Quote:
Originally Posted by dmead
When i register my car every year with the DMV i am required to show proof of insurance. The state of CA also requires Insurance companies to notify them of a lapse in coverage. a letter will be sent out to the insured and if new insurance isn't presented to the state your registration is suspended.
now my question is, how is this constitutional but requiring an individual to carry health insurance unconstitutional?
Let me make myself clear too, i am no fan of this bill. I just don't understand what is unconstituional about requiring insurance.
|
Car insurance is a state requirement, not a Federal requirement. The Federal government is Constitutionally restricted to certain roles, with the rest of the rights reserved for the states and individuals. See Article I, Section 8 for what the Federal Government is allowed to do, and the 10th Amendment. Try to pick out which clause in Section 8 allows it.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
There are also alternatives to having car insurance in many states. You can post a bond in some cases or self insure. And if you drive a vehicle only on private property like say a farm and don't hit public roads, you can go uninsured. That used to be the case in CA. Not sure if it still is. But again it is the state that legislates this, not the Feds.
Also, the required car insurance is to cover the damage to other other people's vehicles/property and for other people's medical care. If you own your car outright, you don't need to insure it. You can also refuse treatment if the paramedics show up.
Here's a NY Times op-ed from a former CBO Director on how rigged the inputs into CBO calculation were:
Op-Ed Contributor - The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform - NYTimes.com