why is it law to buy car insurance?

Easiest way to first, control you, second, redistribute your paycheck to special groups that aren’t forced to live under the same mandate–you know, unions and Congress.

The democrats tried to make them unprofitable, so this was the compromise. Millions of new customers should assuage their losses. I think the whole thinks wreaks past Jupiter.

Because a handful of conservative Democrats (i.e., corporate whores) were opposed to the public option, and the Republicans’ obstructionism meant that 60 votes (i.e., the votes of every single Democrat) were required to pass the Senate bill.

….uber radical conservatives were going to burn down america if universal health care had passed ….they bullied a watered down H.C. Bill onto Americans….

Did you know medicare denies more claims than any of the private insurance companies do?

The mandate is not about whether or not you have health insurance, it’s about going toward a single payer system the government controls. When everyone is in the pool, and medical records are no longer private, the government has the power to control your medical care.

I fear there will be more of the denials going on than ever before, once this all gets enacted.

As to the point another person posted in response to this question. Car insurance is mandated by the states, and NOT the federal government. You must at least protect the interest of the other drivers you share the road with. That is part of your driving privilege. You do not have the right to drive, that is a privilege that must be paid for.

Well, it does and it doesn’t. It mandates that everyone buy health insurance in the same manner that the Ten Commandments mandates not taking the name of the Lord in vain. It says don’t do it, but provides no penalty (at least, in this life).

I have read the entire Bill…I don’t have a life!

It is being bandied about that the Bill ‘forces’ people to buy something, i.e., health insurance. Supporters of the Bill will say that this is so, because one of the ways it is supposed to cut down costs is that it supposedly forces the young and healthy–who usually do not get sick and often never need health care until they are much older–to buy health insurance that statistics confirm they will probably not use. If people who are not likely to make a claim are made to buy insurance, it strengthens the insurance companies and–theoretically–drives down costs for individual policies.

The opponents of the Bill are screaming that it is somehow unconstitutional to ‘force’ anyone to buy anything, in the face of the Interstate Commerce sections of the Constitution which the government has always used to do just that, and has always been upheld by the Supreme Court–try not paying your SS payroll deduction if you’d like to test the theory.

The joke on both the supporters and the opponents–and this is where actually reading the bill comes in handy–is that the penalty portion of the Bill is purposely unenforceable. In other words, there is no mechanism in the law to extract the so-called penalty one is allegedly liable to pay if one does not buy insurance. In the drafts there was an enforceable penalty, but it was so watered down that, in effect, there is no way to collect said penalty.

The supporters don’t want you to know that this cost-cutting provision is not enforceable because that would mean that the actual cost-cutting is problematic at best. The opponents don’t want to mention this either, because it negates their ‘it is unconstitutional’ talking point.

There are, of course, a number of very good provisions; getting rid of the pre-existing conditions, lifetime cost caps, the ability of the insurance companies to drop you if you get sick, etc. But there is much nonsense also.

The reality is: very few supporters or opponents have actually read the Bill they are fighting about. They are merely trading talking points.

Having read the Bill myself, I know. Do you wonder why I am so cynical?

.