The recent comments comparing auto insurance to health insurance seem a bit confusing. I suppose that I could agree, at some level, that driving is a “privilege.” But, this is 2012, not 1912. We have a federal highway system, as well as state and county government roadways, with all the accompanying taxes, rules and regulations.
If I drive without a government issued license, then I can be arrested, fined or put in jail by the government. If I drive and break the government rules of the road, then I can be arrested, fined or put in jail by the government. If I drive without privately-issued auto insurance, then I can be arrested, fined and put in jail by the government. SOME PRIVILEGE.
Sure, sure, we mandate auto insurance so that all the idiots don’t cause irreparable pain and suffering to innocent people — to cover the costs. But, driving, in America today — individual, private, personal, transportation and mobility — is perhaps the most prized and valuable activity we have. Do we realize how much the American way of life depends upon that activity? Can you imagine if the government messed with that “privilege” — like some parent dealing with an unruly child? That would make the 2nd Amendment issues look piddly.
So, the government mandates that every single person who wants to drive must buy and carry privately-issued auto insurance, or the government takes away their privilege. Fine. Yet, with respect to living, life and death issues, we don’t want the government mandating that everyone has health insurance? Who covers all those costs for people who don’t have health insurance? Wanna guess? Say what you will, I just don’t get it. If the government, or whoever, can manage something as complex as the menagerie of auto insurance, couldn’t they figure out how to manage health care? It’s not working now.
John Latson
Mesa
Dale Whiting posted at 3:20 pm on Wed, Apr 4, 2012.
John,
Nice piece. And don't get me wrong. I agree that the healthcare mandate makes sense, Republican sence. For after all, conservatives first introduced the idea when opposing Bill&HillaryCare. But, here is the difference - and correct me if I'm wrong.
It is the individual state that mandates auto insurance. Individual states vary somewhat on what the minimum standards are. Using the same automobile insurance company, I insure three cars garaged in three difference states and I have to have two different policies because of these differences. And I wouldn't be surpised that Mitt has the same problem. He's got more vehicles and more different states than do I.
In order to 'coerce' all states to mandate auto insurance, federal highway dollars may be withheld. That way, with the Federal government collecting the taxes - you pay it with each and every gallon you pump - there is no direct, just indirect, interplay with the 'commerce clause.'
So should the Supremes strike Obamacare down, we have some alternatives. We could tax healthcare at the federal level and withhold payments to the states on such things as federal assistance to Medicaid or Medicare, requiring that each state have individual insurance mandates in order to get their share of our tax payments. Or
We could even try the original version of Obamacare, the public option. That's my favorite. For currently in most states the number of healthcare insurance companies doing business is limited. It's a healthcare insurance company effort to avoid direct competition. So much for free enterprise. Big healthcare insurance company business does not want competition.
But given the amount of political capital spend from the 'change we can believe in' bank the first time round, if we are to do something better, we'd better stop voting for "McConnellahollics' and 'Boehnalities.'
Now it's time for me to go buy some broccoli! My doctor and I have decided it's good for me! And I'm thinking about sending a bunch of broccoli to Scalia. He's not looking so well these days! Wouldn't want him to die.
samkat posted at 7:33 pm on Wed, Apr 4, 2012.
Well, my doctor told me not to eat broccoli since I have gout. :-)
Rich posted at 10:42 pm on Wed, Apr 4, 2012.
I love the headlines here, sometimes it's more fun to answer them than the oped piece. "They can manage auto insurance, but not health insurance?"
The problem with the proposition is simple, they can't manage auto insurance either. A fender bender will cost you more than it's worth, and if you were parked and a mile from your car, you're still 'half' at fault, then they raise the rate to cover any payment to you. They don't 'manage' it, it's a racket they support, and I really don't want it extended to my 'health.'
Dale Whiting posted at 3:16 pm on Thu, Apr 5, 2012.
Gang,
Changing the subject momentarily and briefly, does anyone out there know what's become of Masterrogue666? I've invited him to meet me for late breakfast on Saturday, after I've finished helping out with an Eagle Scout project in the neighborhood. He claims I have not responded to his prior responses to have me meet him. So I'm calling his bluff.
Rogue, the project starts at the City hall parking garage at 7:30 sharp. I doubt it will take more than one hour. So plan on my leaving at about 8:30. If you show up before 8:30 we can eat at Brunchies. But your choice of locations violates my 'glutten free' diet requirements. Brunchies does not!
Thanks for this indulgence John Latson. If you want to meet this Saturday, I'll buy you breakfast. Rogue can pay for his own!
chatmandu002 posted at 10:57 am on Fri, Apr 6, 2012.
John,
Other than the ADA being about the federal mandate through the commerce clause, what does your letter want to imply. What part of states rights under the constitution don't you understand. If the ADA federal mandate is upheld this country ceases to be the United States of American and becomes the Federal Republic of America. The federal government will assume control, through legislation, of all commerce. All power will be controlled from Washington D.C (aka, Capitol City). The Supreme Court has already ruled that federal laws have authority over states laws. Are we watching the beginnings of the "Hunger Games"?
VofReason posted at 12:11 pm on Fri, Apr 6, 2012.
Here is something, does anyone believe that the Government manages anything real well? Anyone want the Governement to manage their money? Why would you want them to manage your healthcare unless you cannot do it or pay for it yourself. Now we have the answer. If you are helpless, the Government is your friend.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:06 am on Sat, Apr 7, 2012.
VofReason,
You must be very upset with government, today's, yesterday's also. For with Social Security government manages your retirement, with Medicare, it manages your healthcare after retirement, and it manages your national defense [and offence, too]. I could go on and on and on and on.
What do you propose to do about all of this government management, revert to anarchy? Before 1620, native tribal government, small in comparison with the size of each native tribe's population, managed every aspect of their lives. Were it not so, they would have died!
VofReason, get reasonable. There are practical limits, and policy limits. So let's start discussing them "reasonably!"
NOW,
Where no one knows what's happened to Masterrogue666, and where John Latson has not taken me up on my offer for Brunchies, I'm going to eat breakfast at home, then go to the Eagle Scout project.
Dale Whiting posted at 3:23 am on Mon, Apr 9, 2012.
Is anyone surprised. Masterrogue was a "no show!"