Great Re-Post very well written. During the debate prior to Obamacare (which Ill refer to as ACA), and throughout the continuing debate, I have periodically seen mandatory car insurance compared to mandatory health insurance. This is a specious comparison. I am not in a position to defend a system in which we are forced to pay for roads, then forced to pay for car insurance to drive on said roads. However, there is an enormous difference between being forced to pay for something in order to drive on public roads, and being forced to pay for something due to the the fact that you are alive. The wrangling that even allowed ACA to exist is mind boggling. Obama repeatedly went out and said the individual mandate wasnt a tax, taxes would not go up, and continues to say that. Yet, it only passed the Supreme Court on the grounds that it is in fact a tax. The line that was crossed is a clear violation of our most basic of rights, and there is virtually no limit to where it can go from here. If I dont want to buy car insurance, I can move to a state in which its not mandatory, or I can refuse to drive. I can not simply refuse health insurance, even if I do not go to doctors. For instance, Christian Scientists will be forced to purchase health insurance, even if they never utilize it! We are forced by compulsion into a system so inept that a website that cost hundreds of millions of dollars cant even serve a few million visitors. We are bound by law to participate in a health care system corrupted by thousands upon thousands of pages of poorly proof read legislation and regulations (I wont even elaborate on this laws illogical, ridiculous, and inept nature). A few years ago, I was exactly the sort of person that ACA sought to leech off of, and it would have been to my detriment. I hadnt been to a doctor in years, had no known health issues, and made a choice not to purchase health insurance (I now have health insurance). This was my personal choice, something that I decided upon based on my financial situation (I will note that I have no debt whatsoever and have never taken a penny from the government), and the consequences of that choice were mine to face. In an overlapping period, I also did not have car insurance. I had lived in Germany over a year, returned to the United States, and didnt have a car for a little while. The present day laws are such that I wouldnt have been forced to purchase car insurance, but yes, I would have been required to purchase health insurance (or face a fine), even though I didnt need it, and wouldnt use it. The difference is clear, and the violation of my freedom in that regard is as clear. In a nanny state sort of way, the mandatory car insurance laws did pave the way for mandating health insurance. The notion that we all need insurance, for any purpose, is an absurd one and the government has no business making that choice for us. Insurance is generally a bad investment. If you listen to someone like Clark Howard, he will usually tell you to only purchase insurance to cover things that you cant afford to pay for otherwise. Insurance isnt magic, they take your money, they make a profit off of your money, and they give you some back when you need it. The only insurance most people should ever need is for catastrophic coverage. ACA takes even that logical choice from us, saying that not only must we purchase health insurance, but it has to provide a certain type of coverage for us. The notion that most of us can have cable TV, internet, and a cell phone, but not $100 or what not for a doctor visit is absurd. We have to pay for something, even if we dont need, or want it, even if its a bad economic choice. I cant defend mandatory car insurance laws. This all comes from the removal of individual responsibilities. It should be a given that if you take your car onto a public road, you are prepared to deal with the potential consequences. Apparently, that was the case for quite a while. It wasnt until the 60s and 70s that we saw most states adopt mandatory car insurance laws (the laws vary state by state, to the point that they are not really mandatory in all states). It is worth noting that we saw a period of great economic growth leading up to mandatory car insurance, it isnt as though the lack of legislation was preventing this country from being successful. The responsibility should always have been on the individual, and not the masses. My wife hasnt ever had a car wreck in America (or in Germany for that matter), to give an example. Yet, she has been forced to pay, year after year, in the sum of thousands of dollars to cover damage she might do to another car. Had she simply been able to set that money aside, she would have enough to buy a very nice brand new car. For those that must know, I would endorse a plan that saw consequences for anyone that causes a wreck, and potentially harsh consequences for those unable to cover damages they caused. What I can not, and do not support is a system that punishes everyone, for the irresponsibility of a few. I wont elaborate on the differences between a federal law, and state law, at length, but this is also a key. Federal laws are virtually inescapable in their jurisdiction, ineptitude, and politically motivated enforcement. Some federal laws are ignored, to the point that the federal government refuses to enforce them, or allow states to enforce them. On the other hand, the federal government can and will come into states and enforce laws, even if the state legislators have laws on the books legalizing the behavior. Rights should be universal (not privileges, some people get the two confused), and I wont defend any state violating rights, but the difference between the federal government forcing something on the entire nation, and a single state passing a law is enormous. The end result here is clear. ACA expands the influence, corruption, ineptitude, regulations, abuse, etc... of the federal government. It forces an enormous, cumbersome burden upon us all. Even if I needed the law, which I dont, even if I wanted it, which I dont, even if I would benefit from it, which I wont, it would still be a violation of my basic rights. My right to refuse care, my right to refuse to buy something I dont want, my right to make my own choices and face my own consequences. Nothing atones for that. - Philip
Posted on: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 05:53:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015