To ACA Mandate haters: I fail to see one iota of difference

[99th_Monkey]

between ACA mandate, and the mandated insurance required for driving
an automobile, not to mention Medicare, which is NOT OPTIONAL. When
I turned 65, they stared TAKING (without my consent) $100 out of my
Social Sec. check. Actually, I don't think I have ANY choice in the matter.

Can any of the whiners about the mandate explain how ACA is any different
than the above two mandates?

[JoePhilly]

1. I think its more like the Mortgage interest deduction.

You don't have to buy a house, but if you do, you get a tax break for doing so.

[HopeHoops]

2. You either do or do not own a car. You're stuck being human. There's the difference.

Other than that, it is the same thing. You REALLY don't want to get caught in PA without insurance. The fine can be more than the insurance itself. You don't need collision, but you are required to have liability.

[Matariki]

17. +1

The argument that they're the same thing is so misguided it's laughable.

[HopeHoops]

23. Well, they're the same too. If you own a car or are human, there is NOT a difference.

[hughee99]

3. The argument against the mandate

is that the FEDERAL government doesn't have the constitutional authority to require a person to pay a PRIVATE company for a product or service.

In the case of auto insurance, it's not the federal government, but the STATE government that's requiring it. The constitution doesn't restrict the states from doing it, so under the 10th amendment, they can. This is why we didn't have the same court case years ago when Romneycare was implemented, because it wasn't the FEDERAL government doing.

In the case of Medicare, the FEDERAL government isn't forcing you to pay a PRIVATE company for a product or service, it's forcing you to pay the government for the service.

[PatSeg]

6. Oops

We evidently were typing at the same time!

[earthside]

8. Thumbs up.

You explain the argument quite clearly.

My prediction is that within three years the gleeful supporters of the ACA today will be asking "Wot happened?"

By the time the health care insurance lobbyists get done carving loopholes, exceptions and pro-industry regulations into this law, it will be just another corporate-government transfer of wealth to "too big to fail" insurance companies.

[Puzzledtraveller]

20. You are so right!

[link:|

[99th_Monkey]

13. I can see your point, up to a point

Yes there's a diff. between being required by gov't to pay a private company for services,
and Medicare, where I'm paying gov't ...

but wait, in the case of auto insurance, I'm being forced by Gov't to buy from a PRIVATE company.

So then you make case that FED and STATEs are different, i.e. that states CAN do that, but
Fed cannot. But then the Fed IS doing that with Medicare, so it becomes a rather circular
argument at some point.

[derby378]

18. You do not have a Constitutional right to drive an automobile

At least, not on public roads. That's legally considered a "privilege," which can require a driver's license and liability insurance.

But as someone else pointed out, you have no choice but to be a human being. That's where a lot of us bristled at the mandate as it currently stands.

[Crabby Appleton]

22. Most states require proof of financial responsibility - not necessarily private insurance

in Ohio for example you can meet that requirement in several ways, one of which is insurance purchased from a private company.

Financial Responsibility Requirements
There are several ways a motorist can meet FR law requirements. Only one of the following proofs of financial responsibility must be maintained.
• An auto liability insurance policy. Motorists choosing to comply through insurance will receive ID cards from their insurance company that indicate FR requirements have been met.
• A certificate issued by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) indicating that money or government bonds in the amount of $30,000 is on deposit with the Treasurer of the State.
• A certificate issued by the BMV showing a bond secured by real estate having equity of at least $60,000.
• A certificate of self insurance issued by the BMV, available to those with more than 25 vehicles registered in their name or a company's name.

http://www.cib-online.com/consumersupport/chklistinfo/frlaw.html

All the states I've lived in have had similar provisions.

[PatSeg]

4. We aren't paying that $100

to a private insurance company and that is a huge difference. The problem a lot of people have is that the mandate (which isn't really a mandate) is a give-away to private insurance companies who were part of the health care crisis.

I think a lot of people would feel better if there was a public option in the ACA, but hopefully that is coming.

[hughee99]

7. If people had the option to pay the government

for their insurance rather than a private company, I'm not sure there would have even been a court case.

[PatSeg]

9. I agree

It has been done successfully in other countries and people accept it. Just using a word like "mandate" was asking for trouble. People hate that word.

As for the comparison to car insurance, not everyone owns or drives a car, but a health care mandate implies that the only way you can't comply is to drop dead. Its pretty obvious why the mandate came out of the republican party.

[99th_Monkey]

12. What ^^ hughee99 ^^ said. ~nt

[leftstreet]

15. +1

[former9thward]

5. The ACA mandate came from Congress operating under the Constitutiion.

Auto insurance does not. The states require auto insurance. State constitutions do not have the same limitations that the U.S. Constitution imposes on the federal government. The SC voted 7-2 that the mandate could not be imposed by the Commerce Clause (which was the clause the Congress said it fell under). They did decide 5-4 that it was a tax and thus the mandate stood.

Now go insult some other DUers.

[99th_Monkey]

21. I apologize if you felt "insulted" by my OP

My intention was merely to ask an honest question I had,
and I got lots of great responses many of which were
very informative.

Actually, I do suppose I could have lost the word "whiner"
and still have asked the question. I will endeavor to be more
aware in the future of some people's delicate sensitivities.

[Autumn]

10. You know, before the mandate on car insurance my rates were

cheaper and my coverage was better. Same company all these years, one accident, not my fault. Now what they have done is gained loop holes. Do you know if you are injured in a car accident the insurance does not pay your medical bills until you settle?
If it's 2 years you better pay those bills because hospitals and Doctors won't wait 2 years. So we have almost tripled the rates , coverage is crappier and the deductibles are higher.

Personally we "whiners" OR you, don't know how the mandates will play out, but I'm going to bet my last dime that the insurance companies will lobby for and will be given plenty of loopholes. These politicians know what side their bread is buttered on.

[99th_Monkey]

19. I don't necessarily disagree with you

and do agree that we'll just have to see how it plays out.

I'm no fan of private health care corporations, believe me;
and neither do I trust them, nor most of Congress, to be
looking out for my best interests.

[charlyvi]

11. Actually, you had the option not to take Part B

You still have the option to terminate it. You'd be screwed if you got really sick, but you do have the right to terminate it.

[sad sally]

14. Part B, the $100 for you, isn't mandatory; you can opt out.

A few months before a person who's collecting SS turns 65, you get the notice from SS that if you've paid into SS for at least 10 years, you get Part A automatically.

If the person doesn't want Part B, SS gives them the option to opt out and not pay the monthly premium. It's not mandatory; they only automatically take the premium from the monthly SS if the person doesn't say, "no, I don't want Part B."

[99th_Monkey]

16. Thanks for the info

I don't recall getting the memo, so to speak, but I have no
reason to argue the point with you, since there are lots of
innocent looking documents I get that look like junk mail
so I never read as carefully as I probably should.