Another fantastic straw man from the shameless promoters of universal health care. Here is the premise: It is not unreasonable to have a health care mandate, since it is good for everyone and is no different from auto insurance [which is mandated with penalties for non-compliance].
1. Auto insurance that is mandated by the [state] government(s) is to protect other people, not you. You are required to carry liability insurance to cover damages to other personnel or property, not yourself. Lenders however, require insurance levels, which protect their investment – the car. If you do not want to carry collision insurance for repairs, you buy your car outright and are the only owner. You can also choose the level of coverage, for example towing, rental reimbursement, and roadside assistance.
2. If you do not drive a car, you are not required to carry insurance. Urban dwellers, children, and the elderly who do not drive automobiles are not required to carry automobile insurance of any kind.
3. Most importantly, a health insurance mandate instituted by the federal government is unconstitutional. Auto insurance requirements are at the state level and such decisions are reserved by the state according to the Constitution of the United States. The 10th Amendment of the US Constitution states, “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.”
You bring up three very interesting points.
First you are correct, the state does not demand that you buy Physical Damage insurance to cover a loss to your own car, the state just demands that you have coverage for the damage you might do to someone’s person or property.
Secondly you are again correct when you state If you do not drive a car, you are not required to carry insurance. I could point out that if you are an Owner/non-driver, you will need car insurance- but for the most part you are correct.
Your third point that a health insurance mandate instituted by the federal government is unconstitutional, falls under the heading “Unsettled-Law”.
The federal Government does pass laws that are national is scope. The simple truth is if a health insurance mandate instituted by the federal government was clearly unconstitutional, we would not see so many people fighting so hard to stop the bill.
Nor do you need a drivers license to drive. My brother learned to drive (stick shift) when he was twelve. In a dump truck. On my uncle’s farm.
Larry — “if a health insurance mandate instituted by the federal government was clearly unconstitutional, we would not see so many people fighting so hard to stop the bill.”
What? That is all the more reason to fight it. There are a lot of unconstitutional laws on the books. Thus the complaint of judges “legislating from the bench”, which is to say putting their personal preferences above the clear intent of law.
Go read the Constitution, and then tell me where in it the Federal Government is empowered to mandate a minimum wage that I must pay the (hypothetical) teenager who sweeps my floor. And yet….