There is a huge disagreement between auto insurance and health insurance. This article is an danger to end the misinformed repeating the analogy between the two as justification for health insurance as Obamacare requires. Now pay attention dammit!

Auto insurance is a lawful requirement IF YOU OWN A CAR OR HAVE A LICENSE TO DRIVE because of two fundamental law-based reasons – the VOLUNTARY engagement in commerce, and the need for the state to protect the public at broad from one’s exercise of that voluntary commerce.

The first is fundamentally obvious. If one is driving a vehicle they had to voluntarily engage in commerce. Unless one built a Fred Flintstone mobile they had to buy the vehicle from someone. That is commerce, thus government can score involved to regulate it. In some states the possession of a license to drive requires one to have auto insurance even if they do not maintain an auto. For folks who do not drive anything at any time, they can get a state issued ID and there is no insurance requirement. And in many states even if one has a license to drive, unless they own an auto they do not have to be insured. It differs by place.

To put a finer point on it, what if one drives for a living, a truck or taxicab let’s say, the company provides the insurance, no? So if one does not drive except the company vehicle, they likely are not required by law to have auto insurance, because they have no auto, unless they are in a state that requires insurance to fetch a permit to drive, and that is serene to protect the public in case the permit holder drives another private individual’s vehicle.

The second and more salient point is auto insurance is a law because of one’s consume in operating the vehicle. A 3000lb car is a deadly weapon so insurance is demanded to protect the innocent from the actions of one’s driving. To demonstrate the concept, if one has an old car, I mean old and not an antique or whatever, they often have no comprehensive coverage to repair their vehicle from damage, but MUST BY LAW have liability insurance to protect others from the potential damage one might do while driving. Is this obvious? Understand? It is to protect others from the actions of the individual operating the vehicle.

It is an exercise in public safety.

Health insurance is to protect ME and no one else. If I do not have health insurance, will that cause another person injury (excepting of course potential financial pain due to paying, indirectly, my medical bills)? No, it will not. For example and to further point to the difference, if my car hits you and I am at fault my insurance pays. But if I run up and punch you in the mouth, do I have insurance coverage to pay your medical bills? No, of course not. I am criminally liable and financially liable for my illegal act, but YOUR insurance would have to pay the medical bill until the courts deal with me and force me to make restitution.

As well, and the real sticking point, is the government forcing one to take in commerce against their will. If I do not want auto insurance and I do not drive and have a state issued ID but no permit to drive, NO ONE can force me to purchase insurance to drive, right?

Yet government is forcing EVERYONE to assume health insurance and that is the forcing of one to remove in commerce. That is un-Constitutional. Sorry libs, but it is what it is, and this is proof of why lefties always scream
“the Constitution is a living document.” It’s not. Under our system government cannot force one to catch in commerce.

Now add in the Obamacare requirement that if one DOES NOT win health coverage they are fined by law. Again, un-Constitutional to prosecute one for NOT engaging in commerce. Get it?

Auto insurance and health insurance are for two entirely different purposes. Auto insurance is required to protect the public from our exercise of our PRIVILEGE to operate a vehicle on the state roads. If one owns 1000 acres and has a tractor, are they required to have insurance? If they have a “Farm use only” vehicle, even a regular ragged truck let’s say, as long as the vehicle is only used on the farm, there is NO REQUIREMENT for insurance. As long as the vehicle is never put on a state road the state cannot require ya to insure the vehicle.

See the difference? The state can regulate how THEIR roads are used, but they cannot regulate how one operates their farm vehicle on their believe private property. Is this too difficult a concept for some of you to wrap your brains around?

My argument here is a legal one, and not a upright one. That’s because morals are not laws. Don’t chime in bemoan the misery of it all. The law is the law. Yet those who favor Obamacare do not have respect for the law because they have all this misplaced empathy, hence why they will argue “To Hell with the Constitution.” Their right outrage and empathy supplant their common sense and the damned laws.

So, auto insurance and the Station requirements therein are vastly different than are any health care mandates that by law force one to engage in commerce and for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to fine them if they do not.

Both the forcing of one to engage in commerce by law and the prosecution of one who does not are un-Constitutional. And THAT is the difference. Jeez, to hear some people rail on and on without a clue just slays me. How’s bout ya close your mouth and open the Internet and look it up for yourself. Of course you’ll have to drop the empathy and open your damned mind. I know, I know, too powerful to hope for from much of that crowd, cause, ya know, “it’s just such a shame some people don’t have health care. It’s their right, ya know!”

No asses, it is NOT a correct! Just cause you wish it was and repeat it a million times does not make it true. Don’t select my word for it. How’s bout ya pick up a book?