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

If auto insurance was required like the health mandate then even my wife’s mother, who does not drive or own a car, would be required to carry auto insurance, because you never know when she may need to drive a car in an emergency and then crashes the vehicle. albill on December 14, 2010 at 11:02 AM

If she lives with you and has a driver’s license she would need to be a secondary driver on your policy or relinquish her license.

The people making pretend that this is a good analogy (mandating auto ins is like mandating health ins) are either liars or morons.

There’s really no other choice.

And they aren’t morons.

They would give their eye teeth to force this monstrosity on us because it would amount to a bloodless coup. We would find out in short order just how despotic Americans can be, and the justification for all of it would be to keep health costs down.

“Do you ahve a gun in your home?”

“Yes.”

“Then your premiums are trebled.”

See? Weren’t that eeeeeeasy?

Akzed on December 14, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Then tell us what the purpose of the Ninth and Tenth amendments were. You know, the part of my comment that you conveniently left out of your response.

RadClown on December 14, 2010 at 12:05 PM

I’ll step in, since I’m sure PR will get it wrong.

The stated intent of the 9th and 10th amendments were expressly to ensure that the bill of rights, in enumerating personal rights and further limiting government power, did not limit the rights of the people or the people’s respresentatives in the states.

gryphon202 on December 14, 2010 at 12:07 PM

esnap on December 14, 2010 at 11:52 AM

It’s not just insurance that’s the problem. It’s also idiotic government interference such as the federal law that requires all hospitals receiving federal funds (pretty much all hospitals) to render emergency care to all comers, regardless of ability to pay, legal status, etc.

It’s this law that has turned so many of our AZ (and Texas and So. California, etc.) hospitals into “free” maternity wards for illegal aliens who want to give birth to their anchor babies in U.S. hospitals, at U.S. taxpayers’ expense.

AZCoyote on December 14, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Really? Weren’t you the one who said “but to say the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the role of federal government is 100% wrong?”

I should have written “sole purpose or primary purpose” but it’s pretty clear that’s what I meant.

Then tell us what the purpose of the Ninth and Tenth amendments were. You know, the part of my comment that you conveniently left out of your response.

I think the purpose of the 9th and 10th amendments were to alleviate the concerns of the people who thought that a Bill of Rights would limit rights by enumerating them.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Michelle Hussein Obama is the author of this bill

Here is her patient dumping scheme.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 12:10 PM

but to say the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the role of federal government is 100% wrong.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Well, you have shown you are no student of history…you are saying that the founders did not think that limiting gov. was of primary concern?
Good Grief….what has our school system created….

right2bright on December 14, 2010 at 12:15 PM

ok, so let me get this straight…

their only example is of a woman who failed to buy health insurance before she got sick, then was denied after finding out she was sick?

let’s not even get to the fallacy of employers being the easiest route to obtain insurance – another gov’t invention.

furthermore, auto insurance is to guarantee your actions don’t cause another people to lose.

these people are stupid. and by the day i’m getting infuriated that they’re arrogantly our leaders.

bloghooligan on December 14, 2010 at 12:20 PM

I think the purpose of the 9th and 10th amendments were to alleviate the concerns of the people who thought that a Bill of Rights would limit rights by enumerating them.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 12:10 PM

god awfully stupid.

bloghooligan on December 14, 2010 at 12:22 PM

AZCoyote on December 14, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Why couldn’t we have a “foreign” delivery/operating room, give no anchor baby status, served by our doctors but any portion of the hospital/doctor bill not paid by the individual/charity is billed to the Mexican etc government?

journeyintothewhirlwind on December 14, 2010 at 12:23 PM

I think the purpose of the 9th and 10th amendments were to alleviate the concerns of the people who thought that a Bill of Rights would limit rights by enumerating them.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 12:10 PM

It was actually the concerns of the states.

The three most powerful States in the Union, New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia, demanded that a bill of rights be immediately added to the Constitution; near the top of those recommended amendments on every list, a State sovereignty resolution. These ultimately became the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Clearly the intent of this amendment was to mitigate any design the federal government had on enlarging its powers through the “supremacy clause.” If the power was not enumerated in the Constitution and the States were not prohibited by the Constitution from exercising said power, then that power was reserved to the States.

xler8bmw on December 14, 2010 at 12:26 PM

By law I can be permanently denied the privilege to drive (manslaughter,DUI’s etc.).
…in turn,my car would be unnecessary so I would get rid of it.
So according to Holder’s analogy….I would be “mandated” to carry insurance for a car I no longer owned because I “might” drive.

There are people that for many reason’s live without “health insurance” and abstain from modern medical treatment or can pay for what little they use themselves.

I should not be “penalized” because the government says I “might” do something.

Baxter Greene on December 14, 2010 at 12:27 PM

but to say the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the role of federal government is 100% wrong. Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 11:16 AM

You have just consigned yourself to permanent irrelevance.

“In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution,” -Thomas Jefferson.

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators,” -James Madison.

“The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution,” -Thomas Jefferson.

“Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people,” -Thomas Jefferson.

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive,” -Thomas Jefferson.

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government,” -Thomas Jefferson.

I mean, such ignorance is shocking.

Akzed on December 14, 2010 at 12:30 PM

ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn’t work.

I hate this lie. It is not discrimination (in the sense they mean here) for a company to refuse to accept as a client someone whose known risk far outweights any potential benefit.

If I have leukemia when I apply for an insurance policy, the insurer knows that it will pay out far, far more than it makes off my premiums. Thus, it wisely decides not to offer me a policy. Insurance companies are businesses, not charities.

Obviously, it is discrimination in the sense of making a choice based upon facts. Every time we make a choice in life, we are discriminating against whatever option we failed to take. If we hire a over b, we are discriminating against “b” based on education, experience, etc. If we buy a prada bag over a gucci bag, we are discriminating against gucci based on price, quality, whatever.

The left wants all business to be charity. that is all. They don’t want anyone to have any risk in life and, as a result, don’t want anyone to have choice. To take away risk, you have to take away choice.

Monkeytoe on December 14, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Baxter Greene on December 14, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Yes, you’re privilege can be revoked by the state, but not without cause.

xler8bmw on December 14, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Akzed on December 14, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Lotta quotes there from a guy who had no role in writing or signing the Constitution. As to your one quote from the guy who actually did have a role

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators,” -James Madison.

I didn’t dispute that. I agree with that sentiment.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Nothing like having idiots in charge. If the public has learned anything over the last 4 years, it will be reflected in the coming elections – 2010 was a good start.

GarandFan on December 14, 2010 at 12:36 PM

their only example is of a woman who failed to buy health insurance before she got sick, then was denied after finding out she was sick?

bloghooligan on December 14, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Remember this: Yes, she would have been denied insurance coverage but she would NEVER be denied care.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 12:37 PM

I don’t think it’s a canard, at least as far as the Obama admin is concerned. Driving is a privilege, not a right. The government can take the privilege away or make it conditional on you buying insurance.

Is there any other way to read the last 2 years of Obama policy, other than as a statement that living is a privilege not a right. The government that can mandate what you eat can surely mandate anything.

DailyDanet on December 14, 2010 at 12:38 PM

The simple truth is, if the federal gov’t has the power to require every citizen to buy a certain product, not matter how “good” the intentions are or what the alleged cost benefit analysis is, there is absolutely no restraint on the federal gov’t.

If the commerce clause gives teh gov’t power to order me to buy something, why doesn’t it give the federal gov’t power to order me to buy something else?

Why not order me to do “x”? Surely, any action I take effects “interstate commerce” under such a crazy reading. If I have 2 children, instead of 3, I am affecting interstate commerce b/c I have not created enough consumers. If I have 2 children instead of 1 I have affected interstate commerce b/c I had too many children, which will increase costs.

If I leave job “x” for job “y”, I am affecting interstate commerce. In the aggregate, the movement of labor affects interstate commerce. So why can’t the gov’t decide what job I have to work at? What is the difference?

Monkeytoe on December 14, 2010 at 12:39 PM

I didn’t dispute that. I agree with that sentiment.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Did you also read where Madison vetoed a bill earmarking money for French Huegenot refugee relief?

gryphon202 on December 14, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Remember this: Yes, she would have been denied insurance coverage but she would NEVER be denied care.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Yes, and the costs of her care are actually free. Angels come down and they bring in their own equipment, and angel doctors and nurses take care of those patients, that’s how those costs don’t get passed on to others.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Akzed on December 14, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Triple dog double WOOT!

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 12:36 PM

In a true Michelle Obama diction, I say to you: You either stupid or you crazy.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Sho’ ’nuff.

kingsjester on December 14, 2010 at 12:44 PM

If they can make us buy Health Insurance then why can’t they make us buy (and consume, because that’s what the purchase of Healthcare insurance does….leads to consumption):

“Healthy” food

Electric powered cars

Homes in areas they deem appropriate

The Progressive Nanny in D.C. is not happy this morning.

PappyD61 on December 14, 2010 at 12:45 PM

Yes, and the costs of her care are actually free. Angels come down and they bring in their own equipment, and angel doctors and nurses take care of those patients, that’s how those costs don’t get passed on to others.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Indeed. The same way that unicorns started sharting out skittles and rainbows flew out of your arse when Obama appeared on your world stage.

Please see the following: You cannot deny emergent care under any circumstances whatsoever.

Maybe next time you vote, an Angel will touch your brain with a bit of knowledge HoneyChild.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 12:47 PM

their only example is of a woman who failed to buy health insurance before she got sick, then was denied after finding out she was sick?

bloghooligan on December 14, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Remember this: Yes, she would have been denied insurance coverage but she would NEVER be denied care.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 12:37 PM

But no. she wouldn’t have been denied insurance had she obtained insurance once she realized she couldn’t get it from her employer. She gambled on not needing it and came up super short. Failing to see how this situation is my fault, or why i should have to pony up for it.

bloghooligan on December 14, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Sho’ ’nuff.

kingsjester on December 14, 2010 at 12:44 PM

LOL. I’m sure you can see her saying that with the wiggly neck and the pointy digits and all.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 12:49 PM

I should not be “penalized” because the government says I “might” do something.

Baxter Greene on December 14, 2010 at 12:27 PM

As I mention earlier in this thread, tell that to crr6. When I asked her why she was in favor of the Government requiring that I buy something that I don’t need and don’t want, she said I needed it because I “might” get into a horrendous accident.

However, I never said in my initial question why I did not want or need such mandatory insurance. She just automatically assumed that I was uninsured. That’s flawless “reasoning” for sure.

BTW, here’s another nail in the coffin of those on the Left desperately trying to use this “auto insurance” meme-my own state of New Hampshire, along with the Far-Right Wing state of Wisconsin, do NOT require drivers to have liability auto insurance.

Del Dolemonte on December 14, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 12:49 PM

Just like her husband, her accent changes with the audience they are addressing.

kingsjester on December 14, 2010 at 12:51 PM

She gambled on not needing it and came up super short. Failing to see how this situation is my fault, or why i should have to pony up for it.

bloghooligan on December 14, 2010 at 12:47 PM

The housing market has collapsed. I can purchase any number of foreclosed structures for dirt. I buy 2 vacant homes and I rent them. I don’t insure them because the premiums are too high.

Suddenly, one of my tenants suffers a fire in their kitchen. What do I do? Well, I just call up the Obama Inshooance Cumpny and they will write me a policy on the spot, while the house is burning to the ground! For only $29.95!

Amazing!

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 12:52 PM

I’m not 100% sure about this, but I don’t believe there is a federal requirement to have auto insurance. In fact, I don’t believe the federal government regulates the auto insurance industry. Each state has its own insurance commission that governs how much insurance you have to have to be able to drive your car on the road. Ironically, most states also have their insurees pay for “uninsured drivers” insurance, in case you’re in an accident with someone who’s not insured.

You have to wonder what this bill would have looked like, had the Democrats allowed the Republicans to get involved.

bflat879 on December 14, 2010 at 12:54 PM

Monkeytoe on December 14, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Actually that’s not true. US v Butler shows that even though Justice Roberts sided with congress he also, stated limited Commerce Clause use of congress. Unfortunately since all branches have been cedeing it’s power to other branches (also, unconstituional) and we the people have been asleep at the wheel. We now have an unchecked govt.

xler8bmw on December 14, 2010 at 12:55 PM

bflat879 on December 14, 2010 at 12:54 PM

There’s not it is controlled by the states and it is a privilege and may be revoked with cause.

xler8bmw on December 14, 2010 at 12:56 PM

bloghooligan on December 14, 2010 at 12:47 PM

I’m sorry I think I misread your post and was disrespectful with my 12:52pm. Carriers who do business in various States (again they are currently State controlled) absorb 98% of indigent care. Sorry, I’m just extra snarky today because of the AlGore Warming going on down here.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 12:58 PM

This is not an argument that one side can persuade the other. One either believes that the commerce clause was meant to be narrowly construed to direct interstate commerce and not indirect matters, or you believe the commerce clause gives the federal gov’t authority over everything.

I think everyone in an honest moment would agree that the founders, for the most part (probably not Hamilton and a couple of others), believed the former. But, as some on the left would argue, what they believed does not matter, what we interpret the clause to mean today is what matters, which, unfortunately, is true. We are stuck with whatever the 9 individuals on the supreme court want to do, whether a rational intepretation of the document or not.

Monkeytoe on December 14, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Monkeytoe on December 14, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Actually it can and there are many a SCOTUS case regarding it. If in fact the commerce clause was all so powerful then one would say the constitution was contradictory and framers wanted an all powerful central govt. They didn’t and congress has limitations within the commerce clause. VA established that yesterday. Your argument makes no sense.

xler8bmw on December 14, 2010 at 1:03 PM

And by direct versus indirect, I mean the idea that the ICC was meant to apply to goods actually being traded across state lines as opposed to me growing a tomato in my back yard that allegedly indirectly affects interstate commerce in the aggregate.

Let’s not forget that the new broad reading of teh ICC only came into being in the 1930′s in response to teh new deal and in direct response to FDR’s court packing plan. “The switch in time that saved nine.” FDR threatened to add a bunch more justices b/c the SC kept overturning his legislation saying that whatever was being regulated was not interstate commerce.

So, the first 100 years or so everyone agreed on what interstate commerce meant. Much like for the first 150 years or so everyone agreed on what the 2nd amendment meant.

Monkeytoe on December 14, 2010 at 1:03 PM

Actually it can and there are many a SCOTUS case regarding it. If in fact the commerce clause was all so powerful then one would say the constitution was contradictory and framers wanted an all powerful central govt. They didn’t and congress has limitations within the commerce clause. VA established that yesterday. Your argument makes no sense.

xler8bmw on December 14, 2010 at 1:03 PM

That is gibberish. What are you trying to say?

1 – supreme court decisions don’t mean anyone was persuaded by anything. The liberals voted for the liberal outcome and the conservatives for the conservative outcome. It just means that it is precedent.

2 – precedent is not always correct. Most of the commerce clause precedence of the last 70 years has been abysmally wrong.

Monkeytoe on December 14, 2010 at 1:06 PM

Audit Medicaid.

There is where you will find the savings. Some of my best friends are ER Physicians and Nurses. The stories they tell are mind bending at times. Medicaid recipients actually take ambulances to emergency rooms for minor ailments like stuffy noses and flu. Missed periods. Minor cuts and bruises. Ingrown toenails.

The sense of entitlement is so ingrained in some of these aid recipients that it is impossible to de-couple them from their perceived norms.

Audit all medicaid and entitlement recipients. It’s difficult to peel up that rug but it must be done. Once that rug is pulled up you will see billions of dollars being doled out because it is a “perceived norm”.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 1:07 PM

CriticalUpdate on December 14, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Two points:

The doctor or his group practice has to pay for the staff who handle the assorted insurance packages that patients have. The salary and perks for those employees drive up the cost. If you pay up front without expecting the office to file a claim on your behalf, you should be qualified for a discount.

With regard to hospital stays, those of us who carry insurance are paying the freight for those who do not, especially those who use the emergency room for primary care.

onlineanalyst on December 14, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Monkeytoe on December 14, 2010 at 1:06 PM

Apparently you can’t read.
Wickard v. Filburn Case under FDR. The usurping of power under FDR and congress it allowed unbridled misuse of the commerce clause which as I posted before Justice Roberts in US v Butler restrained.
Ashcroft v. Raich
United States v. Lopez
United States v. Morrison

By permitting Congress to regulate interstate commerce, they sought to create a great free-trade zone within the United States. Alexander Hamilton predicted that an “unrestrained intercourse between the States themselves will advance the trade of each by an interchange of their respective productions.” Madison noted that the main purpose of the Commerce Clause “was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from improper contributions levied on them by the latter.” In other words, the Framers sought to remove internal trade barriers. A nation-wide free trade zone, almost all agreed, would permit the states to take advantage of division of labor and lessen tensions as goods freely crossed borders.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has attempted to impose some limits on the commerce power. With United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court held that possession of a firearm in school zones does not affect the national economy; therefore, Congress cannot ban firearms in these areas using the Commerce Clause. In United States v. Morrison (2000), the Court rejected the government’s claim that crimes of violence motivated by gender affect interstate commerce so as to permit the creation of a federal, private right of action. While the trend is to circumscribe the commerce power, both decisions left Wickard intact.

Now instead of trying to explain your limitation on understanding the commerce clause go read the SCOTUS cases yourself.

xler8bmw on December 14, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Yes, and the costs of her care are actually free. Angels come down and they bring in their own equipment, and angel doctors and nurses take care of those patients, that’s how those costs don’t get passed on to others.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 12:41 PM

As the bell on the tree mysteriously rang, Zsu Zsu turned to her father and said “Look Daddy, another illegal alien just got some free healthcare!”

BobMbx on December 14, 2010 at 1:25 PM

RadClown on December 14, 2010 at 11:19 AM

I don’t agree with the Wickard SC finding. It was a typical FDR federal overreach. Ever since that ruling, the Lefties have used/abused it to rationalize intrusions on our liberties.

I prefer Madison’s point in the Federalist papers. The tenth amendment protects US citizens from federal seizure of power from individuals and states.

The commerce in the Constitution issue was instituted to prevent states from imposing tarrifs on each other when engaged in interstate trade.

One (only one?) problem of ObaMaoScare is not only that it mandates coverage but that it mandates coverage for many health issues that the insurance purchaser does not want or need. With all of these contingencies covered by our “enlightened” legislators, lobbyists, and HHS, the cost of insurance necessarily rises. When the government intrudes in a personal choice, it has the audacity to determine the worth of a service and/or whether it is covered.

This whole legislative charade in DC was/is an attempt to drive insurers out of business until only those who play by the feds’ rules (rigid or fluid as they may be) are allowed to exist.

onlineanalyst on December 14, 2010 at 1:37 PM

WTF?

darwin on December 14, 2010 at 1:48 PM

I think the purpose of the 9th and 10th amendments were to alleviate the concerns of the people who thought that a Bill of Rights would limit rights by enumerating them.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Hopeless. Read a book fer cryin’ out loud! You can start with the Federalist Papers.

RadClown on December 14, 2010 at 1:54 PM

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.

One more point Ed. The far majority of auto insurance providers write a “per occurence” policy not a “claims made” policy. If the loss occurs during the policy period and its a covered cause of loss, the claim is paid. No insurer will pick up a claim that falls outside the coverage period. So, the quote from the idiot Holder or the idiot Sebelius is irrelevant.

jbh45 on December 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM

The left wants all business to be charity. that is all. They don’t want anyone to have any risk in life and, as a result, don’t want anyone to have choice. To take away risk, you have to take away choice.

Monkeytoe on December 14, 2010 at 12:31 PM

This mentality extends to bailouts as well. Bought a house you can’t afford? No problem, the govt will pay your mortgage. Bank lent out billions to people who can’t pay it back? Govt will cover the losses. All the risk has been socialized.

angryed on December 14, 2010 at 2:20 PM

New Hampshire, along with the Far-Right Wing state of Wisconsin, do NOT require drivers to have liability auto insurance.

Del Dolemonte on December 14, 2010 at 12:51 PM

RACIST!

angryed on December 14, 2010 at 2:22 PM

I thought these people were supposed to be super-intelligent. A fifth grader can drive a truck through the lack of logic employed by Holder and Sebelius here.

Without an individual responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn’t work.

The legal arguments made against the law gloss over this problem even as opponents have sought to invent new constitutional theories and dig up old ones that were rejected 80 years ago.

So you see, due to the fact that their entire reform does not function if you remove the individual mandate, the constitutional argument against the law should be ignored. That’s what they’re saying, isn’t it?

They’re – unbelievably – contending that the constitutional argument against the individual mandate should take into consideration that it is needed for the health care law to function.

Why on earth should the legal argument do anything other than gloss over that fact? It is completely irrelevant.

Ah, but it isn’t irrelevant to those who practice law like they play Monopoly, changing the rules as they see fit or according to their foggy memory.

We’re witnessing a new constitutional law theory being employed, one where the Constitution should be ignored, so that the laws Congress makes should be determined constitutional based upon their merits.

I’ve heard this argument employed by many liberals and proponents of this law. It can’t be unconstitutional, they say, because otherwise the whole scheme won’t work!

In conclusion: these people are so blinded by ideology that simple logic has escaped their brains.

Seixon on December 14, 2010 at 2:31 PM

but to say the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the role of federal government is 100% wrong. Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 11:16 AM

WOW. OMG no wonder America has been going down the toilet bowl.

You have just consigned yourself to permanent irrelevance.

“In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution,” -Thomas Jefferson.

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators,” -James Madison.

“The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution,” -Thomas Jefferson.

“Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people,” -Thomas Jefferson.

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive,” -Thomas Jefferson.

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government,” -Thomas Jefferson.

I mean, such ignorance is shocking.

Akzed on December 14, 2010 at 12:30 PM

All you said Akzed is totally worth repeating.
And his reply by quoting Madison again & agreeing is totally at aodds with his 1st ignorant statement.
I cannot believe there are Americans like this who know NOTHING, & even the total opposite, of what really happened in the latter part of the 18th century.
This display of retardedness is absolutely astounding.

Badger40 on December 14, 2010 at 2:39 PM

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

Minimum coverage, ie catastrophic only, does not offer all the opportunities for income redistribution that is one of the progressives’ reasons for forcing Obamacare on us.

slickwillie2001 on December 14, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Lotta quotes there from a guy who had no role in writing or signing the Constitution. As to your one quote from the guy who actually did have a role Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 12:36 PM

I didn’t say he had a role in writing it. He’s commenting on it just like you and me.

You had no role in writing it, and you can comment on it right? I mean, you’re clueless, but you can still offer opinions even though you didn’t write it.

You see, this is indicative of how RINO’s and liberals end up as RINO’s and liberals: they don’t reason very well.

One can be very bright and still have a poorly-developed faculty of reason. Most liberals and politically inconsistent people like RINO’s fall in this category.

Then there are those who are dishonest, who depend on others’ poorly developed faculties of reason to gain influence, followers, contributions etc.

I put you in the weak-minded sub-category, not the dishonest sub-category, of inconsistent political thinkers. You should buy a logic textbook and read it often. Keep it in the bathroom and go through it a couple times a year. It could help.

Akzed on December 14, 2010 at 2:51 PM

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

I think we are way past wondering about Holder. He is clearly a dimwit, and the guy that appointed him is not bright enough to have realized it.

One of the legacies of the Bamster, Holder, et al is going to be a diminution in the value of an Ivy League Double-A education. Their degrees are clearly no better than the kind I can buy on ebay.

slickwillie2001 on December 14, 2010 at 3:05 PM

You had no role in writing it, and you can comment on it right? I mean, you’re clueless, but you can still offer opinions even though you didn’t write it.

Akzed on December 14, 2010 at 2:51 PM

LMAO! Tears are in my eyes.
So funny!
How will PR spin that one?! LOL!

Badger40 on December 14, 2010 at 3:08 PM

They would give their eye teeth to force this monstrosity on us because it would amount to a bloodless coup.

Akzed on December 14, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Perhaps, but it wouldn’t remain that way for long. As Levin said, if this mandate is upheld all the way up the judicial branch, then this country as we’ve known it, is over. The three branches of government will have told us that there are no limits to what they can impose upon us, and ‘constitutionality’ and ‘liberty’ will be quaint notions that no longer have meaning.

Not everyone will simply bend over and meekly accept that.

Midas on December 14, 2010 at 3:21 PM

BTW, here’s another nail in the coffin of those on the Left desperately trying to use this “auto insurance” meme-my own state of New Hampshire, along with the Far-Right Wing state of Wisconsin, do NOT require drivers to have liability auto insurance.

Del Dolemonte on December 14, 2010 at 12:51 PM

It’s not quite that simple:

New Hampshire Motor Vehicle Laws do not require you to carry Auto Insurance, but
you must be able to demonstrate that you are able to provide sufficient funds to
meet New Hampshire Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Requirements in the
event of an “at-fault” accident. If you are unable to meet these requirements your
driving privileges in New Hampshire may be suspended.

Per New Hampshire Statutes, NH RSA 264:16, if you buy Auto Insurance for
personal use, you must also buy Medical Payments Coverage. Medical Payments
Coverage pays for medical expenses incurred as a result of an automobile accident
(regardless of fault). By law, you must buy at least $1,000 of Medical Payments
Coverage.

http://www.nh.gov/insurance/consumers/documents/nh_auto_guide.pdf

WI: Starting June 1, 2010, drivers and owners of motor vehicles are required to show proof of insurance at traffic stops/accidents if requested by law enforcement. Proof is not necessary for trailers or semi-trailers.

http://www.dot.state.wi.us/drivers/vehicles/ins-req.htm

Jimbo3 on December 14, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Midas on December 14, 2010 at 3:21 PM

We need to remember that if we allow a branch of the federal govt to decide how much power it can have over us, then we really are doomed.
The states, as I have said here before, have every right & duty to be able to decide for themselves if this thing is Const. & they have every right & duty to nullify it.

Badger40 on December 14, 2010 at 3:31 PM

BTW, here’s another nail in the coffin of those on the Left desperately trying to use this “auto insurance” meme-my own state of New Hampshire, along with the Far-Right Wing state of Wisconsin, do NOT require drivers to have liability auto insurance.

Del Dolemonte on December 14, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Indeed. Many states, if not most, require proof of financial responsibility, and liability insurance is only one method of such proof. You can also provide proof of responsibility with a cash bond or via self-insurance. Funny that Sebelius — a former KS insurance commissioner — neglects to mention that tidbit in her defense of ObamaCare. Also ironic that, in ObamaCare’s current format, someone wishing to self-insure and pay cash for their own health care cannot do what is permissible under automobile financial responsibility laws.

Fly_in_Ointment on December 14, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Driving is a privilege – you have to buy an auto in order to need auto insurance in the first place. So you can opt out if you don’t intend to drive.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Just how do you get out of being born with out a Body – Life, and how is it that our Government thinks they can tax us because we have a Body – Liberty. If you spend all your time working and filling the government’s coffers with the sweat of your labor “taxes” then when are you allowed to Pursue Happiness?

It doesn’t work, a person isn’t a car/auto, and last time I checked being a human being, and alive and breathing wasn’t a privilege…….Well maybe in Obama’s America.

Born Free And Taxed To Death.

Dr Evil on December 14, 2010 at 3:57 PM

All members of the public are now required to participate in the greater public safety. EVERY competent adult will be required to own a hand gun. There will be a list of approved hand guns that you must purchase, unless you are in financial difficulty and the government will purchase it for you. You will be required to maintain and prove that you have said handgun.

If they can make us buy insurance, then lets make them buy guns.

barnone on December 14, 2010 at 4:12 PM

If they can make us buy insurance, then lets make them buy guns. barnone on December 14, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia — Crime Rate Plummets

Akzed on December 14, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Jimbo3 on December 14, 2010 at 3:24 PM

I have lived in NH since Nixon was President so I know our laws. You seem to have missed all of the “ifs” and “mays” in what you posted:

If you are unable to meet these requirements your driving privileges in New Hampshire may be suspended.

Per New Hampshire Statutes, NH RSA 264:16, if you buy Auto Insurance for personal use, you must also buy Medical Payments Coverage. Medical Payments Coverage pays for medical expenses incurred as a result of an automobile accident(regardless of fault). By law, you must buy at least $1,000 of Medical Payments Coverage.

Now tell me, in the event you get into a car crash, how far is that $1,000 of “Medical Payments Coverage” going to go? Not very far!

Face it, even in the states that do require mandatory auto insurance, many drivers ignore that law.

BTW, congrats to you and Proud Rino and crr6 for your legal efforts to get Julie Assmange out of the pokey. Your dinner tonight is on Mikey Moore!

Del Dolemonte on December 14, 2010 at 4:31 PM

As far as I know, the federal government does not require anyone to buy car insurance, the state governments do.

Government mandated healthcare IS within the constitutional authority of the state governments, it is NOT within the authority of the federal government.

crosspatch on December 14, 2010 at 4:35 PM

As far as I know, the federal government does not require anyone to buy car insurance, the state governments do.

Government mandated healthcare IS within the constitutional authority of the state governments, it is NOT within the authority of the federal government.

crosspatch on December 14, 2010 at 4:35 PM

And neither level of government requires you to own a car.

Erh…no, the state cannot force you to buy a product either. It can say “If you own a car and use it on public roads, you are required to purchase insurance”. They dont force you to buy the car.

BobMbx on December 14, 2010 at 4:40 PM

A tax penalty and a tax credit are the same thing. I think this ruling makes all tax credits unconstitutional.

PrezHussein on December 14, 2010 at 4:41 PM

BobMbx on December 14, 2010 at 4:40 PM

Unless you can put your finger on where in the constitution it says that states can’t force you to buy it, then they can. State governments have all powers not specifically denied them. The federal government has NO powers except those specifically granted. The two levels of government are completely different when it comes to the constitution.

crosspatch on December 14, 2010 at 4:44 PM

If she lives with you and has a driver’s license she would need to be a secondary driver on your policy or relinquish her license.

thats not true. You can exclude drivers from your insurance coverage. If she lived with him he would just need to exclude her from his policy, she could still drive her own car and carry her own insurance but wouldn’t be covered in his car.

Darksbane on December 14, 2010 at 4:45 PM

What is it with this administration and their obsession with automobile metaphors and similes? Cars in the ditch, car insurance. It’s getting stale.
As for likening the mandate to car insurance, it would be an accurate portrayal if everyone was required to buy auto insurance to cover medical expenses for injuries incurred in an accident since everyone will at some time in their lives find themselves in a car, either as the driver, or as a passenger, but not necessarily as the owner of the car.
I think they’ve run out of excuses for defending the mandate, and are simply hoping that repetition will somehow convince people that car insurance requirements is an apt precedent.

tpitman on December 14, 2010 at 4:52 PM

This mentality extends to bailouts as well. Bought a house you can’t afford? No problem, the govt will pay your mortgage. Bank lent out billions to people who can’t pay it back? Govt will cover the losses. All the risk has been socialized.

angryed on December 14, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Personal responsibility……. this country does not have any left.

Koa on December 14, 2010 at 5:00 PM

If you are unable to meet these requirements your driving privileges in New Hampshire may be suspended.

Per New Hampshire Statutes, NH RSA 264:16, if you buy Auto Insurance for personal use, you must also buy Medical Payments Coverage. Medical Payments Coverage pays for medical expenses incurred as a result of an automobile accident(regardless of fault). By law, you must buy at least $1,000 of Medical Payments Coverage.
Now tell me, in the event you get into a car crash, how far is that $1,000 of “Medical Payments Coverage” going to go? Not very far!

Face it, even in the states that do require mandatory auto insurance, many drivers ignore that law.

BTW, congrats to you and Proud Rino and crr6 for your legal efforts to get Julie Assmange out of the pokey. Your dinner tonight is on Mikey Moore!

Del Dolemonte on December 14, 2010 at 4:31 PM

The difference is that the great majority of the states require you to show proof of insurance at the time you renew your registration for your car, rather than at the time of accident (or other car-related law violation) like NH does.

Jimbo3 on December 14, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Ed, I’m surprised you missed the biggest difference of all.

Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident.

Nothing. Nothing would happen. Because auto insurance companies don’t cover pre-existing damage.

Guess what would happen if they did? Everyone would wait until they got in an accident to buy insurance.

These guys are amazing. Do they actually believe this stuff? They’ve gotta be pulling our legs.

apollyonbob on December 14, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Government mandated healthcare IS within the constitutional authority of the state governments, it is NOT within the authority of the federal government.

crosspatch on December 14, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Within the authority, yes. A good idea? That’s another matter altogether.

gryphon202 on December 14, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Unless you can put your finger on where in the constitution it says that states can’t force you to buy it, then they can. State governments have all powers not specifically denied them. The federal government has NO powers except those specifically granted. The two levels of government are completely different when it comes to the constitution.

crosspatch on December 14, 2010 at 4:44 PM

As long as the state laws do not go against their own Const & the US Const, then it is a power they have over their resident citizens.
The Fed Govt, as you said, has specially LIMITED & ENUMERATED powers & they are far fewer than those of the states.
It was the idea that the STATES were made up of the PEOPLE & the Fed govt existed at the pleasure of the STATES.
The US Const is nothing but a compact the states entered into willingly & can get out of willingly.
That is why the Civil War was so contentious.
And BTW-which Ammendment is there the problem with during the Civil War with the suspension of the Confederate states representation thing?

Badger40 on December 14, 2010 at 5:40 PM

I know that was phrased badly, but you all get my meaning.

Badger40 on December 14, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Sweet. Does this mean we can sue States to have the Auto Insurance mandates removed? Cuz I’d be WAY down for that.

One Angry Christian on December 14, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Speaking of cars, a few years ago the Leftist Democrats who have controlled Massachusetts for centuries decided that the Commerce Clause allowed them to force their Subjects to buy tires in Massachusetts.

This was in response to many of their Subjects having the audacity to drive up here to Cow Hampshire to buy the same tires much more cheaply.

Even the Activist Judges in Taxachusetts laughed them out of Court.

Del Dolemonte on December 14, 2010 at 6:11 PM

If you don’t want to pay auto insurance, it’s simple.

Sell your car, surrender your license to drive and drop your insurance.

There is no mandate to carry auto insurance to protect yourself or your property, period. The only reason you are required to carry liability insurance to drive is to protect others. Don’t want to pay it, there’s a solution.

OR . . . in most states you can self-insure with a bond.

Jason Coleman on December 14, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Jimbo3 on December 14, 2010 at 3:24 PM

The state auto insurance mandate is only for those who choose to participate in driving (ie, commerce). The healthcare is a mandate for everyone with a pulse, even those who do not choose to participate in the actual commerce (or are too young to decide for themselves).

There is a distinct difference.

I’m not sure why posters like you, Proud Rino and crr6, “BRILLIANT LAW STUDENT” can’t acknowledge the difference.

ladyingray on December 14, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Jimbo3 on December 14, 2010 at 5:06 PM

No, the difference is the state mandate auto insurance is for those who choose to drive, ie those who choose to engage in commerce. My grandmother who never drove would not have been required to carry auto insurance.

The Obamacare mandate requires everyone with a pulse to have health insurance, or pay a penalty. There are many people who choose not to engage in the commerce that is health insurance.

There is a distinct difference.

There is also a distinct difference between health insurance and health care.

Liberals fail to recognize this, as do posters such as yourself, ccr6 and PR.

ladyingray on December 14, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Loud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 12:10 PM

You again?

CWforFreedom on December 14, 2010 at 7:05 PM

9th Asserts the existence of unenumerated rights retained by the people.

10th Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution.

Dr Evil on December 14, 2010 at 7:18 PM

In Illinois you are required to have insurance or, I think, proof that you can financially meet the required minimums. In other words if you can prove, and have filed such, you have $40,000 in an account to cover any accidents you don’t need insurance.

Does Obamacare have this requirement?

LifeTrek on December 14, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Even if it did LIFETREK it would not make it any better. It still should be ruled unconstitutional.

CWforFreedom on December 14, 2010 at 7:30 PM

If you think that’s special you should see Sebelius and sleazy Eric Holder’s new plans for unemployed labor camps complete with IRS guard towers and barbed wire. They’d be under construction by now but the EPA hasn’t approved the showers.

viking01 on December 14, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Ed, how do you not get this?

The similarity between mandating auto-insurance and health insurance is that when people are not insured, others have to pay.

As the op-ed states, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the federal government can regulate inter-state commerce to help control costs. This is exactly what the health insurance mandate — as well as the auto insurance mandate — does.

Tom_Shipley on December 14, 2010 at 8:17 PM

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.

True, true, so very true but the Left is far more dense — less intelligent, less aware, diminished in reason — than EVER they will admit or even consider.

Many of us have typed out these explanations as you have here (quoted portion) many, many times on the internet, in letters to Congress, in phone calls specifically stated, al to no avail: all we hear in retort is how smart they are, how stupid we are, and then a reiteration of their stupid ideas just like Holder repeats many times weekly and Sibelius does likewise.

These are not: ethical people nor are they intelligent people.

They “just” have degrees. Like Obama, they have degrees and “friends” in certain places but they are not wise, intelligent, moral, ethical nor enlightened — and thus not capable to lead anyone anywhere.

I don’t know what it’s going to take to make changes — as in, improvements — to our civilization but as it’s going now, the stupid people are outnumbering the wise, the ethical and the intelligent.

About “the stupid people,” I refer to Holder, Sibelius, Obama, his entire Communist Hive of an Administration, Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinijad, among many others. Note I don’t include Castro because though he be unethical and amoral, he’s not stupid.

Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 9:06 PM

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

Yes, very well said. You nailed it there.

Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 9:08 PM

If “Obamacare” was a soup — Sebelius, Holder, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, the unions all involved, all the Democrats in Congress and their lobbyists not included in “unions” all the ingredients — and it was boiled down atop a stove, what you’d get as essence in the pot of the concentrated reserve afterward would be: the public funding the health care and pension costs of the unions.

Because that’s what the essence, the actual intent, of this Obamahealthcare monstrosity is (and thus all the waivers afterward to connected groups): to force the public to pay for the legacy and maintenance costs of unions and their memberships.

Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 9:13 PM

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

We know, because he told us, that Holder didn’t read the AZ immigration law before attacking it. What are the chances he’s read ObamaCare?

Holder CAN read? When did that happen?!

Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 9:24 PM

I think they meant czar insurance, not car insurance.

huckleberryfriend on December 14, 2010 at 9:32 PM

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.

Go back and fix ObamaCare! Repeal & replace. And this time lets have a look at torte reform, buying health insurance across states, and letting small business pool with others in their industry (restaurants, retail).

Oh, and, my grandparents do not own a car, so they don’t pay auto insurance. This is true of many people in large cities who rely on trains/subways. They are not forced to subsidize my auto insurance.

TN Mom on December 14, 2010 at 9:40 PM

As the op-ed states, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the federal government can regulate inter-state commerce to help control costs. This is exactly what the health insurance mandate — as well as the auto insurance mandate — does.

Tom_Shipley on December 14, 2010 at 8:17 PM

If I’m just sitting here without buying health insurance, how am I engaging in inter-state commerce?

Ronnie on December 14, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Government mandated healthcare IS within the constitutional authority of the state governments, it is NOT within the authority of the federal government.

crosspatch on December 14, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Exactly. Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s Attorney General who represents the Plaintiff in Virginia v Sebelius explains why states are free to mandate health care and why the federal government isn’t:

Your viewers need to know, every state in the country could enact this federal health care bill in their state and it’s perfectly constitutional for a state to do it. It is the federal government that the Constitution restrains and limits the powers of, not the states.

That’s why states like Virgina and 30 others can pass laws making it illegal for the states to mandate health care and why Massachusetts.

Conservative Samizdat on December 15, 2010 at 12:29 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

In a nutshell.

tbear44 on December 15, 2010 at 6:54 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4