Two federal judges have now declared that part of the health care reform bill is unconstitutional, and two judges have declared that it is not. Obviously, the U. S. Supreme Court will be called upon to settle this.
Those who claim it is unconstitutional say it is so because the government cannot require citizens to purchase insurance.
But governments require people to purchase auto insurance.
Yes, but you can avoid that simply by not owning an automobile. You don't have to purchase auto insurance.
So, if you didn't have a body, maybe you wouldn't be required to purchase health insurance?
But then what about this? Kennesaw, GA requires each head of household to maintain a firearm and ammunition.
If it's unconstitutional for the government to force people to buy health insurance, why isn't it unconstitutional to require them to own a gun and ammunition?
Perhaps it is -- but since it's not enforced (only about 50% own guns), how could anyone bring suit claiming they were forced to buy a gun? The city just likes to brag about it -- it's their claim to fame and publicity.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Kennessaw also likes to brag about their crime statistics. They say that there was a dramatic drop in crime after the law was adopted 25 years ago and that today it is half the national average.
ReplyDeleteBut one source says that, before the law, about 70% of the largely rural population owned a gun. Now, with the urban creep of metro Atlanta more than quadrupling the population, only 50% of households own a gun.
The stat water is pretty muddy.
Another problem putting all these stats together. If people in Kennessaw own guns at the 50% rate, then they can't claim that their required ownership is what brings down the crime rate; because 50% is actually lower than the national norm.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, there are 900 guns for every 1000 people nationwide: that's 90%, if you slice it that way. So they have a lower crime rate -- and LOWER gun ownership.
Actually I'm playing slippery with stats there to make a point. The 90% nationwide is bogus. It's not that 90% of people own a gun -- it's that there are 900 guns for every 1000 people. One person could own them all.
Wouldn't this lead to the opposite conclusion? Lower gun rate = lower crime rate? Not higher gun rate = lower crime rate, as they claim.
Nothing irks me more than the auto insurance - health insurance analogy. Yes, they're both insurance, they both cover unexpected costs that are beyond one's capacity to pay, and precautionary measures can be taken to reduce the overall costs of each (e.g., being a safe driver, getting regular exercise).
ReplyDeleteBut the similarities end there. As you point out, everyone has a body so everyone has an intrinsic need to maintain good health, whereas a car is optional. There's a societal imperative, too: someone else's poor health impacts me, while I really don't care if my neighbor is driving a banged-up, dented junker (even though my property value might fall, but I digress).
Most of all, the discrepancy between what it costs to maintain good health (diet, exercise, regular checkups) and the incredibly high costs of (true) emergency or catastrophic care, are far greater than the discrepancy between routine auto care and major car repairs.
In other words, the worst that can happen to my car is that it gets "totaled" (i.e., I'm out the cost of the car). The worst that can happen in health care is tens-- if not hundreds-- of thousands in costs that very few individuals can afford. And often it's those without the a priori ability to pay who ring up the greatest bills, from the lack of preventive measures that would be inexpensive to implement.
I've determined it's impossible (at least in our society) to force people to make wise, proactive decisions about their current & future health, so we're almost guaranteed to continue seeing a run-up in health care costs. The only sensible alternative (again, given our current reality) is coverage for all.
Good points. To put it succinctly: as a society, we're willing to let wrecked cars go to the junk pile and feel no obligation to replace it for the owner; but we are not willing to throw human beings on the junk pile when they get sick or hurt.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, a strict constitutionalist would argue that this has nothing to do with being constitutional, because health care is not a right. We as a society can decide to make it such, but it is not in the constitution. Others would argue, saying that it may not be an enumerated right, it nevertheless is implied in others.