How is it constitutional for the government to force us to buy auto insurance .....?

First, just to drive the point home: No one is forced to buy auto insurance, and states require it for the privilege to drive a car. You don't have to have insurance at all if you take public transportation.

Second: Have you read the constitution? Taxes are in there. The draft is in there. And as to "sell our land", that's called "eminent domain". It means if the government takes something from you for the public good, it has to compensate you for it.

Eminent domain is the issue with whether or not health care is constitutional. If you don't have health insurance, the government starting in 2014 is going to take $700 from you for the public good, and give you nothing back in return. This isn't like any other fee the government charges either. Those other fees all have one thing in common: they are optional. The health care bill is the first time ever in our country that the government has decided you have to buy a private service or pay a fine. A much more fair and constitutional approach would be to require health insurance in order to, say, have eligibility to work. That would make the analogy you're using correct. But that's not the approach Obama took, and it means your analogy doesn't work.

As to the state's agreement with hospitals to pay: That isn't a constitutional issue. The government decided (and this may be the ethically right thing to do) to step in and pay when people can't at hospitals. The government is already using tax money to do this. Asking people to pay an additional $700 is not fair to anyone. If the government needs more tax revenue to pay hospitals, then it needs to ask the American people to give it more revenue, rather than trying to use legal violence to pry that cash out of our hands.

Now, to be fair, the draft of the bill that was actually passed made the $700 an actual tax, so it's possible that it's constitutional after all. But we won't know for sure until someone challenges it in the supreme court, and the supreme court has decided that similar laws were unconstitutional in the past. You should also be aware that the bill that was passed says there is no criminal penalty associated with not paying the fine. This is a guess, but I'm presuming the way that works in reality is that people will simply be automatically assessed the fine when they pay their taxes, and either their return will be $700 lighter or they'll owe $700 more.

It might not be constitutional, though, because the tax isn't an income tax, which means the 16th amendment doesn't apply, and it is definitely not uniform, which is required by article 1, section 8, clause 1. In my opinion, the language of the constitution is crystal clear on this point and the health care bill is blatantly unconstitutional, but I'd like to stress that my opinion doesn't count for anything. The supreme court has the power of judicial review, and their opinion is the one that matters.

I know you disagree with me and don't believe me. That's a good thing, it means you're motivated to find out more on your own. What you need to do is read the 5th, 14th, and 16th amendments, then go back a bit and read article 1, section 8. When you do that, you will understand the constitutional issues involved. Then, once you understand why some people are nervous, you'll be on more solid ground when you try to convince them the health care bill is a good idea.

One last thing: even though someone that is out of work the whole year won't have to pay the fine, I still believe the penalty punishes people who are between jobs. The bill as written means that if you work for enough of the year to pay taxes, then every month you are without health insurance you are being charged a penalty. I believe that's an underhanded way for the government to recoup some of its unemployment insurance money. That doesn't make the bill unconstitutional, but it sure as heck makes it unethical.

I would recommend you to visit this site where onel can get quotes from different companies: http://help-insure.net/index.html?src=2YAsmburKG05

RE :How is it constitutional for the government to force us to buy auto insurance .....?

but yet unconstitutional to force us to buy health insurance.

I understand that the auto ins. is to protect other drivers and health insurance it for yourself but i don't see how that difference is enough to make the leap into "UNCONSTITUTIONAL"

They can force us to pay taxes

force us into the military

force us to sell our land

How is this so different as to be forbidden by the constitution.

I like to hear from someone with some serious thoughts, but if you must be a smart butt, that's ok, i deserve that too for my past post.

Update: @Iron_Plague ***sigh****

The U.S. constitution supersedes state law. Always and forever.'''''''

////////////

so many of you seem convinced the reason is because you choose to have a car , if so, can anyone back that up with a quote from the constitution or a relevant quote from the supreme court? the notion that it is unconstitutional for the government to force you to do something you may not choose to do yourself is absurd and childish.

some good responses as well. thanks for commenting.

Update 2: @ silas G.

thanks for posting,

I think i understand what you are saying, but states and the fed gov issue fines for breaking the law everyday without providing anything in return to the person or business being fined.

And couldn't someone easily argue that the fact that taxes and Eminent Domain and the draft are in the constitution, implies that the gov can force you to buy insurance if they can show it is for the public good? It sounds like what you are saying, and it may be correct, that the gov could simply tax every citizen and then hand the cash over to the insurance companies thereby insuring everyone, but forcing someone to buy it outright is unconstitutional. Maybe that is correct and better, i would hate for everyone to be forced to have a bank account or credit card or donate to a church , for the public good.there is noway this is a cinch decision either way.

1 following 14 answers

It is the state that requires you to buy automobile insurance. The states also have the power to compel you to purchase health insurance. The federal government cannot compel you to purchase anything.

You don't see how it is unconstitutional because you are rather uninformed when it comes to the Constitution.

If all the members of a particular religion moved to one state and passed an amendment to that state's Constitution establishing a state church, it would not be unconstitutional because the Constitution applies to the federal government, not the individual states that make up the republic.

And if you drive the car on your own property, you don't have to purchase automobile insurance or have a license.

*SIGH*

The difference between the two is that you do not have to buy car insurance unless you own a car, and it is not the Federal Government forcing you to buy auto insurance (if you own a car), those are state laws. You do not need to buy auto insurance if you live in New Hampshire.

I think the better argument, and the one that will win when this reaches the Supreme Court, is that any citizen can require expensive health care at any instant due to accident, violent crime, or an acute illness, and if they didn't buy health insurance or save $100,000 to cover their hospital stay, the government will have to pay much of their bill due to arrangements with hospitals to not turn away emergency patients with critical care needs. The government therefore has a legitimate interest to require citizens to take financial responsibility for their own potential emergencies. The government has an obligation to responsible taxpayers who end up covering their own medical costs as well as those of the deadbeats.

You are not forced to buy auto insurance. It is a condition of owning a car.

How is it constitutional for the Federal Government to take our tax dollars and use it for the Air Force. That's not specific in the US Constitution; but like Health Care fits under "Protection and General Welfare of the People".

You drive by choice. If you don't drive , you don't need auto insurance. Obama care is forcing you to buy something and not giving you the choice. That is unconstitutional.

You only have to buy car insurance if you have car. If you had to buy it even if you didn't have a car or even a driver license it would be unconstitutional. None of the other things force you to buy something from a private party so they are irrelevant.

it is the states government that force you

not the federal government to have auto insurance