Check out some similar questions!

speechlesstx · Mar 16, 2012, 09:07 AM

What if Obamacare Really was Like Auto Insurance?

excon · Mar 16, 2012, 09:18 AM

Hello Steve:

What makes Jon Stewart funny, is that HIS stuff has the ring of truth.. THIS, is just pure bunk.

The fellow in your video DOES say that he sold his car. That would be consistent with the guy giving up his body. In other words, he's DEAD. Obamacare mandates, no matter HOW invasive they are, you don't have to pay them when you're critically DEAD!

excon

tomder55 · Mar 16, 2012, 09:47 AM

Obamacare forces you to purchase or pay a penalty just because you exist. You only purchase auto insurance if you own a car. If I have a license and don't own a car ? It is not required . If I'm a pedestrian that has to cross the street ? Nope... no insurance necessary .

Obamacare insures you.. The part of auto insurance that covers you is voluntary (comprehensive ) . The only part of it that is mandatory is to cover injury or property of the person you get into an accident with (liability ) .

Auto insurance does NOT cover maintenance of any kind or even routine repair . It only covers what in the health insurance equivalence would be catastrophic care . Imagine the cost of auto insurance if you had coverage for gas ,oil change ,tune up ,and tire change ?

Wondergirl · Mar 16, 2012, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Obamacare forces you to purchase or pay a penalty just because you exist.

Otherwise, you'll be picking up the tab.

If you don't have auto insurance, I end up paying for damages you caused.

tomder55 · Mar 16, 2012, 10:21 AM

You are missing the point . I have no problem with the mandatory liability auto coverage .

There is no requirement for you to cover my losses if I don't have comprehensive coverage ,and that is as it should be.

The commerce clause has already been twisted beyond recognition by progressive laws and court decisions. If it can be used to force people to purchase a product or pay a fine for not purchasing it then there are no limits to federal government powers.

Wondergirl · Mar 16, 2012, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

There is no requirement for you to cover my losses if I don't have comprehensive coverage ,and that is as it should be.

No, but if I'm hit and end up with PD (property damage) and BI (bodily injury) caused by an uninsured driver...

tomder55 · Mar 16, 2012, 10:27 AM

Again... that's a liability issue that is covered by auto insurance .There is no mandate for me to purchase auto insurance to cover me or my property loss.

Wondergirl · Mar 16, 2012, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Again ... that's a liability issue that is covered by auto insurance .There is no mandate for me to purchase auto insurance to cover me or my property loss.

Right. So I end up paying for damage you cause me.

tomder55 · Mar 16, 2012, 10:41 AM

What are you talking about ? Mandatory liability is required . THAT COVERS YOU in the case of an accident with me! Comprehensive coverage for me is NOT required .

Obamacare is the equivalent of comprehensive coverage .

speechlesstx · Mar 16, 2012, 10:46 AM

The point is this Rep is arguing Obamacare will be upheld based on the states' auto liability requirements.

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.”

Liability is to cover damage done to others, not me, while performing a voluntary activity.

Wondergirl · Mar 16, 2012, 10:47 AM

Do you know how many uninsured drivers there are driving around?? Insurance coverage may be mandated, but people apparently don't always buy it.

tomder55 · Mar 16, 2012, 11:00 AM

That's a horse of a different color. What they did was illegal. Evidently the mandate to medical self insurance will also make one a criminal... hence the fine.But how are they hurting anyone else ?

Wondergirl · Mar 16, 2012, 11:02 AM

If they hit me while uninsured and I have both PD and BI, they are hurting someone else.

If people have no medical insurance, I end up paying for their Medicaid coverage.

tomder55 · Mar 16, 2012, 11:25 AM

There is no guarantee of medical care if they are not insured... even if they pay the fine. You do know that this has the greatest negative impact on the poor... don't you ? The individual mandate falls more heavily on low and moderate income families. They will be required to enroll in health insurance plans , and if they don't do so pay a fine or a tax that they do not pay today. These added costs will mean these households have less discretion to spend their limited resources on other priorities, such as food or housing.

Wondergirl · Mar 16, 2012, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

there is no guarantee of medical care if they are not insured....even if they pay the fine. You do know that this has the greatest negative impact on the poor ...don't you ? The individual mandate falls more heavily on low and moderate income families. They will be required to enroll in health insurance plans , and if they don’t do so pay a fine or a tax that they do not pay today. These added costs will mean these households have less discretion to spend their limited resources on other priorities, such as food or housing.

So I am stuck footing the bill for their healthcare?

speechlesstx · Mar 16, 2012, 01:00 PM

Speaking of Texas and health care. Texas defunded Planned Parenthood so what did Obama do? He cut off all federal funds for the Texas’ Women’s Health Program. Apparently Obama cares more about Planned Parenthood than he does women's health. And since our governor is OK with funding the program without the feds' help it sure sounds to me like Obama is the one waging a war on women.

paraclete · Mar 16, 2012, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

there is no guarantee of medical care if they are not insured....even if they pay the fine. You do know that this has the greatest negative impact on the poor ...don't you ? The individual mandate falls more heavily on low and moderate income families. They will be required to enroll in health insurance plans , and if they don’t do so pay a fine or a tax that they do not pay today. These added costs will mean these households have less discretion to spend their limited resources on other priorities, such as food or housing.

Man we could sure teach you guys something about providing affordable health care

DoulaLC · Mar 16, 2012, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

Man we could sure teach you guys something about providing affordable health care

Just as in the UK, "affordable" is debated and often depends on where you live in the country.

You pay one way or the other with any system. Many have incorporated paid private coverage to go along with, or subsidise, the national coverage. This has, in turn, caused even more wait times for services for some nationals, and fewer options in care.

There is no question that the American system can use some tweaking, but not sure if they want to go the NHS type route. It can only sustain itself for so long and with higher costs, longer life spans, and fewer medical professionals, the cracks are showing.

tomder55 · Mar 16, 2012, 03:34 PM

So I am stuck footing the bill for their healthcare?

That is not really the relevant question. The question is if the system funded by mandatory purchase of a heath insurance policy is constitutional or not. If it is not ;I think the whole house of cards falls down . Not saying that a new version of socialist national health care won't replace it . But it will need new means to fund it .If it is Constitutional ;then the system just becomes another unsustainable entitlement .

I think that if a system like this is deemed Constitutional ,then we may as well scrap the document into the dustpan of history ,and go with Tut's model of trusting in the wisdom of a benevolent Levithian,for all our needs (even if that Levitian is democratically elected it perverts our system as envisioned by the Founders ) .

SCOTUS will hear arguments in a couple weeks ,and will probably create a major campaign issue with it's decision right before the Party conventions .

paraclete · Mar 16, 2012, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by DoulaLC

Just as in the UK, "affordable" is debated and often depends on where you live in the country.

You pay one way or the other with any system. Many have incorporated payed private coverage to go along with, or subsidise, the national coverage. This has, in turn, caused even more wait times for services for some nationals, and fewer options in care.

There is no question that the American system can use some tweaking, but not sure if they want to go the NHS type route. It can only sustain itself for so long and with higher costs, longer life spans, and fewer medical professionals, the cracks are showing.

Wasn't suggesting UK style NHS, look the cracks show up in any system particularly in a society that doesn't look after itsself, but there are much better models than the US system, there are only two people getting rich in the US system, the doctors and the Insurance companies.