIFFERENT

    I challenge Penelope to prove that
    * State laws are the same as Federal laws
    * Car insurance is the same as health insurance

    And invite anyone else to either help her prove her points,
    or help EXPLAIN to Penelope how these are different
    where she AGREES and ACCEPTS the explanation.

    Just telling her otherwise does not count as explaining it clearly.
    I will believe this point is presented clearly
    when she HERSELF agrees there is a DIFFERENCE on BOTH counts!

    Thank you!
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Kosh
    Offline

    Kosh Quick Look Over There! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Messages:
    23,342
    Thanks Received:
    2,462
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Everywhere but nowhere
    Ratings:
    +9,726
    Driving a car is a privilege! If you do not own a car then you do not need car insurance.

    The gas tax pays for the roads..
     
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    42,872
    Thanks Received:
    6,865
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +12,810
    As Stated there is no requirement to own a car so the ONLY people forced to buy insurance for cars are those that chose to own cars. Further car insurance as a requirement to own a car is a necessity for ensuring that those that do decide to own cars will be able to pay for accidents they cause and as such is a safety feature.
     
  4. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,553
    Thanks Received:
    2,703
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,022
    Penelope please respond to explanations above if you agree, find them helpful, or hit the target like a bullseye.

    1. Do you understand that car insurance is NOT required for US to cover our OWN LOSSES
    which we are stuck with if we choose not to buy insurance.

    So that is like getting stuck with paying your own medical bills
    as the consequence of not buying insurance!

    The insurance covers liability and damages to OTHER PEOPLE AND PROPERTY.

    As I pointed out before, the EQUIVALENT of car insurance to health insurance
    would be to require citizens to buy insurance in case WE INJURE DAMAGE HARM OR KILL *OTHERS* and our insurance covers *THEIR* medical bills -- not ours which is OPTIONAL to pay for. So this would be the equivalent of keeping insurance for our own costs OPTIONAL where we get stuck with the bill if we can't afford it, it's our fault.

    (And I argue that's enough to compel people to CHOOSE to buy insurance so they don't get stuck with the bills they can't afford, and does NOT require federal govt to impose this. If people vote on it by State law, that is DIFFERENT from Federal law.)

    Does that help, yes or no?

    2. Can someone please explain the difference between
    State laws and how these represent taxpayers and voters per State
    v.
    Federal laws and the limitations on federal govt that are different from State?


    Penelope if you do not understand the difference between
    STATE laws and FEDERAL laws, this is dangerous ignorance of the law.
    You and other voters are manipulated and abused constantly by your ignorance,
    because Politicians can PROMISE things that cannot be justified on federal levels,
    misrepresent the system to GET your VOTE, then NOT be able to deliver!

    So you will constantly be exploited if you do not learn the difference
    so you know when Politicians are misrepresenting what they can do, when it isn't authorized
    and it will get rejected as unconstitutional if they try that.

    Obama overreached, and now Trump claims he can do more that others argue is unconstitutional.
    So this lying to get votes will continue until ALL citizens learn the difference, and quit listening to lies and fraud!

    And lastly, if you don't understand that people WILL NOT CONSENT to federal laws overriding their BELIEFS, then this ALSO causes waste and exploitation because of people's beliefs. (For example, the prolife beliefs cannot be legislated because of faith based arguments govt cannot establish. But as long as politicians promise to push prolife policies, they string along voters who will never get this established because of prochoice beliefs.)

    The critical factor in these laws is CONSENT, and with BELIEFS, people just like you will NOT consent to any laws that violate your BELIEFS.

    If you don't get this, then you will keep seeing manipulation and bullying, and waste of govt resources trying to force one belief or another, when this will ALWAYS get rejected later!
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2016
  5. Moonglow
    Offline

    Moonglow Diamond Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    120,180
    Thanks Received:
    10,742
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    sw mizzouri
    Ratings:
    +50,652
    You do not have to buy auto insurance if you can prove that your assets are greater than the min. requirement of liability..
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    10,583
    Thanks Received:
    1,651
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,481
    Just one point of technical clarification. You do not need car insurance to own a car. States require car insurance to drive on public roads. One is free to operate a vehicle on private property without insurance...or a license for that matter.
     
  7. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    10,583
    Thanks Received:
    1,651
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,481
    True in some states.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Kosh
    Offline

    Kosh Quick Look Over There! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Messages:
    23,342
    Thanks Received:
    2,462
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Everywhere but nowhere
    Ratings:
    +9,726
    So that means the vehicles are not registered and thus they are not paying taxes on those vehicles either!
     
  9. Papageorgio
    Offline

    Papageorgio The Ultimate Winner

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    35,134
    Thanks Received:
    5,220
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Here
    Ratings:
    +16,475
    Agreed, auto insurance and the requirements are different than health insurance in that you do have to purchase auto insurance if you do not drive or own a vehicle.
     
  10. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    10,583
    Thanks Received:
    1,651
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,481
    Still had to pay sales tax, if that's what you mean.

    Otherwise, why in the world should someone pay tax for a public service they're not using?
     

Share This Page