Car insurance mandates are done at the STATE level, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. constitution.
Yet people (the president included) continue to claim that a FEDERAL mandate to buy insurance is no different than being required to cover your car. (Completely ignoring that you have to BUY a car before you must get insurance…the govt’s basically saying they own your body…insure it or be taxed)
So isn’t a FEDERAL mandate unconstitutional unless you plan on writing an amendment to the Constitution so that such a mandate is in accordance with the Tenth Amendment??
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27384.html
The questions from ABC’s George Stephanopoulos highlighted a politically dangerous new aspect of the health reform debate for Obama – as critics from Republican leaders to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say his reform proposals amount to a middle-class tax increase. Obama promised during the campaign that Americans earning less than $250,000 a year would not see any tax increases from an Obama administration.
Obama strongly denied that the mandate amounts to a tax increase – saying it was no different than requiring people to have auto insurance and charging a penalty if they don’t. He also said it was important for everyone to have insurance so that people who do carry insurance don’t have to shoulder the load for people who don’t. The excise tax is designed as an enforcement mechanism to ensure people will carry insurance.
train……….thanx for the info.
levon………..thank you for pointing that out.
