Video: What if auto insurance mandates were just like ObamaCare’s?

posted at 11:00 am on March 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) argued on C-SPAN last week that the upcoming review of ObamaCare by the Supreme Court won’t overturn the law, because ObamaCare’s mandate is just like those imposed by states on auto insurance. CNS News’ Eric Scheiner imagines the reverse: what would auto insurance look like if it were handled like ObamaCare? Only fans of Monty Python could conceive of the result:

During a March 8th interview on C-Span Rep. Jackie Speier (D- Calif.) was discussing the upcoming Supreme Court date focused on Obamacare.

When asked what would happen if part, or all of the healthcare law was overturned she said, “ I don’t think that it’s going to be overturned. We have a long history of requiring proof of auto insurance at the time of registration of a vehicle, mandatory responsibility to carry auto insurance. So this individual mandate for health insurance, I think, will be held constitutional.”

I’ve addressed this so often in the past that I’ll just reiterate my rebuttal from December 2010, when Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius tried making the same argument:

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.

By the way, the Obama administration has now subtly shifted its defense in advance of the oral arguments at the Supreme Court:

A ruling that the mandate is unconstitutional could make it nearly impossible to implement other parts of the healthcare law—which is exactly the point the Department of Justice is highlighting in its most recent briefs.

Justice has aggressively defended the mandate as its own regulation of economic activity, but is now stepping up a separate argument emphasizing that the mandate is part of a broader regulatory scheme.

The shift moves the focus of Justice’s argument from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to the Necessary and Proper Clause, which says Congress can make laws that are necessary for carrying out its other powers[.]

The briefs give a long history of failed efforts to expand healthcare coverage and say the new law’s purpose was to reform the overall system.

The Hill thinks that Obama and his team have moved to this argument in order to get Antonin Scalia on board with the mandate.  Good luck with that.  If Scalia bought that argument, it would make the restrictions on Congressional power in the Constitution meaningless.  The “necessary and proper clause” allows Congress to make law within the restrictions of the Constitution, and is just a common-sense statement that Congress has the power to write laws in areas where it has jurisdiction — not that they can write any laws they please in order to solve all public questions.  That’s almost as funny as Scheiner’s Mandate Clinic.

Update: I know Speier’s a Democrat, but for some reason I wrote (R-CA) after her name.  I’ve corrected it above.


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

Slip -n- slide time

FlaMurph on March 16, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Jackie Speir is a Democrat Ed.

dirtseller on March 16, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Rep. Jackie Speier (R-CA) argued on C-SPAN last week …

During a March 8th interview on C-Span Rep. Jackie Speier (D- Calif.) was discussing …

Turncoat? I’m confused.

Lost in Jersey on March 16, 2012 at 11:03 AM

When they mandate that everyone purchase a Chevy Volt they will then have to mandate that we buy insurance for them, especially given the expense of treating all the SEVERE BURNS due to all the injuries in battery fires.

wildcat72 on March 16, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Yes, please change Speir’s (R) to a (D).

BKeyser on March 16, 2012 at 11:04 AM

I wondered what ever happened to Laverne…………

FlaMurph on March 16, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Ed, you wrote “Rep. Jackie Speier (R-CA)” but CNS’s article says she is a Democrat.

Bitter Clinger on March 16, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Well they are trying to work on Scalia. I think I read he was invited to the Obama shindig with the British PM last week…

sandee on March 16, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Sorry, my bad. Not enough caffeine this morning. I’ve fixed it.

Ed Morrissey on March 16, 2012 at 11:06 AM

BTW, does anyone know if she went to the same plastic surgeon as Nancy? Did they get a group rate?

dirtseller on March 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM

I just wanna know what Rutherford B Hayes would do….

ted c on March 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM

The Hill thinks that Obama and his team have moved to this argument in order to get Antonin Scalia on board with the mandate. Good luck with that. If Scalia bought that argument, it would make the restrictions on Congressional power in the Constitution meaningless. The “necessary and proper clause” allows Congress to make law within the restrictions of the Constitution, and is just a common-sense statement that Congress has the power to write laws in areas where it has jurisdiction — not that they can write any laws they please in order to solve all public questions. That’s almost as funny as Scheiner’s Mandate Clinic.

The constant movement of the Obama Admin’s legal arguments smack of desperation.

Bitter Clinger on March 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM

“I didn’t expect the absolute elimination of the Freedom of Religion.”

“Nobody expects the absolute elimination of the Freedom of Religion.”

Well done.

hawkdriver on March 16, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Between this easily refutable argument, and the utterly unresearched attack on Rutherford B. Hayes, I’m left with the conclusion the Left is out of ideas.

rbj on March 16, 2012 at 11:10 AM

I just wanna know what Rutherford B Hayes would do….

ted c on March 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM

He’s not on Mt. Rushmore so clearly he was so backward he probably didn’t even own a car. Duh!

Lost in Jersey on March 16, 2012 at 11:11 AM

I’ve argued for a long time that “health insurance” has been bastardized to resemble nothing like any other kind of insurance. Hence, the costs have spiraled out of control and led people to want someone else to pay for it.

Bitter Clinger on March 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Why do you hate women?

rogerb on March 16, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Upon reading what Speier said I couldn’t believe she was an R.

As to Obamascare … let’s face it, under the new Obama regime our existence is nebulouse, and if we’re R’s it’s problematic at best, so as long as we choose to live and breathe, we’re subject to his silly laws. What I want to know is if I’m to be treated like a car and I purchase replacement coverage, can I trade my old body in for a newer, sexier model every year?

stukinIL4now on March 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Upon reading what Speier said I couldn’t believe she was an R.

As to Obamascare … let’s face it, under the new Obama regime our existence is nebulouse, and if we’re R’s it’s problematic at best, so as long as we choose to live and breathe, we’re subject to his silly laws. What I want to know is if I’m to be treated like a car and I purchase replacement coverage, can I trade my old body in for a newer, sexier model every year?

stukinIL4now on March 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM

She’s not an ‘R’. She’s a ‘D’. Ed corrected it.

Bitter Clinger on March 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I just wanna know what Rutherford B Hayes would do….
ted c on March 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM

He’d be lied about.

Akzed on March 16, 2012 at 11:22 AM

I believe that the conservative should clamor for the individual mandate. It creates the precedent for a law that requires everyone to buy a gun and attend mandatory range training at least once a month.

Archivarix on March 16, 2012 at 11:23 AM

BTW, many states don’t require auto insurance, even if you own a car. They require proof of financial responsibility. Most people meet this requirement through the purchase of an insurance policy, but that’s not the only option. Washington State for example, you can post a CD or bond to comply.

Her argument sorta breaks down if auto insurance isn’t mandated throughout the Several States.

Lost in Jersey on March 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Also, her comment about crossing that bridge when we get to it? Once Conservatives are across that bridge and repeal National Health Care mandates, we blow the dang bridge up so the bridge is never crossed again. We should have never even got here in the first place.

hawkdriver on March 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM

If people were born with an engine and 4 wheels then the analogy would make sense.

Wigglesworth on March 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

It creates the precedent for a law that requires everyone to buy a gun and attend mandatory range training at least once a month.

Archivarix on March 16, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Do we really want to train liberals to shoot?

Lost in Jersey on March 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

It’s scary to think how a “Representative” can have so much influence and be so clueless at the same time.

Yes, please Ms. Speier, mandate that I MUST drive a car, while at the same time telling me I MUST cut back on my “carbon footprint”.

sigh…. “Liberals”; twisting themselves into knots since the dawn of civilization.

KMC1 on March 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

My concern is how Obamacare will become like auto insurance.

Where one can be “totaled” or sold for parts once the Communist regime deems the cost of repair exceeds Marxist concept of what constitutes human fair market value. Anyone having noticed the value of life to Marxists during the 20th century should be all too aware of how their value placed on life truly is.

viking01 on March 16, 2012 at 11:26 AM

She’s not an ‘R’. She’s a ‘D’. Ed corrected it.

Bitter Clinger on March 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Yes, I knew that before I posted. I was simply commenting that I couldn’t believe she was an R bcuz of what she said.

stukinIL4now on March 16, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Auto insurance is a tool of the injury lawyers.

docflash on March 16, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Well they are trying to work on Scalia. I think I read he was invited to the Obama shindig with the British PM last week…

sandee on March 16, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Did he give Baraka a tongue bath too, like Cameron did?

AZCoyote on March 16, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Yes, I knew that before I posted. I was simply commenting that I couldn’t believe she was an R bcuz of what she said.

stukinIL4now on March 16, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Sorry. I misunderstood what you wrote.

Bitter Clinger on March 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM

If people were born with an engine and 4 wheels then the analogy would make sense.

Wigglesworth on March 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

For folks who try not to be dependent on the government for every freaking aspect of their life and livelihood, it made perfect sense.

Why are liberals so utterly incapable for providing even the basic needs of life for themselves?

hawkdriver on March 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM

what would auto insurance look like if it were handled like ObamaCare?

Women, but not men, would get ALL collision damage repaired–no deductibles. Oh, and because Obama needs to keep the autoworkers happy, a woman–at her option–can decide to get a new car, regardless of the extent of the damage, as long as the car comes from an automaker shackled to the UAW.

BuckeyeSam on March 16, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Welcome to Nanny King

CLERK: Welcome to Nanny King; we serve what’s good for you, your way. May I take your order?

CUSTOMER: If I’m here to place an order and you’re job is to take orders why wouldn’t you be able to take my order?

CLERK: Um-m-m…Welcome to Nanny King; where we only serve what’s best for you. What can I get for you today?

CUSTOMER: That’s better. I would like a dollar cheeseburger.

CLERK: I’m sorry sir; we don’t serve cheeseburgers.

CUSTOMER: Man, I really had an appetite for a cheeseburger.

CLERK: It’s your appetite, sir; and you are free to keep it if you choose.

CUSTOMER: Then why can’t I get a cheeseburger ? You said I could have it my way.

CLERK: We’re Nanny King; we serve what’s good for you, your way. Cheeseburgers have too much grease and fat, so they’re not good for you.

CUSTOMER: Ri-i-i-ight; OK, whatever; I’ll take the dollar grilled chicken on whole grain pita, the dollar side salad and a dollar sweetened iced tea.

CLERK: I’m sorry sir; we don’t serve beverages with processed sugar. We’re Nanny King; where you can have what’s good for you, your way.

CUSTOMER: Yeah, except there’s not a lot of “my way” going-on. Fine, you know what, just make it a dollar unsweetened iced tea.

CLERK: Very good, sir; that will be seven dollars and eighty-seven cents.

CUSTOMER: What? I ordered three items off of the dollar menu. That should be three dollars.

CLERK: Yes, sir; but your meal also comes with arugula. Arugula doesn’t pay for itself, you know.

CUSTOMER: I don’t want arugula.

CLERK: Arugula is good for you.

CUSTOMER: I don’t care; I don’t like arugula.

CLERK: We’re Nanny King; we serve what’s good for you.

CUSTOMER: You stopped saying, “Your way.”

CLERK: Would you like to super-size your order of arugula?

CUSTOMER: I DON’T WANT THE ARUGULA!

CLERK: Welcome to Nanny King; we serve what’s good for you.

CUSTOMER: And just how do you decide what’s good for me?

CLERK: We have our Delicious Eating And Totally Healthy Panel decide what you can order.

CUSTOMER: You have a D.E.A.T.H. Panel?

CLERK: (pause) it’s a working title.

CUSTOMER: You know something? Never mind; just cancel my entire order.

CLERK: Very well sir, there will be a twelve dollar and fifty-cent cancellation fee.

CUSTOMER: Get away from me.

Mr Snuggle Bunny on March 16, 2012 at 11:34 AM

BTW, does anyone know if she went to the same plastic surgeon as Nancy? Did they get a group rate?

dirtseller on March 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM

I think they do get group rates…a lot of the guys have been looking a little streached too…lately.

KOOLAID2 on March 16, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Actually the auto insurance thing is just as bogus these days as Obamacare. Auto insurance was a LOT cheaper when there was no requirement to carry insurance. That was forced on the states through the fed by way of blackmailing states with withholding federal highway finds unless they made auto insurance mandatory. PLus the fact that risk assessment plays almost no role in insurance pricing for autos these days…even a liability policy is priced according to credit score. If they think health insurance is expensive now…wait until it’s forced on you as a requirement and there is no competition, they can price it at whatever level they want…and you still have to buy it!

BadMojo on March 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM

I just wanna know what Rutherford B Hayes would do….

ted c on March 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM

He’d be lied about.

Akzed on March 16, 2012 at 11:22 AM

BTW: that made my day.

BuckeyeSam on March 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Do we really want to train liberals to shoot?

Lost in Jersey on March 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

What’s the danger? They’ll use their guns to shoot people about as often as conservatives, IF that much.

MelonCollie on March 16, 2012 at 11:40 AM

So conservatives like freeloaders? Can people that don’t have insurance guarantee that they won’t show up in the emergency room?

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 16, 2012 at 11:41 AM

I’ll bet that RonMe would respond in favor of 0bamacare/RonMeCare …

WAIT!

He already did. ;o)

DannoJyd on March 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM

So conservatives like freeloaders? Can people that don’t have insurance guarantee that they won’t show up in the emergency room?

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 16, 2012 at 11:41 AM

I thought that under 0bamacare even Mexican Nationals can cross the border to get their FREE [aka. Taxpayer funded] 0bamacare.

DannoJyd on March 16, 2012 at 11:46 AM

So conservatives like freeloaders? Can people that don’t have insurance guarantee that they won’t show up in the emergency room?

0bamaderangementsyndrom

If you can make people buy insurance why can’t you make people pay for the services they use when they show up at the emergency room?

Mr Snuggle Bunny on March 16, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Ed is incorrect in one part of his analysis as to the auto insurance. States generally mandate only Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) coverage, otherwise known as “No Fault” coverage. This coverage pays the medical bills of each driver and his passengers regardless of who is at fault in the accident, i.e., “No Fault.” However, No Fault coverage does not pay for property damage (that is why you get collision and/or comprehensive coverage).

Thus, Ed is incorrect when he says that mandated “No Fault” coverage protects others. Actually, it protects you and your passengers. However, it has a sort of umbrella effect because every insured driver has No Fault coverage, so the distinction as to who it protects gets wiped out to some extent.

Also, I wouldn’t be so sure that there is no registration or insurance requirement for vehicles driven only on private property. Maybe some states have that allowance, but I would think that most states would require insurance and registration anyway because driving it outside of the private property is easy and there is no way to keep track of drivers who do so. Until they get into an accident.

JoeShmoe99 on March 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM

So conservatives like freeloaders? Can people that don’t have insurance guarantee that they won’t show up in the emergency room?

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 16, 2012 at 11:41 AM

I thought that under 0bamacare even Mexican Nationals can cross the border to get their FREE [aka. Taxpayer funded] 0bamacare.

DannoJyd on March 16, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Straw man argument. That is a boarder issue. Fact is the medical profession cannot turn people that need healthcare away. And healthcare expenses prior to Obama care is one of the BIGGEST unfunded liabilities.
This law makes sure that everyone is chipping in for their own healthcare. It is not similar to Car Insurance because if you drive you can be arrested without insurance or cited. This approach only works for small claims car insurance. But how are you going to cite people who go to emergency room and rack up 100k+ bill and can’t pay?
Since people can’t guarantee not to get sick, not having insurance presents a liability to the state because they have to be covered when they inevitably show up at some point at the hospital without insurance and cannot pay.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 16, 2012 at 11:53 AM

So conservatives like freeloaders? Can people that don’t have insurance guarantee that they won’t show up in the emergency room?

0bamaderangementsyndrom

If you can make people buy insurance why can’t you make people pay for the services they use when they show up at the emergency room?

Mr Snuggle Bunny on March 16, 2012 at 11:47 AM

How many people have say 100K+ laying around. Ask anyone who has spent a week in the hospital. The bills pile up really really quick. If you wife gives birth at the hospital and spends a day you are looking at 20K+ right there. Auto accidents can get above 10K in just a few days. Most people don’t pay, because most people don’t have the money those big sums of money.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM

I don’t want my health insurance to be compared to car insurance. I can live without a car.

RebeccaH on March 16, 2012 at 11:58 AM

JoeShmoe99 on March 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Wrong. Only about 12 states are no-fault states for PIP. Compulsory insurance and financial responsibility laws apply to liability for bodily injury or property damage done to others.

Lost in Jersey on March 16, 2012 at 12:00 PM

I’ve told you folks before of my long-running argument with Allstate. They refuse to pay for new tires for my truck. My argument is that by buying my new tires for me, it will reduce greatly the chances of a bad wreck on the highway in the future that will cost them far more. It’s like an investment on their part. They hang up on me a lot lately.

Kind of like the free birth-control pills.

slickwillie2001 on March 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM

I heard that Rutherford B. Hayes called Obama and asked if he should go on the View.

askwhatif on March 16, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Most people don’t pay, because most people don’t have the money those big sums of money.
 
0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM

 
Sums of money exactly like mortgages and car loans?

rogerb on March 16, 2012 at 12:08 PM

I’ve told you folks before of my long-running argument with Allstate. They refuse to pay for new tires for my truck. My argument is that by buying my new tires for me, it will reduce greatly the chances of a bad wreck on the highway in the future that will cost them far more. It’s like an investment on their part. They hang up on me a lot lately.

Kind of like the free birth-control pills.

slickwillie2001 on March 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Excellent post!!

Bitter Clinger on March 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM

The constant movement of the Obama Admin’s legal arguments smack of desperation.

Bitter Clinger on March 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Have faith. Even with the Necessary and Proper Clause, the government must prove that the mandate is both necessary AND proper. There is a significant fact in Gonzales v. Raich that distinguishes it from the Obamacare mandate. In Raich, the government sought to prevent an activity; i.e., growing marijuana for medical purposes, through Federal law and regulations. In the instant case, the government seeks to compel individuals to act so that they can be regulated. There is no activity without the mandate. This distinction is notable, too, in separating the Obamacare mandate from Wickard v. Filburn, which involved a farmer engaged in the activity of growing wheat.

I wrote a piece on the mandate and the law quite some time ago if anyone is interested:

Obamacare: Do Not Resuscitate

I find it hard to believe that Scalia will buy into the notion that the N&P Clause can be used by the Federal government to compel Americans to enter into third-party contracts for the provision of government-approved goods or services as a condition of good citizenship. The N&P Clause has never been used to compel individual behaviour and I don’t see Scalia finding that a law mandating activity by the Federal government to be a proper exercise of Federal power.

The Federal government does not have plenary power of over citizens and the several states.

Resist We Much on March 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM

The salesman does a decent Eric Idle.

Jack Deth on March 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM

You’re required to carry auto insurance when you purchase a car so if you run into somebody else that person doesn’t have to bear the costs of repair from your activity.

You’ll be required to carry health insurance so if you have to go to the emergency room, have surgery, or get really sick and can’t pay your bills because you don’t have any insurance that somebody else doesn’t have to bear the costs through rising health care premiums due to lost revenue by the hospitals and doctors for services rendered but left unpaid.

It’s making people be responsible for their own health care costs rather than allowing folks to just roll into the emergency and get treatment then roll right back out with the costs passed on to paying responsible customers.

Either mandate health insurance coverage or eliminate the requirement that hospitals treat everybody regardless of whether they are insured or can pay.

It was the conservative approach to the problem until Obama did it and it became the ultimate evil. It was the conservative alternative to avoid moving towards a single payer system. Fact.

Boomer_Sooner on March 16, 2012 at 12:18 PM

How about “Paul insurance”. You send money to my paypal account, and I don’t insult you, and if enough people send money, I don’t spam or troll the message boards. You wouldn’t want me to do that, would you? It’s a win-win for everyone. My vision of how a society should be. It’s a wonderful vision. It’s like car insurance. The same thing, really.

Paul-Cincy on March 16, 2012 at 12:24 PM

The Administration isn’t interested in a cogent argument. They are only interested in convincing enough people they’re right (although this won’t help at the SC).

And you have to admit, it’s a good argument to sway the uninformed, which is most of the nation. But Chu would be confused.

It’s all a mess for many reasons, but here are a few
- everyone believes health care is a right
- risk doesn’t seem to fit into the equation, hence moral hazard applies
- why should employers be involved in health care anyway (I know, WWII price controls, etc.)

If health insurance actually covered risk, there would ultimately be money to help those who need it, etc.

williampeck1958 on March 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM

And healthcare expenses prior to Obama care is one of the BIGGEST unfunded liabilities.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have unfunded liabilities in the neighbourhood of $211 trillion.

What has Obama done to address the unsustainability of those entitlements?

Nothing. That would take courage….something the Man of Steal doesn’t have.

Oh, and they are unsustainable, as I have proven here with data from the government:

“Lies” About Social Security and Medicare Pandering Politicians Never Told You

Resist We Much on March 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM

To portray it more accurately the customer should have come in and said he’d just had a wreck and totaled his car, and now wants to buy an insurance policy that will cover his pre-existing car damage. When the salesman asks why he wasn’t already paying for the $4000 a year policy, the customer could had said that he had chosen to pay the $750 a year penalty for not having a policy until he needed one.

I’m only a few years above the half century mark. I still remember Dad having Blue Cross for hospitalization and nothing else. Medicare had just come about so price setting by the feds was in it’s infancy. We could afford to go to the doctor when we were sick. And I mean actually sick. Coughs and colds were treated with over the counter meds.

Since the intervention of the feds into health care, they set a price. Even if a doctor can do the procedure for less, he’s going to charge what will be paid. Medical billing has become so complex, it prevents patients from even knowing how to suspect incorrect billing. Almost like it was designed that way….

The problem isn’t health care, it’s the government being involved.

TugboatPhil on March 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM

How many people have say 100K+ laying around. Ask anyone who has spent a week in the hospital. The bills pile up really really quick. If you wife gives birth at the hospital and spends a day you are looking at 20K+ right there. Auto accidents can get above 10K in just a few days. Most people don’t pay, because most people don’t have the money those big sums of money.

0bamaderangementsyndrom

You started out saying everyone should buy insurance. Now you’ve changed arguments (just like your master is prearing to do before the Supreme Court) to some people can’t pay. That alone betrays volumes about the poverty of your position.

Get government out of the business of running business. They suck at it. They’ve never done it right. They invite corruption and fraud. Stay out of my life. Leave me alone. Pay your own damned way.

I swear to Dog liberals are the biggest bunch of losers. Never have I seen a people who take such pride on being dependent upon their obvious betters. There is nothing you people are capable of providing for yourselves. By your own pleadings you are the biggest bunch of useless, half-educated, spineless layabouts. Everything you propose is one more demand you be supplied with something taken from somebody else because you are too helpless to provide for yourself. You don’t deserve to be free because you demand to be kept. Natural Selection called, it said get out of the gene pool.

Mr Snuggle Bunny on March 16, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Boomer_Sooner on March 16, 2012 at 12:18 PM

1. Auto insurance is a state issue. The Federal government cannot force you to purchase auto insurance even though you use the Interstate Highway System and could have a negative impact on interstate commerce…Say you are a drunk driver and crash into a truck driver carrying a load of highly flammable materials causing an explosion that renders a heavily-traveled bridge or stretch of interstate inoperative for months.

2. Driving is a privilege. States can tie reasonable conditions to privileges they allow and regulated.

3. No one is required to obtain auto insurance if they do not drive or own a vehicle.

4. Auto insurance is only required when operating a vehicle on public property. You can drive your uninsured vehicle on your private property as much as you like.

5. States only require drives/auto owners to carry liability insurance or, in those states that allow self-insurance, to post a bond covering potential damage to others. States do not require anyone to carry collision. If you do not have collision insurance and have an accident, you must pay for the damage to your property out of your own pocket.

There is absolutely no comparison between auto insurance and the Obamacare mandate. None and those that argue that there is are ignorant of the law and the realities of how both would work.

Resist We Much on March 16, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Mr Snuggle Bunny on March 16, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Most people can’t pay for their hospital care without insurance in major medical events. I don’t think I’m overreaching with this claim. We have two choice, either we pass a law saying anybody without insurance coverage must not be treated at the hospital no matter what or we have people chip in for their own insurance one way or another. Because most people can’t afford to pay out of pocket for their medical bills.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 16, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Most people can’t pay for their hospital care without insurance in major medical events. I don’t think I’m overreaching with this claim. We have two choice, either we pass a law saying anybody without insurance coverage must not be treated at the hospital no matter what or we have people chip in for their own insurance one way or another. Because most people can’t afford to pay out of pocket for their medical bills.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 16, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I thought Meidcare was supposed to take care of that. Ever stop to think of where government went wrong if they couldn’t solve the problem the first time?

gryphon202 on March 16, 2012 at 12:43 PM

So conservatives like freeloaders? Can people that don’t have insurance guarantee that they won’t show up in the emergency room?

0bamaderangementsyndrom

We libertarians like freedom. On the other hand, I thought that you Progs were PRO-CHOICE?

Can you tell me why, as a 34 year-old, highly-educated, financially-secure, healthy woman, I should not be allowed to decide what kind of health insurance policy best serves my personal, physical, and economic interests?

I carry a major medical policy. I see a doctor once or twice a year. I pay for visits and scripts out-of-pocket…happily. Beginning in 2014, I will no longer be “permitted” to as a result of laws and regulations enacted by the so-called “pro-choice,” “pro-women” Democrats. I will be forced to purchase a minimum benefits package; i.e., a policy with a bunch of shyt that I neither want nor need.

If you guys are expecting a “thank you” from this woman, you should prepare yourself for a substitution of the “thank.”

Resist We Much on March 16, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Okay… that video was officially awesome. {applause}
I love it when something as innately ridiculous as Obamacare is treated like the bumbling buffoonery it is.

Murf76 on March 16, 2012 at 12:47 PM

The leftists are ignoring the fact that Auto Insurance does not give government unfettered access to ALL OF YOUR BANK ACCOUNTS like Obamacare does!!!

Obamacare does not require that you get notice, and does not provide for a hearing or even an appeal. If some bureaucrat feels you owe money for Obamacare (justified or not)…or simply doesn’t like you and decides to use Obamacare as an excuse…he can drain ALL of your money from ALL of your bank and/or brokerage accounts.

Obamacare also effectively eliminates all Medical Privacy: forget any protections under HIPPA: bureaucrats have access to ALL of your medical records, with no prohibition against sharing ALL of the information…even if it is wrong. You have no rights to protect or correct the information.

landlines on March 16, 2012 at 12:48 PM

The two are nowhere near analogous.

Dante on March 16, 2012 at 1:06 PM

The two are nowhere near analogous.

Dante on March 16, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Would you care to try your hand at explaining why not? Or has that been sufficiently covered in this thread already?

gryphon202 on March 16, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Man of Steal!
Ha. I love that.
I enjoy your informative posts Resist We Much.

jazzuscounty on March 16, 2012 at 1:34 PM

This is scary. If the college I work at as a janitor is forced to provide insurance including birth control it’ll be the end of religious freedom and I’ll never be allowed to go to church again.

plewis on March 16, 2012 at 1:37 PM

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 16, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Implicit is your assumption that the only options are ObamaCare and the status quo.

If health insurance laws were reformed so that, for instance, companies could compete across state lines, tort laws were reformed so that doctor’s couldn’t be sued for lack of omniscience, and states were given more power to handle the problem of the “underinsured” how they saw fit, then health insurance prices would drop. Dropping prices would lead toward more people getting it.

Also, people can get hospital care without insurance, and they can pay for it without insurance. I’ve never heard of a hospital that doesn’t have a billing depeartment that will let you set up payments. It’s not nearly the problem you seem to think it is.

But if the hospitals in an individual state is having a problem with hospitals getting stiffed, they can deal with the matter in their own way, per the Constitution.

Frankly, not paying a hospital for a major surgery would be like a $10K “lack of payment” on your credit report. I submit to you that anyone that is willing to destroy their credit like that is just going to ignore the mandate and ignore the tax. So guess what, they’re going to freeload anyway. What, you gonna arrest them? Gonna round up all the hobos and all the irresponsible college students, send ‘em to Federal prison?

Yeah. Sure. As long as they’re not illegal aliens, right?

apollyonbob on March 16, 2012 at 1:41 PM

So conservatives like freeloaders? Can people that don’t have insurance guarantee that they won’t show up in the emergency room?

0bamaderangementsyndrom

So you like the mafia approach huh?
Government and liberals make us pay for someone else’s way, then demands control over our lives to make it “more affordable” and “fair” and then accuses us of supporting freeloaders of we don’t go along with their even more draconian schemes?

gwelf on March 16, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Most people can’t pay for their hospital care without insurance in major medical events. I don’t think I’m overreaching with this claim. We have two choice, either we pass a law saying anybody without insurance coverage must not be treated at the hospital no matter what or we have people chip in for their own insurance one way or another. Because most people can’t afford to pay out of pocket for their medical bills.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 16, 2012 at 12:40 PM

We don’t need laws regulating most of any of this. It’s not a choice between a law that prevents people from getting care without insurance or a law that makes everyone pay for something regardless if they want it or object to it or not. There is this third option called liberty and personal responsibility. A government enforced middleman between a consumer and the product/service like insurance only makes things more expensive and less available to people.

gwelf on March 16, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Boiling it all down, if you don’t have a car (or drivers license*), you do not need auto insurance. You aren’t driving, so there is no need, and no requirement.

*In NC, if you want a DL and are over 18, you must carry a form of insurance, even if you do not own a car, because the presumption is that you will drive.

William Teach on March 16, 2012 at 1:54 PM

If they are trying to work on Scalia, does this mean they’re not counting on Kennedy? Is that bad news or good?

Odysseus on March 16, 2012 at 1:55 PM

I’ve got a better car related argument for Rep. Speier and the rest of the ObamaCare supporters:

1: Can Congress raise the CAFE standard to 200 MPG? I believe that would pass Constitutional muster.
2: Could Congress, and the same time, issue an individual mandate requiring every household with one or more licensed driver to buy a new car every 5 years, on the grounds that the mandate was “necessary” since otherwise the car companies would all go out of business?

I’d say the answer to #2 is no, and that there’s no legal difference between that and the ObamaCare individual mandate.

Agree? Disagree?

Greg Q on March 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM

and say the new law’s purpose was to reform the overall system.

The Hill thinks that Obama and his team have moved to this argument in order to get Antonin Scalia on board with the mandate. Good luck with that. If Scalia bought that argument, it would make the restrictions on Congressional power in the Constitution meaningless.

Weak thinking here, methinks. Scalia voted for Kelo, I believe, and there was no constitutional justification for the arbitrary confiscation of one’s private property. The government in essence then owns (they pretend you do so you have to pay taxes) all property -because their exists no property in America that an agency can’t “merely THINK” it can make a better use “profit” with… (Let’s not forget that Money is property -property is money)

Row V wade, with its absurd emanations from penumbras showed the folly of letting the SC determine what our forefathers clearly recognized. Our rights come from God -they are inalieable, and no handful of robed lawyers or faux messiahs can either tamper with them or take them away outright.

Many died to preserve that reality, and I suspect that many more will continue to die for that cause.

Don L on March 16, 2012 at 2:03 PM

“How many people have say 100K+ laying around. Ask anyone who has spent a week in the hospital. The bills pile up really really quick. If you wife gives birth at the hospital and spends a day you are looking at 20K+ right there. Auto accidents can get above 10K in just a few days. Most people don’t pay, because most people don’t have the money those big sums of money.”

That is why affordable catastrophic health care insurance is a good idea. Dems don’t want this, they want the whole system.

Bulletchaser on March 16, 2012 at 2:04 PM

jazzuscounty on March 16, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Thanks. :-)

If they are trying to work on Scalia, does this mean they’re not counting on Kennedy? Is that bad news or good?

Odysseus on March 16, 2012 at 1:55 PM

I don’t think it is necessarily an either/or approach on their part; however, Kennedy has a libertarian streak. Recently, he wrote an “ode to Federalism” in United States v. Bond that I would read as a bad omen, if I were the administration. Trying to get Scalia on N&P is a definite change in tactics, but as I argued above, I still believe that it is a loser. Raich is distinguishable from the Obamacare mandate in that it involved a law to prevent individual activity (growing marijuana) and the mandate would compel individuals to act so that the government could regulate them (forcing citizens to enter into third-party contracts under duress, which would undermine basic tenets of contract law, but that’s another subject for another day).

In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), the Court held that, while the Constitution did not explicitly give permission to create a federal bank, it had the implied power to do so under the Necessary and Proper Clause in order to realise or fulfill its express taxing and spending powers. This fundamental case established the following two principles:

1. The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution’s express powers, in order to create a functional national government.

2. State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.

“We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional,” C.J. John Marshall, writing for the majority in McCulloch.

McCulloch does not stand for the proposition that Congress has plenary power over citizens and the several states nor has its powers been granted to a body in absolute terms, with no review of, or limitations upon, the exercise of the power. “Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the Constitution, or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the Government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land.” McCulloch, supra.

In Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926, the Court upheld a law restricting medicinal use of alcohol as a necessary and proper exercise of power under the Eighteenth Amendment establishing Prohibition in the United States. The Federal government was empowered to act against the possession or consumption of alcohol. The law was both necessary and proper to carry out its powers authorised under the Eighteenth Amendment. On the other hand, in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), the Court recognised that it was proper for Congress to address the problem of what to do with radioactive waste and that this national issue was complicated by the political reluctance of the states to deal with the problem individually; however, it ruled that the “take title” incentive of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 was an attempt to “commandeer” the state governments by directly compelling them to participate in the federal regulatory program. The federal government “crossed the line distinguishing encouragement from coercion.”

These are just two examples. No one can deny that the Federal government had the necessary authority to prohibit the production and sale of alcohol after the passage of the 18th Amendment. Regulating the use of medicinal alcohol under the Commerce Clause was a proper exercise of Federal power to achieve its mandate under the 18th Amendment. On the other hand, however, while everyone can agree that the handling of radioactive waste is a pressing concern and that it is necessary for the Feds to address the matter, the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the power to compel states to act in certain ways regardless of whether such compliance would be necessary for the Federal government to achieve its necessary goal of regulating radioactive waste.

Resist We Much on March 16, 2012 at 2:17 PM

If people were born with an engine and 4 wheels then the analogy would make sense.

Wigglesworth on March 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

So would Transformers be required to buy auto insurance or health insurance? //

dentarthurdent on March 16, 2012 at 2:45 PM

There is no “mandatory responsibility to carry auto insurance”, and I know plenty of people that don’t have auto insurance.

blink on March 16, 2012 at 11:10 AM

As Ed stated, it depends on what state you live in, whether you have a driver’s license, and whether you drive on public roads.
True, there is no federal mandate for insurance – which is the first breakdown in the Dems’ argument/analogy. The second breakdown is that if you don’t drive on public roads you don’t need a license and therefore don’t need insurance.

I’m wondering when we’ll get to the stage with auto insurance where I can just wait til I have an accident and THEN go buy the insurance to cover it. Should save a lot of money…//

dentarthurdent on March 16, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Ed – I really wish you would take that video off auto play. Every time I change pages or post a comment it starts playing again – irritating as he!!.

dentarthurdent on March 16, 2012 at 2:51 PM

The two are nowhere near analogous.

Dante on March 16, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Very true – for the reasons Ed stated.
So why do libs/Dems keep using the auto insurance analogy to justify Obummercareless?

dentarthurdent on March 16, 2012 at 2:56 PM

PLus the fact that risk assessment plays almost no role in insurance pricing for autos these days…even a liability policy is priced according to credit score. If they think health insurance is expensive now…wait until it’s forced on you as a requirement and there is no competition, they can price it at whatever level they want…and you still have to buy it!

BadMojo on March 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM

I don’t buy that part about risk assessment at all. They absolutely do base rates on your driving record, where you live, how many miles a year you drive, whether the car is in a garage or not, how expense are repairs for your car, etc.
When my son had a wreck my rates for him to drive went up a lot. When each of my sons got tickets, rates went up, but not nearly as much as for the accident. That is risk assessment based rates.

dentarthurdent on March 16, 2012 at 3:03 PM

This is scary. If the college I work at as a janitor is forced to provide insurance including birth control it’ll be the end of religious freedom and I’ll never be allowed to go to church again.

plewis on March 16, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Don’t be silly! Of course you can still go to church. The federal government will make sure that your church’s doctrine meets federal government requirements-no worries. You know they’ll take care of you. Next year, they’ll be providing Obama and Sibelius icons free of charge to all religious institutions, institutes of higher learnging and businesses as well.

talkingpoints on March 16, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Congress should force auto insurance to cover birth control, based on the amount of sex kids have in the back seat of cars.

I guess it could be covered under the “collision” section.

malclave on March 16, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Driving is a privilege. Existing is a human right. Evidently, Obama and the Dems think existing is a privilege.

Christien on March 16, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Too bad Acme Auto Insurance didn’t keep the recording of Obama’s call to file a claim. We would all be laughing, too.

Christien on March 16, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Shhhhh, or this will be next.

Kissmygrits on March 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Driving is a privilege. Existing is a human right.

Christien on March 16, 2012 at 4:25 PM

And first-class American healthcare is a privilege.

Either we start requiring people to buy insurance so the system gets funded, eliminate the requirement that everyone must be treated, or watch the system slowly collapse from lack of money.

Those our the only three choices we’ve got, people. There are no easy-outs to this problem.

MelonCollie on March 16, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Clever video!

itsnotaboutme on March 16, 2012 at 8:49 PM