Holder and Sebelius trot out the auto-insurance canard

posted at 10:14 am on December 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

You have to feel for the editors of the Washington Post.  The day after a federal judge rules ObamaCare’s mandate unconstitutional, they get an opportunity to let the woman who runs it and the man who directed its defense publish an essay rebutting the critics dancing on the mandate’s grave.  Once the editors receive it, though, they see that the argument relies on a canard that has been thoroughly debunked for months — and renders the entire exercise useless.  Do the editors kill the celebrity column, or run with it and hope no one notices?

Guess:

Everyone wants health care to be affordable and available when they need it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who carry insurance, and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014.

If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it’s essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.

The same is true for health insurance. Without an individual responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn’t work.

This is such a bad argument that it staggers the imagination why the administration would still be making it.  Drivers carry required insurance to cover damage done to others, not themselves, for one thing.  It’s not applicable at all.  Furthermore, states impose the insurance requirement, not the federal government, because states license drivers and vehicles.  Driving is, after all, a voluntary activity conducted on public property (roads); there is no requirement for licensing or insurance for those who drive only on their private property.  People who don’t drive on public roads aren’t required to buy a license or the insurance.

There are other problems with this analogy as well.  Those who do have auto insurance only file claims when significant damage occurs.  Auto insurance doesn’t pay for routine maintenance, like oil changes, lube jobs, and tire rotation.  That’s why auto insurance is relatively affordable.

Also, auto insurance is priced to risk.  If a driver lives in a high-crime area, then the premiums will rise to cover the risks associated with theft.  If they drive badly (get moving violations and accidents), premiums will go up, or in some cases, the insurer will drop the driver.  Policies are priced for risk according to age as well; the youngest and oldest drivers pay more due to their propensity for causing losses.   Those who drive well and present a lower risk get rewarded with lower premiums.  Right now, the federal government is preventing insurers in some instances from risk-pricing health insurance to impose government-approved fairness.  That means we all pay more, removing the incentive to lower risk.

Finally, let’s use another related analogy: fire insurance.  If we forced insurers to write comprehensive policies on burning homes, we would have no insurers left in the market.  However, Holder and Sebelius want health insurers to do the same thing — and need the mandate to force all of us to assume that risk through the higher premiums that subsidize it.  And, by the way, the government is doing exactly what Holder derogates in the essay — forcing insurers to write policies after the accident/fire/illness.

The need to reform the health-care economic model is real.  Holder, Sebelius, and Barack Obama have gone in the wrong direction through the imposition of government mandates and the calcification of the third-party payer model.  We need to break that model for routine health maintenance and return insurance to the role of indemnifying against substantial loss and end the tax incentives for the market distortion of the employer-based health care model.

Update: The Post isn’t the only publication struggling with the differences between auto and health insurance mandates.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Has anyone actually seen Holders law degree, did he ever pass a bar exam…he argues like he is on a high school debate team.

right2bright on December 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM

The only correlationship I can see is that Obamacare is just like a car wreck…..

pseudonominus on December 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM

“Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.”

Uh, do they realize they just destroyed the entire premise of forcing insurers to cover people regardless of preexisting conditions?

And spare me the ridiculous argument that forcing everyone to buy insurance fixes the problem. They know and we know damn well most of the uninsured who can afford coverage will just pay the piddly little fine to the IRS and wait til they get sick before shelling out for insurance.

Doughboy on December 14, 2010 at 10:18 AM

I don’t know of a single auto insurance outfit that pays for a claim when the insured gets insurance AFTER the accident. If there is one, please let me know.

No, I won’t be waiting with baited breath.

44Magnum on December 14, 2010 at 10:19 AM

I don’t have to have auto insurance if I don’t have an auto. If I live and work in an urban setting I can walk, ride a bike, ride public transportation,…to get to work. I am not required to own an automobile in order to live in or be a citizen of this country. When are these people going to wake up and realize that Gubmint Health Insurance is not what the electorate wants?

belad on December 14, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Superb analysis.

paul1149 on December 14, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Me thinks a house of cards has more structual integrity than ObamaCare.

WashJeff on December 14, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Chicken abuse

darwin-t on December 14, 2010 at 10:21 AM

I only need auto insurance if I choose to drive a car. They want me to buy insurance for merely being alive.

RadClown on December 14, 2010 at 10:21 AM

What we need is too much government insurance.

Limerick on December 14, 2010 at 10:22 AM

They cannot justify what they have done. That is the reason so many democrats got booted from office. I know that they realize this, and some actually refuse to believe it, but even those that do will never admit it.

If we allowed health insurance companies to operate like car insurance companies, it would have been better than what they did.

Mord on December 14, 2010 at 10:23 AM

That is absolute perverted logic. They have no legitimate reasons for this beast. They are all closet communists and only lying and deception can ensure the achievement of their Marxist utopian society. This “healthcare” aberration is an attack on our basic freedoms and a solid blow to the Constitution. What dark morass housed the rock these fools climbed from under.

rplat on December 14, 2010 at 10:24 AM

People who don’t own cars don’t have to buy car insurance.

Judge Hudson used a similar argument to distinguish Wickard. If you didn’t own cattle, you didn’t come under any laws on where to buy wheat to feed cattle.

You can choose not to participate in a particular activity (driving, cattle farming), and the obligations for insurance related to that activity do not apply to you.

There is no such opt-out in Obamacare. [which is not the same as all the ‘opt-outs” Sebelius has been giving to the unions.)

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 10:24 AM

“Imagine what would happen…”

I’ll close my eyes and hold your hand while you tell me, Nanny. It’s particularly annoying being talked down to by those of inferior intellect.

Drained Brain on December 14, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Remember this is also the guy who helped empower Uncle Sugar to kidnap Elian’ and ship him to a gulag.

Limerick on December 14, 2010 at 10:25 AM

Imagine how expensive auto insurance would be if every tune-up, oil change, brake pad, fan belt, and new tire was a covered expense… and all it would cost you out-of-pocket was a $5 or $10 co-pay!

singlemalt_18 on December 14, 2010 at 10:25 AM

In addition to the comments already noted, I don’t see where oil and filter changes or tune-ups are covered by auto insurance.

Vashta.Nerada on December 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM

I think this is hilarious… Do these people have any concept of the term ‘risk’ and what it means?

The bottom line is that they want control of the health care industry and they will trot out stupid analogies like this to the idiot masses who are the democratic voters. Many of obama’s supporters don’t pay taxes, don’t insure their vehicles, don’t own their homes and are likely already on Medicaid. The rest of obama’s supporters are liberal academic snobs who have never held a job or met a payroll.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Can the government now require you to buy a car and insurance?

Your failure to do so affects the market and interstate commerce or something.

BULLETPROOF.

Good Lt on December 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM

It truly is breath taking, but so is nearly every liberal position. They defy logic and DEMAND you NOT think it through.
It’s a dream world in which all the dreamers know it’s not real but none dare say it!

winston on December 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM

I only need auto insurance if I choose to drive a car. They want me to buy insurance for merely being alive.

RadClown on December 14, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Which is a choice according to libs; Pro-Choice.

Electrongod on December 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM

and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014

A problem with this statement: Obamacare imposed minimum requirements for insurance policies – no charge for checkups, that type of thing, basically mandating “oil changes, lube jobs and tire rotation.” If it would allow high-deductible insurance policies with health savings accounts, more people would be inclined to purchase it.

DougV on December 14, 2010 at 10:27 AM

particularly annoying being talked down to by those of inferior intellect.

Drained Brain on December 14, 2010 at 10:24 AM

This!

darwin-t on December 14, 2010 at 10:27 AM

This administration is one Allstate Mayhem commercial after another.

Christien on December 14, 2010 at 10:27 AM

There is no such opt-out in Obamacare. [which is not the same as all the ‘opt-outs” Sebelius has been giving to the unions.)

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 10:24 AM

That is another HUGE issue. Equal protection. Does it exist in ObamaLand?

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 10:27 AM

This argument would work if the government could force you to buy a car.

They assume that you ARE the car because you will need healthcare services at some point in your life. The slippery slope begins because you need so many other things too. Food, shelter, clothing, air, water…the list goes on. Moreover, you need the other items with far more regularity than the average person needs healthcare services.

skree on December 14, 2010 at 10:27 AM

that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014.

Well, not quite everyone, right Eric? Not the Amish, not Muslims, not illegal aliens. They have the same right to show up in a U.S. ER and demand treatment as other Americans (or, in the case of illegals, other American residents), but they’re not going to be required to exercise that special “individual responsibility” of purchasing health insurance that Obamacare imposes on the rest of us.

Perhaps in his next column, Holder can explain to us how that’s not a violation of our equal protection rights.

AZCoyote on December 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Morons.

Ward Cleaver on December 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Can the government now require you to buy a car and insurance?

Your failure to do so affects the market and interstate commerce or something.

BULLETPROOF.

Good Lt on December 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Careful there, fella. Now that we have Gubmint Motors you may in fact be forced to purchase a Gubmint Motors car and insure it through GMAC’s insurance company.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Lame. Lame. Lame. Lame.

Eric Holder is a joke.

pilamaye on December 14, 2010 at 10:29 AM

The case was Virginia v. Sebelius. Perfect.

These people believe that their own awesome malice and brute power will make the difference in the end. Think about how the bill was passed in the first place. Did they ever try to make intelligent arguments or win hearts and minds? Does the Left ever try to do this?

rrpjr on December 14, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Uh, do they realize they just destroyed the entire premise of forcing insurers to cover people regardless of preexisting conditions?

Doughboy on December 14, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Yep, that was the very first thing that, to my eye, stuck out like a big ol’ sore thumb. In addition to the many other errors in their logic, this one is simply too hilarious.

yogi41 on December 14, 2010 at 10:30 AM

This is such a bad argument that it staggers the imagination why the administration would still be making it.

They are still making it because it’s still somewhat effective. The MFM will parrot it without pointing out the obvious fundamental differences between the two types of “insurance”, and at first blush, many people will say “well, I guess that makes sense.”

This argument needs to be hammered relentlessly to kill it off.

forest on December 14, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Without an individual responsibility provision

The individual mandate has a new name!

darwin on December 14, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Careful there, fella. Now that we have Gubmint Motors you may in fact be forced to purchase a Gubmint Motors car and insure it through GMAC’s insurance company.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 10:29 AM

For the greater good, of course.

Good Lt on December 14, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Count it!

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:31 AM

It’s nice to see so much of the HotAir readership united on this issue. I wonder where crr6 is?

gryphon202 on December 14, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Has anyone actually seen Holders law degree, did he ever pass a bar exam…he argues like he is on a high school debate team.

If he had a law license, like most hi profile democrats , he’s been disbarred.

BruceB on December 14, 2010 at 10:31 AM

First of all Auto insurance is NOT mandatory. Driving is a privilege. We have many people on the road (many illegal aliens) that drive without car insurance. You can’t get a car registration or finance without it. So many get it to register the car then drop it or just don’t register the car and drive illegally. But, again it is NOT mandatory.

xler8bmw on December 14, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Government work is like an analogy in that Holder and Sebelius are really bad at either one.

gekkobear on December 14, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Can the government now require you to buy a car and insurance?

Your failure to do so affects the market and interstate commerce or something.

BULLETPROOF.

Good Lt on December 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM

No doubt some Dem is thinking, “Dayum! Why didn’t we pass a law requiring everyone to buy a GM or Chrysler car as part of their bailouts? That certainly would have ‘affected’ interstate commerce.”

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Just what I need, A Geico lizard selling me health insurance for my body and my Volt.

Electrongod on December 14, 2010 at 10:32 AM

no charge for checkups, that type of thing, basically mandating “oil changes, lube jobs and tire rotation.” If it would allow high-deductible insurance policies with health savings accounts, more people would be inclined to purchase it.

DougV on December 14, 2010 at 10:27 AM

HSA’s are gone. The main issue facing insurers now is the mandate that 85% of their premiums be spent on health care, leaving only 15% for administration, processing, payment, auditing, staffing, management, reporting, etc. This is why we will soon begin to see the collapse of many viable carriers in the coming months.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Without an individual responsibility provision
The individual mandate has a new name!

darwin on December 14, 2010 at 10:30 AM

But of course. “Mandate” sounded so…..mandatory.

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Can the government now require you to buy a car and insurance?

Your failure to do so affects the market and interstate commerce or something.

BULLETPROOF.

Good Lt

WAIT! The Volt will be required purchasing once “socialism” has taken root!

honsy on December 14, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Has anyone actually seen Holders law degree, did he ever pass a bar exam…he argues like he is on a high school debate team.

right2bright on December 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM

High School?? He sounds more like my 2 year old when he doesn’t want to go to bed.

jeffn21 on December 14, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Dumb and Dumber come to town and WaPo gives them a podium.

Fellow travelers.

Oh, and the two “victories” they have I believe include the dismissal of the suit for “ripeness”…a legal term of art that means “I can’s tell that the damages you allege are real, since the law hasn’t been implemented, so I can’t rule”. The suit can be refiled as is when “ripe”. That decision is an “I dunno”, not an endorsement of this hoax.

These people have a conclusion and they want the law to be read so it fits. What the law really says is not interesting to them.

Harry Schell on December 14, 2010 at 10:34 AM

It doesn’t matter what they think. It only matters what the SCOTUS thinks.

kingsjester on December 14, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Required Insurance Provision

Limerick on December 14, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Has anyone actually seen Holders law degree, did he ever pass a bar exam…he argues like he is on a high school debate team.

I’d like to see BHO’s and MO’s first.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 10:35 AM

The auto insurance mandate is madated by individual states. No where in the U.S. constitution is this power enumerated to the federal government.
Holder, Obama, Sebulius are claiming and authority for which they do not have, and for which this ruling clearly identified.

paulsur on December 14, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Let’s see:

AUTO INSURANCE: Lots of competition, lots of choices, states (NOT Feds) control it, employers don’t need it, and citizens don’t need it to ride in a car: only the driver must have it!!!!

OBAMACARE: NO competition, few choices, Feds usurp all control from states, mandates for employers, mandates for all citizens…even when they don’t practice medicine!!

Sooooo….how are these things the same???

landlines on December 14, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Paging crr6. Clean up on Aisle 6.

Patrick S on December 14, 2010 at 10:36 AM

Drivers carry required insurance to cover damage done to others, not themselves, for one thing.

This is a very good point. Collision insurance, to cover damage to your own vehicle, is not required by any state. It may be required by the lender if the vehicle is financed, but until the time it is paid off, the vehicle is the property of the lender, not the driver. The only required auto insurance is liability coverage, to cover the other party.

Vashta.Nerada on December 14, 2010 at 10:37 AM

PS:

RE: Sebelius

Sorry, USA. You bought her…you keep her: ABSOLUTELY NO RETURNS!!!

…a Kansan.

landlines on December 14, 2010 at 10:38 AM

landlines on December 14, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Shuddup and let them kill our elderly and other non-producing members of our New Society.

/crr6

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 10:38 AM

Anybody have any logical reasons why these guys are sitting around in Washington as Cabinet Secretaries?

Let’s be honest.

Give at least one logical reason why these are the best of the best and should be running Cabinet Departments?

coldwarrior on December 14, 2010 at 10:38 AM

Let’s see:

AUTO INSURANCE: Lots of competition, lots of choices, states (NOT Feds) control it, employers don’t need it, and citizens don’t need it to ride in a car: only the driver must have it!!!!

I know I’m being nitpicky here, but states don’t “control” health insurance. They only require it for drivers. The fact that states don’t control where or when auto insurance is sold (only the reasons it must be used) is the main reason it is so eminently affordable.

OBAMACARE: NO competition, few choices, Feds usurp all control from states, mandates for employers, mandates for all citizens…even when they don’t practice medicine!!

Sooooo….how are these things the same???

landlines on December 14, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Feds aren’t usurping control from states, in the strictest technical sense. They are doubling down on a process that started clear back in the 60′s with medicare.

All that being said, I do agree with the spirit of your post, and I feel your frustration.

gryphon202 on December 14, 2010 at 10:39 AM

What an idiotic excuse these two morons make.

Ed, your reasoning chews them up and s-its them out. Sorry, the “p” on my keyboard doesn’t work ;)

morons

DuctTapeMyBrain on December 14, 2010 at 10:39 AM

Give at least one logical reason why these are the best of the best and should be running Cabinet Departments?

coldwarrior on December 14, 2010 at 10:38 AM

Dude. We’re talking politics here. Give me one logical reason we have an income tax. Give me one logical reason we have a department of education. Give me one logical reason…Etc. Etc. ad nauseum. These goofs aren’t in the business of logic. And given how the 2008 elections turned out, I’m beginning to think the American people aren’t, either.

gryphon202 on December 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM

But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who carry insurance

Then why have insurance rates skyrocketed?

darwin on December 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM

The Left will continue to argue the business model viability aspect without ever addressing the constitional issue.

WisRich on December 14, 2010 at 10:41 AM

A golden oldie: Obama doesn’t even undertand what a liability car insurance policy is. Imagine if Sarah Palin had come up with an anecdote like this. How can this guy be a law school grad, president, and wants to mandate all of us to buy some insurance policy, yet he can’t even decipher his auto insurance?

bitsy on December 14, 2010 at 10:41 AM

Has anyone actually seen Holders law degree, did he ever pass a bar exam…he argues like he is on a high school debate team.

right2bright on December 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM

That’s an insult to high school debating teams.

jnelchef on December 14, 2010 at 10:42 AM

Give at least one logical reason why these are the best of the best and should be running Cabinet Departments?

coldwarrior on December 14, 2010 at 10:38 AM

They (Holder and Sebelius) should be called into a hearing in front of private insurance industry and legal experts and be made to state their qualifications to even utter a sentence on the subject.

/Not. Holding. Breath. Will. Die. Waiting.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 10:42 AM

Government fix- Full comprehensive insurance, home, life, auto, health, food, water, air, clothing, and high speed internet.

fourdeucer on December 14, 2010 at 10:43 AM

gryphon202 on December 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM

Rather depressing, isn’t it?

Only 768 days until we get a real President again…maybe things will improve a bit.

coldwarrior on December 14, 2010 at 10:43 AM

I only need auto insurance if I choose to drive a car. They want me to buy insurance for merely being alive.

RadClown on December 14, 2010 at 10:21 AM

+100000

It’s a RIGHT to live and it’s a PRIVILEGE to drive. There’s a difference.

Oink on December 14, 2010 at 10:43 AM

One thing I’ve not seen anyone else distinguish before. With auto insurance, ONLY liability is required by law…TO PROTECT OTHER CARS YOU MIGHT HIT…so if you have a car and are only getting liability insurance you are not protected at all. Collision insurance is not required by law, only by the agreement that a person has with the finance company.

Ltlgeneral64 on December 14, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Our resident law student, crr6, is always trotting out the Wickard ruling to justify ObaMaoCare on the basis of interstate commerce.

A lawyer commenter at The American Spectator gives a little history behind the SC ruling through FDR’s effort to unite the country following the attack on Pearl Harbor. In his view, every commercial activity had an impact on the war effort.

Unfortunately for the misguided FDR SC, the ruling totally ignores Amendment X and the intent of the Founding Fathers as clearly expressed by Madison.

I take the liberty of pasting in part of the commenter’s letter on this issue.

I was alive then and I remember the mood of the country then, a strong central government was needed to fight a war without the interference of states rights.
The nub of the holding was that the Federal Govt. could control commerce within a state if it affected IntERstate Commerce, even marginally.

But ALL Intrastate Commerce has some influence on Interstate Commerce and this is not what the Founding Fathers’ had in mind when they wrote the Commerce Clause
The Founding Father’s were thinking in terms of roadblocks or tariffs imposed at the state lines

Further WICKARD v FILBURN severely weakens or gets around the 10th Amendment.
It makes the 10th Amendment and States Rights subject to the ” Commerce Clause ”
The Founding Fathers were staunch States Righter’s.
They never had any intention of a generous interpretation of the Commerce Clause so as to neutralize the 10th Amendment.
The original intent was to prevent state interference of the free transport and trade of goods between states.

A few months before WICKARD v. FILBURN , we were attacked at Pearl Harbor and a strong central government was what the country wanted at the time.
We were at war and the mood of the country was for a unified central government not 48 states with different opinions.

So the 1942 Supreme Court expanded the Interstate Commerce Clause in a manner that the Founding Fathers never intended.

The INTENT of the Founding Father’s may be discerned from Madison’s writings. Madison wrote the following:
“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter.
Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former.
We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”
So, “Commerce” meant and applied to the transport of goods. It did not apply to production, farming, or anything else. It applied only to the transport of goods from place to another. And “Regulate” means, to be evenly treated.

It means to maintain even trade between parties.

onlineanalyst on December 14, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Nick Gillespie has a good post on the auto vs health insurance: http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/14/is-medical-insurance-like-car

And http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/14/judge-health-care-lawsuit-is-a for good measure.

modnar on December 14, 2010 at 10:44 AM

I have several non-political (apolitical?) friends who I sometimes bounce things off of to gauge general reaction. This argument is one that they ‘get’. It’s an easy association and superficially, it makes sense to them. Once they think about it a bit or I put it to them that they are not forced to buy a car, it falls apart a bit, but overall I can see why they are sticking with it.

Dash on December 14, 2010 at 10:44 AM

One thing I’ve not seen anyone else distinguish before. With auto insurance, ONLY liability is required by law…TO PROTECT OTHER CARS YOU MIGHT HIT…so if you have a car and are only getting liability insurance you are not protected at all. Collision insurance is not required by law, only by the agreement that a person has with the finance company.

Ltlgeneral64 on December 14, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Liability also covers property damage and medical expenses — up to a point. To what point it’s all covered depends on how much you shell out for it. If only medical insurance were that simple.

/nitpick

gryphon202 on December 14, 2010 at 10:45 AM

The argument that will hold up best is that driving is a privilege and that no one is compelled to drive.

swamp_yankee on December 14, 2010 at 10:45 AM

Has anyone actually seen Holders law degree, did he ever pass a bar exam…he argues like he is on a high school debate team.

right2bright on December 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM

That’s his audience.

SlimyBill on December 14, 2010 at 10:45 AM

People don’t have auto insurance. Cars do.

If I don’t own a car, I don’t have to buy insurance for it.

Haiku Guy on December 14, 2010 at 10:45 AM

I have several non-political (apolitical?) friends who I sometimes bounce things off of to gauge general reaction. This argument is one that they ‘get’. It’s an easy association and superficially, it makes sense to them. Once they think about it a bit or I put it to them that they are not forced to buy a car, it falls apart a bit, but overall I can see why they are sticking with it.

Dash on December 14, 2010 at 10:44 AM

I’d rethink my friendship with people like that. “Superficial” is a pretty good description for this kind of thinking.

gryphon202 on December 14, 2010 at 10:46 AM

onlineanalyst on December 14, 2010 at 10:44 AM

USSC…blinded by the penumbras?

coldwarrior on December 14, 2010 at 10:47 AM

I know I’m being nitpicky here, but states don’t “control” health insurance. They only require it for drivers. The fact that states don’t control where or when auto insurance is sold (only the reasons it must be used) is the main reason it is so eminently affordable.
gryphon202 on December 14, 2010 at 10:39 AM

I respectfully disagree. Insurance companies are held strictly accountable to their State Departments of Finance and/or Insurance. All activities including licensing, financing, policy sales, demographics, policy types sold, premiums, claim handling, adjuster credentialing, consumer complaints, denials of coverage, etc., are all very tightly controlled by States that allow insurers to be admitted and to write and sell policies.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Problem: The government programs Medicare and Medicaid plus free care for illegal aliens have driven health care costs up.

Goal: Reduce health care costs with more government programs and open borders!

Result: Higher health care costs and more illegal aliens!

darwin on December 14, 2010 at 10:49 AM

I also think that many Democrats see health insurance as a monthly payment for which they receive unlimited care.

Health insurance is just that – insurance for when something goes wrong. It’s not a ‘free pass’ to receive medical care whenever you damn well please at no cost.

They regularly (and intentionally, in some cases) conflate health insurance (who pays) with health care in an effort to muddy the conversation so that people don’t even end up talking about the issue – that is, who pays for what, when, why and for how long.

Good Lt on December 14, 2010 at 10:50 AM

I have never known a health insurance policy to run a red light and hit a car…

right2bright on December 14, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Is it just me, or is anyone else freaked about our great and powerful overlords using an “individual responsibility provision” to justify this? What other “individual responsibilities” are they going to legislate?

franklinstein on December 14, 2010 at 10:50 AM

onlineanalyst on December 14, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Most of commerce was regulated so the majority of resources and materials could go to the war effort. The leftover resources were rationed (ok, there was a black market), so everyone got a minimum. (Kind of like a government-run “Limit One per Customer” rule).

Want to buy sugar or meat or gasoline? Only could buy it with your government-issue coupon book, and then only as much as the coupons allowed per week or month. You handed over the coupons with your money.

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 10:53 AM

Obama, Holder, Sibelius, and most of the political class are liars. Dems, Repubs, Indies, Libs – they all lie all the time. Even ‘good’ politicians are liars and will eventually put their interest ahead of those they supposedly ‘represent.’

The sooner people realize this, the sooner we’ll be able to put the thieves and liars in the place.

j_galt on December 14, 2010 at 10:53 AM

…also, maybe already stated, but most states don’t demand car insurance, many will accept a bond showing that you will pay for damages.

right2bright on December 14, 2010 at 10:53 AM

I respectfully disagree. Insurance companies are held strictly accountable to their State Departments of Finance and/or Insurance. All activities including licensing, financing, policy sales, demographics, policy types sold, premiums, claim handling, adjuster credentialing, consumer complaints, denials of coverage, etc., are all very tightly controlled by States that allow insurers to be admitted and to write and sell policies.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 10:48 AM

To be fair, I think it probably varies from state to state. About the only action my home state takes against insurance companies regularly is to investigate claims of bad-faith insurance fraud. Then again, I’m from a small and relatively business-friendly state, so maybe that has colored my experience a little bit.

gryphon202 on December 14, 2010 at 10:53 AM

The day after a federal judge rules ObamaCare’s mandate unconstitutional, they get an opportunity to let the woman who runs it and the man who directed its defense publish an essay rebutting the critics dancing on the mandate’s grave.

These two are “the best and the brightest” communists, which is a subset of less intelligent adults addicted to Groupthink, thereby limiting their logic and powers of persuasion, (not to mention their myopic vision).

They depend on the MFM to distort and filter the facts on their positions and diligently inserted psychotic judicial minds to subvert or ignore The Constitution.

These scumbags are a danger to themslves (which I’m fine with), but also poisonous to The Republic, which they clearly hold in contempt.

Free people need remedy from these dumbed down, disgusting cretins.

ontherocks on December 14, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Well said Ed!

cmsinaz on December 14, 2010 at 10:54 AM

What other “individual responsibilities” are they going to legislate?

franklinstein on December 14, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Do you have a federal internet posters license to make such a statement?

right2bright on December 14, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Is it just me, or is anyone else freaked about our great and powerful overlords using an “individual responsibility provision” to justify this? What other “individual responsibilities” are they going to legislate?

franklinstein on December 14, 2010 at 10:50 AM

The Left isn’t concerned with such things. They seem unable to consider the future past one week.

visions on December 14, 2010 at 10:54 AM

But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who carry insurance, and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014.

If they truly supported “minimum health coverage” we could continue to choose lower premium/higher deductible/catastrophic insurance coverage. But they don’t and have all sorts of mandates placed on the insurers as to what they must cover at the, er, minimum (in addition to controls on what insurers can charge for premiums, which is a disastrous intrusion in the free market).

Buy Danish on December 14, 2010 at 10:55 AM

What other “individual responsibilities” are they going to legislate?

franklinstein on December 14, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Citizen, you will report at 6 am every morning to the town park for calisthenics. Exercise is part of keeping fit.

Just like summer camp:

“All right campers! Assemble at the flagpole for morning exercise! Up! Down! Up! Down…”

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Has anyone actually seen Holders law degree, did he ever pass a bar exam…he argues like he is on a high school debate team.

right2bright on December 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Almost perfect as long as one inserts the work “losing” just before high.

PrettyD_Vicious on December 14, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Apparently these two pathetic clowns think that my health insurance will protect my next door neighbor if … uh … I make him sick? Or something?

Jaibones on December 14, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Is it just me, or is anyone else freaked about our great and powerful overlords using an “individual responsibility provision” to justify this? What other “individual responsibilities” are they going to legislate?

franklinstein on December 14, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Your energy use. That’s already in the works.

darwin on December 14, 2010 at 10:55 AM

What other “individual responsibilities” are they going to legislate?

franklinstein on December 14, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Anything their black statist hearts desire, if this obamanation isn’t stuck down by the Supremes. There isn’t any activity, or lack of activity, that can’t be argued to have an effect on interstate commerce if we accept the statists’ Obamacare “logic.”

AZCoyote on December 14, 2010 at 10:56 AM

BTW, if Obama has proper car insurance, he wouldn’t be stuck in the mud while the Republicans are not helping him get his car unstuck and into “D” for drive…

right2bright on December 14, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4