Mandatory Insurance Unconstitutional?

Somebody needs to tell the BMV that. I know, I know, health insurance is different than auto insurance. People can just choose not to drive, then they won't need to buy auto insurance. As you might imagine, I don't quite see it like that.

Let's start with the whole "you don't HAVE to drive" reasoning. This is simply not true for most Americans. Here in Ohio, Gov-elect Kasich is turning down $400 million of federal money to make sure it stays not true. The money was marked for a high speed rail system connecting Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. OK, that may not have been the public transportation silver bullet that made it possible for everyone in Ohio to get rid of their rides, but it was at least a step in the right direction. It might even have created a local job or two. Ohio isn't the only place where most of us don't have access to public transportation. Those of us who don't have access also probably don't have that one big employer right down the street allowing us to walk to work either. Therefore, if we want to work, we HAVE to drive. If we want groceries, prescriptions, food, then we have to drive AND work. These things aren't optional. Humans need them to survive. And for most humans, we have to drive to get them. So most of us do NOT have the option to simply not drive in order to avoid mandatory auto insurance.

But let's just pretend for a minute that driving really is optional... something people do just for recreation, or because they didn't achieve what they thought they should and bought a really expensive, impractical car instead. If that were actually the case, then wouldn't it make even more sense to make auto insurance OPTIONAL but health insurance MANDATORY. If driving were really just for kicks, then it would be LESS important than healthcare, right? So why would we make the important insurance optional, but the recreational insurance mandatory? That just seems kind of backward.

No, I get this - it was explained to me before. Since driving is optional, it's OK to mandate that those who choose to do it have insurance so if they hit YOU, you don't have to pay for the damage they caused... and if people don't like it, they don't have to drive. If I choose to drive, I shouldn't have to worry about some bonehead without insurance hitting me. In essence, this law keeps the cost of YOUR insurance lower. OK, that makes sense. Hey, wouldn't that work for other types of insurance too?! Like, what if I also want that kind of assurance that my insurance for other things wouldn't get prohibitively expensive due to all the people out there who choose not to buy it, but sill participate in the activity? Don't I deserve the same protection there as I do when I pay for auto insurance?

OK, where was I? Oh yeah, so mandatory insurance keeps the costs down for all of us who choose to partake of that particular system. And ya see, right now, without any kind of law like that regarding health insurance, people who choose not to buy insurance, also choose not to get healthcare. It's kind of like a rationing system we have in place right now. Health care is rationed to people with money. People without have to wait until their health is in an emergency condition, go to an emergency room, and then the rest of us pay for that via increased health insurance premiums. The average cost per visit for the people for whom health care is rationed in this fashion is sky high because they've received very little if any maintenance or preventive care (that's the part that's rationed) and so we all pay too much for the care they get... if it's not too late. Let's sum up: our current system rations care, is paid for socially by those of us who buy insurance, and is costly because of this. If only there were a way to take advantage of the way we made auto insurance cheaper by making it mandatory! Hmmm. How might we do that?

While you ponder that, I'll go on. A third reason why I believe the "unconstitutional" argument is flawed is because just like folks who choose not to drive, folks may also choose not to get healthcare. Seriously. Who ever died because of a missed healthcare appointment? I think it was Mark Twain who said doctors make people sick. There are even plenty of Americans whose religious beliefs prohibit them from going to the doctor. So there are folks out there right now who shoot down the whole "driving is optional, healthcare is not" line of thought. We'd need an opt out for these folks anyway, so what's so unconstitutional about it if we can make exceptions for folks like that? Furthermore, why couldn't folks who want to opt out of the mandatory health insurance just pay cash for their care and be required to maintain a $100,000 bond in the event they require emergency healthcare? Ohio does that for drivers. They can drive AND opt out of the mandatory insurance as long as they have the cash to pay for damage they cause.

Fourth, based on their recent reluctance to shoot down federal law, even THIS Supreme Court isn't very likely to side with the complainants. They've failed to limit federal reach into homegrown medicinal marijuana, so why wouldn't they fail to limit it here too? Yup, I'm afraid this whole lawsuit against the constitutionality of mandatory health insurance is just a political event purely to get attention and steer the ignorant toward some hasty illogical conclusion. I for one, am disappointed with my countrymen.

Luth
Out

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't be a bigot!

Senator McCain is out of excuses. The same ambivalence that cost him a presidential campaign now threatens to destroy what little respect anyone still has for him. He said he'd support the repeal when the generals supported it. Now he's changed his mind. He's one of many who don't seem to have learned from history and can't approach the issue of don't ask, don't tell from any kind of rational perspective.

It comes down to this: you're not in the military to pick up a date, so who or how you date shouldn't matter. Any personal issues you have with gays in the military are your issues, not the military's, and since it's an all volunteer force, you have the option of not joining rather than asking the military to discriminate against people you don't like.

It's that simple.

Just as simple is the word for military chaplains (or others) who oppose the repeal of this discriminatory policy: BIGOTS. Citing one's religious beliefs is no excuse. There was a time when the military only enlisted white males. There was a time when units and occupations were segregated. This too was bigoted policy, and this too was supported by the bible's take on slavery. We now admit how wrong that was. We need to do the same with don't ask, don't tell.

Bigots are not good for morale. They detract from the mission far more than anyone else. If our military is going to discriminate against anyone, it should discriminate against bigots.

Luth
Out