Instant argument I get any time I question the constitutionality of this... thoughts?

[Reason]

Any time I bring up the unconstitutionality of forcing people to buy health care I instantly get this talking point thrown in my face.

"Well aren't you happy that in CA everyone has to have car insurance so you don't get screwed if some uninsured driver destroys your property and puts you and your family in the hospital? Without insurance you will be screwed with the bills with no recourse if that person doesn't have any assets or money you can sue for!"

Thoughts?

[newbitech]

Any time I bring up the unconstitutionality of forcing people to buy health care I instantly get this talking point thrown in my face.

"Well aren't you happy that in CA everyone has to have car insurance so you don't get screwed if some uninsured driver destroys your property and puts you and your family in the hospital? Without insurance you will be screwed with the bills with no recourse if that person doesn't have any assets or money you can sue for!"

Thoughts?

uhh, how exactly does that work again?

[MelissaWV]

Any time I bring up the unconstitutionality of forcing people to buy health care I instantly get this talking point thrown in my face.

"Well aren't you happy that in CA everyone has to have car insurance so you don't get screwed if some uninsured driver destroys your property and puts you and your family in the hospital? Without insurance you will be screwed with the bills with no recourse if that person doesn't have any assets or money you can sue for!"

Thoughts?

Car insurance is purchased when you own a car. You can choose not to purchase a car, or you could pool resources and purchase a communal car. Car insurance coverage minimums vary by state, and are not nationally mandated. Banks may require full coverage insurance on a vehicle you are making payments on, but if you buy a vehicle outright, you usually do not need comp. and collision insurance. You do not get your insurance paid for if you cannot afford it. Quite simply, you will be out of compliance, and if the DMV/MVA/whatever asks for proof of insurance from your last company, and finds that you've lapsed, you may be subject to fines. Your license might be taken away. You tag might not be valid. What will the equivalent be if I cannot pay on my health insurance? Taxpayers will foot the bill. Who decides if I can afford it or not? The IRS. What kind of insurance do I get? The Government decides. Can I opt out simply by paying for my expenses out of pocket? Yes, but I will have to pay a fine that could be thousands of dollars a year.

Lastly, as pcosmar pointed out on another thread, car insurance being "mandatory" has led to some interesting things. For starters, there are certainly "preferred shops" which your insurance wants you to take your car to. You can be 100% certain there will be "preferred treatments." If you get cancer, there will be a one-size-fits-all regimen of chemo you will be covered for, but vitamins, marijuana, or other "kooky" treatments will be denied.

This is a removal of choice, and it will cost us all.

[Krugerrand]

1 - That's a state law.
2 - You only have to insure the damage you cause somebody else, not the damage you cause yourself.
3 - You have the option of buying insurance to recover from your insurance company what you fail to recover from an uninsured driver.
4 - Not owning a car is always an option. Those who do not own cars are not obligated to buy insurance.
5 - You do not need to insure a car that you drive exclusively on private property.

[angelatc]

Any time I bring up the unconstitutionality of forcing people to buy health care I instantly get this talking point thrown in my face.

"Well aren't you happy that in CA everyone has to have car insurance so you don't get screwed if some uninsured driver destroys your property and puts you and your family in the hospital? Without insurance you will be screwed with the bills with no recourse if that person doesn't have any assets or money you can sue for!"

Thoughts?

My thoughts are you wouldn't be screwed if you carried your own insurance.

[erowe1]

in CA everyone has to have car insurance

That's not true. People who don't drive cars on public roads in CA don't have to buy car insurance. It's only those who do drive on those roads who have to purchase it as a prerequisite for doing that.

Health insurance mandates aren't like that. We all have to buy it, period, not as a prerequisite for exercising some other privilege, but just for being alive.

Also, theoretically, in a world without health insurance mandates, a person without health insurance would be taking the risk only on themselves. They wouldn't be endangering anyone else, like someone who gets in a car accident might do.

[pcosmar]

1 - That's a state law.
2 - You only have to insure the damage you cause somebody else, not the damage you cause yourself.
3 - You have the option of buying insurance to recover from your insurance company what you fail to recover from an uninsured driver.
4 - Not owning a car is always an option. Those who do not own cars are not obligated to buy insurance.
5 - You do not need to insure a car that you drive exclusively on private property.


I remember (yeah I'm old) when this was not a law.
I really have no memory of any evil or great hardship when people were just responsible for themselves.
I do remember the "Sales Pitch" promoted by the insurance companies.
"When everybody has insurance the price will be less for everybody"

And it was passed into law. I witnessed this in 2 states. Michigan and Missouri.
The price doubled immediately. It has never gone down. Coverage actually was decreased.
And I worked in the Auto Body Repair industry for 20 years. The insurance industry dictates what is repaired and how much they pay.

Fuck That. :mad:

I know from observation and extrapolation what is going to happen.

[Dunedain]

Any time I bring up the unconstitutionality of forcing people to buy health care I instantly get this talking point thrown in my face.

"Well aren't you happy that in CA everyone has to have car insurance so you don't get screwed if some uninsured driver destroys your property and puts you and your family in the hospital? Without insurance you will be screwed with the bills with no recourse if that person doesn't have any assets or money you can sue for!"

Thoughts?

"You don't have to drive a car." That's all you have to say.
If they say YES, YES, BUT BUT then say "You don't have to drive a car...lots of people don't drive cars." It's airtight.

[Epic]

basically what should happen for roads is that they are privately owned and then private owners set the rules.

So when government owns the roads, well yeah, government is gonna set the rules.

But thats not analogous to health care, because you aren't on government property.

If you get hurt and don't have insurance, the only reason it costs other people is because of government's current interventions. ERs are required to treat people, etc. It doesn't have to be that way./

http://mises.org/daily/3699

[MN Patriot]

I remember (yeah I'm old) when this was not a law.
I really have no memory of any evil or great hardship when people were just responsible for themselves.
I do remember the "Sales Pitch" promoted by the insurance companies.
"When everybody has insurance the price will be less for everybody"

And it was passed into law. I witnessed this in 2 states. Michigan and Missouri.
The price doubled immediately. It has never gone down. Coverage actually was decreased.


Yeah, funny how corporations can make statements like these and then not be held accountable.

Insurance is legalized gambling, plain and simple. The company is betting the customer won't make a claim (and charging enough to make a profit) and the customer is betting he will make a claim.

[ChaosControl]

Any time I bring up the unconstitutionality of forcing people to buy health care I instantly get this talking point thrown in my face.

"Well aren't you happy that in CA everyone has to have car insurance so you don't get screwed if some uninsured driver destroys your property and puts you and your family in the hospital? Without insurance you will be screwed with the bills with no recourse if that person doesn't have any assets or money you can sue for!"

Thoughts?

Uh state vs federal issue, shows whoever you're talking to is an idiot.

[pcosmar]

On my first car I got my license plates and signed a financial responsibility form.
I did not purchase insurance. It was not required.
I never wrecked any car in my life. But I have paid enough (in insurance) to buy several new cars. :mad:

[Inkblots]

basically what should happen for roads is that they are privately owned and then private owners set the rules.

So when government owns the roads, well yeah, government is gonna set the rules.


This is exactly right. The reason mandatory auto insurance seems reasonable is precisely that the system would be almost identical in a true free market with privatized roadways. The roadway owner would not want to be liable for damages which occur on his property, and so would require vehicle operators to indemnify themselves for all damages they cause, and carry insurance to ensure they can meet their obligations. You could then agree to the terms of service and use the roadway, or else disagree and be prevented from driving on it.

The state has a monopoly on roads in this country, but the principle is the same - you can agree to the terms of service for public roadways and carry auto insurance, or stick solely to private roadways that don't require insurance (have fun driving around in your driveway ;) ). The health insurance mandate is entirely different, because the state doesn't own you, and you are unable to choose not to have health, and so cannot be exempted from the scheme.

[Old Ducker]

1 - That's a state law.
2 - You only have to insure the damage you cause somebody else, not the damage you cause yourself.
3 - You have the option of buying insurance to recover from your insurance company what you fail to recover from an uninsured driver.
4 - Not owning a car is always an option. Those who do not own cars are not obligated to buy insurance.
5 - You do not need to insure a car that you drive exclusively on private property.

One more thing. You don't have clear title to your vehicle. You have a Certificate of Title that is granted by the State. If you had clear title, then the title would be issued by the manufacturer and in fact there is such a document, called the Manufacturers Statement of Origin, which is sent to the State. The State is a co-owner of your vehicle and you compensate the State for it's interest via registration fees. Very few dealerships will give you the MSO even if you pay in cash.

[Krugerrand]

The health insurance mandate is entirely different, because the state doesn't own you, and you are unable to choose not to have health, and so cannot be exempted from the scheme.

Don't let Lord Barry or Queen Nancy hear you say stuff like that.

[Inkblots]

Uh state vs federal issue, shows whoever you're talking to is an idiot.

Are you implying that a state government (e.g. Massachusetts) has the right to require its citizens to purchase health insurance (or any other personal good), and it's simply the Federal government that does not?

What nonsense. This is an issue relating to property rights, not federalism. Please see the above posts by Epic and myself elucidating this point.

[Krugerrand]

Are you implying that a state government (e.g. Massachusetts) has the right to require its citizens to purchase health insurance (or any other personal good), and it's simply the Federal government that does not?

What nonsense. This is an issue relating to property rights, not federalism. Please see the above posts by Epic and myself elucidating this point.

Because the federal government does not have the authority to do it does not mean that the states do. However, the comparison was made to car insurance - which is currently a state level issue.

[pcosmar]

This is exactly right. The reason mandatory auto insurance seems reasonable is precisely that the system would be almost identical in a true free market with privatized roadways.

Wrong. If the roadway owner (private or state) wants insurance then they should purchase it.

I am responsible for my vehicle.and should have the choice of how I wish to cover any damage that I may do.
Personal Responsibility.
I should not be forced to purchase something I do not need.
I have driven Legally without insurance. It was like that for many years.

It was sold with lies.

[LibertyMage]

Any time I bring up the unconstitutionality of forcing people to buy health care I instantly get this talking point thrown in my face.

"Well aren't you happy that in CA everyone has to have car insurance so you don't get screwed if some uninsured driver destroys your property and puts you and your family in the hospital? Without insurance you will be screwed with the bills with no recourse if that person doesn't have any assets or money you can sue for!"

Thoughts?

Identify that for what it is - an emotional response without considering all the facts. And here are the facts:

1. Mandated insurance doesn't stop people who don't have insurance from driving and wrecking into you.

2. By forcing everyone onto an insurance plan, you make every part of the economy that that is supported by insurance totally unobtainable by individuals that want to pay on their own. After every person in society is finally "on the plan", costs will forever increase because the market mechanism for shopping for lower prices has been negated due to third party payment plans.

Insurance sure does make a lot of people rich though. Insurance is a scam.

[Inkblots]

Wrong. If the roadway owner (private or state) wants insurance then they should purchase it.

I am responsible for my vehicle.and should have the choice of how I wish to cover any damage that I may do.

pcosmar, if I owned a roadway, I would wish for those traversing it to do so in the knowledge that if their vehicle becomes damaged, they are guaranteed compensation. Furthermore, I would wish to prevent myself from being liable for such damages. Therefore, in the terms of service or other contractual agreement that I would require from customers before allowing them to drive on my road, I would require them to accept liability for all damages they cause while on my roadway, and carry insurance to ensure they can cover all damages they incur in full.

If you don't want to buy insurance and choose to cover your damages by giving your word of honor you have sufficient savings for all possible damages, tough tiddly-winks. It's my road, and I won't allow you on my private property unless you agree to my terms of service.


Personal Responsibility.
I should not be forced to purchase something I do not need.

Personal Property.
You're not entitled to use something I own.

[specsaregood]

1 - That's a state law.
2 - You only have to insure the damage you cause somebody else, not the damage you cause yourself.
3 - You have the option of buying insurance to recover from your insurance company what you fail to recover from an uninsured driver.
4 - Not owning a car is always an option. Those who do not own cars are not obligated to buy insurance.
5 - You do not need to insure a car that you drive exclusively on private property.

Another thing is most states still allow you to self-insure by proving you have sufficient net worth or putting up a bond.

[pcosmar]

pcosmar, if I owned a roadway, I would wish for those traversing it to do so in the knowledge that if their vehicle becomes damaged, they are guaranteed compensation. Furthermore, I would wish to prevent myself from being liable for such damages. Therefore, in the terms of service or other contractual agreement that I would require from customers before allowing them to drive on my road, I would require them to accept liability for all damages they cause while on my roadway, and carry insurance to ensure they can cover all damages they incur in full.

If you don't want to buy insurance and choose to cover your damages by giving your word of honor you have sufficient savings for all possible damages, tough tiddly-winks. It's my road, and I won't allow you on my private property unless you agree to my terms of service.



Personal property.
You're not entitled to use something I own.

But you don't own the roadway. I do.
You are talking about a fantasy and I am stating reality. I drove a car without insurance.
Legally
Back when there was some semblance of freedom left.
I signed a financial responsibility form. Any damage done was my responsibility.
Why is that hard to understand.

Now I am forced to purchase something that I have never needed.

[Travlyr]

Any time I bring up the unconstitutionality of forcing people to buy health care I instantly get this talking point thrown in my face.

"Well aren't you happy that in CA everyone has to have car insurance so you don't get screwed if some uninsured driver destroys your property and puts you and your family in the hospital? Without insurance you will be screwed with the bills with no recourse if that person doesn't have any assets or money you can sue for!"

Thoughts?


There is so much distortion. Car insurance shouldn't be a law. It's a bad law that primarily benefits the "insurance industry."

Each of us take a risk by living. Step outside, and the risk grows. Move fast and it becomes even riskier. Live dangerously and the risk of injury or death is ever greater. We should be allowed to purchase insurance according to our level of risk if we so choose. Otherwise, we must be prepared to accept the consequences.
For instance we could protect ourselves by purchasing:
Uninsured motorists insurance
Personal medical insurance
Liability insurance
Flood insurance, on and on, etc.

In the above scenario by Reason, the uninsured driver has some choices:
1. Pay for the damage.
2. Be incarcerated for destroying the property of another without adequate resources.
3. Run and hide.
4. Suicide.

It is actually quite serious to destroy the property of others. For example, "If someone (a great big mean fucker) steals your food & water every time you try and take a bite to eat... before long... you begin to realize that that food & water is your property. And if he never lets you eat or drink. It becomes very serious!

Property rights are serious and the only duty of governments are to protect those rights for the individual.

[Anti Federalist]

NH does not require mandatory insurance.

NH has one of the lowest insurance costs and one of the highest rates of insured drivers.

[Inkblots]

But you don't own the roadway. I do.

pcosmar, you said "roadway owner (private or state)". You therefore implied that if there was private ownership, e.g. if I owned a road, you shouldn't be forced to buy auto insurance. In my previous post, I hope I demonstrated to you that in a hypothetical world with privatised roadways, I very much COULD require you to carry auto insurance, or else bar you from my roadway.

Coming back to the real world, where most roads are publicly owned, NEITHER of us own the roadway, my friend. Or, if you want to be a romantic about collectivism, we ALL own the roadway in common. Whichever way you look at it though, whether we share ownership of the road (obviously we don't, elsewise I'd gladly sell you my share) or the state itself is the owner, the collective owners or directorship of the owners (i.e. the electorate) has laid down terms of use for our public roadways. So either build your own road network with rules that you see as fair and proper, convince the state to privatise its roads and buy some direct from them, accept the terms of service for public thoroughfares, or stop driving all together.

[Anti Federalist]

1 - That's a state law.
2 - You only have to insure the damage you cause somebody else, not the damage you cause yourself.
3 - You have the option of buying insurance to recover from your insurance company what you fail to recover from an uninsured driver.
4 - Not owning a car is always an option. Those who do not own cars are not obligated to buy insurance.
5 - You do not need to insure a car that you drive exclusively on private property.

That's the five part answer to the OP's question.

[Travlyr]

NH does not require mandatory insurance.

NH has one of the lowest insurance costs and one of the highest rates of insured drivers.

The power of laissez-faire!

[Anti Federalist]

The power of laissez-faire!

There's more to it, but that's certainly a big part of it.;)

[pcosmar]

pcosmar, you said "roadway owner (private or state)". You therefore implied that if there was private ownership, e.g. if I owned a road, you shouldn't be forced to buy auto insurance. In my previous post, I hope I demonstrated to you that in a hypothetical world with privatised roadways, I very much COULD require you to carry auto insurance, or else bar you from my roadway.

Coming back to the real world, where most roads are publicly owned, NEITHER of us own the roadway, my friend. Or, if you want to be a romantic about collectivism, we ALL own the roadway in common. Whichever way you look at it though, whether we share ownership of the road (obviously we don't, elsewise I'd gladly sell you my share) or the state itself is the owner, the collective owners or directorship of the owners (i.e. the electorate) has laid down terms of use for our public roadways. So either build your own road network with rules that you see as fair and proper, accept the terms of service for public thoroughfares, or stop driving all together.

So I guess if I just buy insurance I can drive like an asshole and run you off the road.
Hey, I got insurance. Talk to them.
Get outa my way, I got insurance.

I have repaired cars for over 20 years. Many were people just like that. Repeat customers :(

[Inkblots]

So I guess if I just buy insurance I can drive like an asshole and run you off the road.
Hey, I got insurance. Talk to them.
Get outa my way, I got insurance.

Ah, but in an unregulated insurance market, a habitually reckless driver would see his premiums skyrocket, so that eventually he would be forced to either drive safely to slowly reduce the premiums to affordable levels, or be forced off the public and private roadways that required insurance for use as he can no longer pay for coverage.

The invisible hand resting on the steering wheel, incentivizing safe driving.

[Travlyr]

So I guess if I just buy insurance I can drive like an asshole and run you off the road.
Hey, I got insurance. Talk to them.
Get outa my way, I got insurance.

I have repaired cars for over 20 years. Many were people just like that. Repeat customers :(

This!

Legislation like this takes personal responsibility away from the individuals. People become less interested in others, and resentful of their behaviors.

Just like health insurance is going to be. Soon... if you're a "smoker" you are the problem not the solution. If you eat "fatty meat" you are the problem not the solution. If you are a "skier", "rock climber", "motorcycle rider", "parachute jumper" you are the problem not the solution. And I have to subsidize your foolishness!

[Fox McCloud]

this is a prime example of a simple argument that is difficult to refute because it forces you to deviate to another topic; governmental control of roads.

If roads were private, they could have within a contract that you have to have insurance, that any driver is not responsible to pay for the damages caused by another drive, or any other plethora of different things.

but if they're already arguing that mandated health insurance is a good thing, I'll bet you my bottom dollar they'll be totally opposed to the mere idea of road privatization.

that said, don't let them divert the argument to a different topic, stick with the current one at hand, and argue that it doesn't work and makes things worse: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mandatory-health-insurance.asp

[pcosmar]

Ah, but in an unregulated insurance market, a habitually reckless driver would see his premiums skyrocket, so that eventually he would be forced to either drive safely to slowly reduce the premiums to affordable levels, or be forced off the public and private roadways that required insurance for use as he can no longer pay for coverage.

The invisible hand resting on the steering wheel, incentivizing safe driving.

So what, if I can afford it.

http://images.ola.com/auctions/546/vxrf-438457-1.jpg

The point is, at one time in this country people could drive their cars and not pay extortion to do so.
There was not any actual problem.
The problem was manufactured to benefit the insurance industry.
Since that time people have become LESS responsible (poor drivers) because there are few consequences.

And there are still uninsured divers. It only accomplished one thing.
Extreme profits for the extortion industry.

[Anti Federalist]

This!

Legislation like this takes personal responsibility away from the individuals. People become less interested in others, and resentful of their behaviors.

Just like health insurance is going to be. Soon... if you're a "smoker" you are the problem not the solution. If you eat "fatty meat" you are the problem not the solution. If you are a "skier", "rock climber", "motorcycle rider", "parachute jumper" you are the problem not the solution. And I have to subsidize your foolishness!

Yup, and those are just the obvious ones.

There will be much tighter controls placed on much more abstruse areas of your life, once the high profile "undesirables" are weeded out.

[pcosmar]

This!

Legislation like this takes personal responsibility away from the individuals. People become less interested in others, and resentful of their behaviors.

Just like health insurance is going to be. Soon... if you're a "smoker" you are the problem not the solution. If you eat "fatty meat" you are the problem not the solution. If you are a "skier", "rock climber", "motorcycle rider", "parachute jumper" you are the problem not the solution. And I have to subsidize your foolishness!

Oh yeah, the motorcycle drivers.
btw I Have Never Had insurance on a motorcycle. :)

Not required. :)

And my skid lid is not DOT approved. :)

:eek:

[Travlyr]

Oh yeah, the motorcycle drivers.

And my skid lid is not DOT approved.

:eek:

Luckily, here in Colorado we are still not required to wear one, but the California socialist movement has infiltrated our state so I don't expect that freedom to last much longer. :(

[roho76]

In Michigan you have to have car insurance and if you get into accident your insurance covers only your property since it's a no fault state. So why do I have to buy car insurance again?

[Juan McCain]

Health insurance mandates aren't like that. We all have to buy it, period, not as a prerequisite for exercising some other privilege, but just for being alive.



just for being alive . . . you must have this requirement for a "right" to health care.

It sounds like only with the states' ratifying an amendment to the Constitution that this new "right" would have any constitutional muster.

[pcosmar]

In Michigan you have to have car insurance and if you get into accident your insurance covers only your property since it's a no fault state. So why do I have to buy car insurance again?

And it only does that if you carry full coverage. :(

When I got my license in Michigan, insurance was not required.
Then it was,
Then it was changed to NO Fault.
Now I have to carry insurance and if some insured driver hits me I am shit out of luck.

Watch out for the idiots.

[07041826]

Just a thought: Why is driving a privilege and not a right? If that is the case do I truly have any right to transport myself between two point via bike, skates, on foot etc. without government approval? Ultimately, if we accept mandated insurance for one form of transportation, couldn't the government force us to purchase insurance for all movement?

[pcosmar]

Just a thought: Why is driving a privilege and not a right? If that is the case do I truly have any right to transport myself between two point via bike, skates, on foot etc. without government approval? Ultimately, if we accept mandated insurance for one form of transportation, couldn't the government force us to purchase insurance for all movement?

Hush
Don't give them any more damn ideas. :(

[roho76]

And it only does that if you carry full coverage. :(

When I got my license in Michigan, insurance was not required.
Then it was,
Then it was changed to NO Fault.
Now I have to carry insurance and if some insured driver hits me I am shit out of luck.

Watch out for the idiots.

My buddy who's not the wealthiest person bought a used VW Golf from the dealership he works for. They allowed him to make payments on it instead of getting a loan which was nice of them. Two days after he got the car some stupid teenager pulled out of a subdivision and t-boned him while she was talking on her cell phone. Now he's out of a car through no fault of his own. I find it despicable that you can loose everything due to somebody else's negligence. No Fault is the dumbest form of mandated car insurance ever. There is really no reason for it's existence besides to force people to buy it.

[pcosmar]

My buddy who's not the wealthiest person bought a used VW Golf from the dealership he works for. They allowed him to make payments on it instead of getting a loan which was nice of them. Two days after he got the car some stupid teenager pulled out of a subdivision and t-boned him while she was talking on her cell phone. Now he's out of a car through no fault of his own. I find it despicable that you can loose everything due to somebody else's negligence. No Fault is the dumbest form of mandated car insurance ever. There is really no reason for it's existence besides to force people to buy it.

It was obviously his fault for not getting a loan and the required full coverage (that would only cover up to the depreciated book value).
How dare he attempt to be frugal.
:(

[nobody's_hero]

I have heard that Alabama does not require auto insurance. Is that true?

[Reason]

thanks for all the replies, I plan to be better prepared for this response in the future!

[Anti Federalist]

thanks for all the replies, I plan to be better prepared for this response in the future!

We live to please at RPFs :D

[Anti Federalist]

Just a thought: Why is driving a privilege and not a right? If that is the case do I truly have any right to transport myself between two point via bike, skates, on foot etc. without government approval? Ultimately, if we accept mandated insurance for one form of transportation, couldn't the government force us to purchase insurance for all movement?

It's not a privilege, that's a sophistry passed off by the powers that be.

It is, in fact, a right.


TO TRAVEL IS A "RIGHT," NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED "PRIVILEGE "

1. The issue is whether this Citizen is required to obey the provisions in Michigan General Statutes. It is the contention of this Citizen that because he is a Free and Natural Person who has given up none of his "RIGHTS." That the General Statutes does not apply to him. It is also the contention of this Citizen that travels upon the streets or highways by this Citizen is an inalienable "RIGHT." Being this, is not subject to regulation or legislation by the State s General Assembly. 2. Let us first consider the contention of this Citizen that travels upon the streets or highways in is a "RIGHT." Various courts have ruled on this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

2.1 The "RIGHT" to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen "cannot be deprived" without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment. See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125

3. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated in 1909:

3.1 The term "Public Highway," in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads, streets, highways-and roadways which the public has a "RIGHT" to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public. See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.

4. The "Supreme Court" of the "State of Illinois" ruled:

4.1 Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the "RIGHT" to travel upon the roadways and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22

"Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, sign, etc., NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.; licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc..

6. PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT?

6.1 The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; See: Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 607;

See: American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163 6.2 A Citizen 's "RIGHT" to travel upon public highways includes the right to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S. E. 579, 580

6.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

7. It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the States have a "RIGHT" to travel, without approval or restriction, (license), and that this "RIGHT" is protected under the U.S. Constitution. After all, who do the roadways belong to anyway? The People-At-Large. The following are additional court decisions that expound the same facts:

7.1 . The streets and roadways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516;

7.2 All those who travel upon, and transport their property upon, the public highways, using the ordinary conveyance of today, and doing so in the usual and ordinary course of life and business. See: Hadfield, supra; See: State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864.

7.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, obviously differs radically from that of one who makes the highways his principal place of business and uses it for private gain ... See: State v. City of Spokane, supra.

7.4 . While a Citizen has the "RIGHT" to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that "RIGHT" does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain. For the latter purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion .... See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; See: Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171; See: Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140 and other cases too numerous to mention.

8. The "Washington State Supreme Court" stated:

8.1 I am not particularly interested about the rights of haulers by contract, or otherwise, but I am deeply interested in the "RIGHTS" of the public to use the public highways freely for all lawful purposes. See: Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139

9. The "Supreme Court of the State of Indiana" ruled in 1873:

9.1 It is not the amount of travel, the extent of the use of a highway by the public that distinguishes it from a private way or road. It is the "RIGHT" to so use or travel upon it, not its exercise. See: ? Ind 455, 461

10. 11 American Jurisprudence 1st, has this to say:

10.1 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under the Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public roadways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added) See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123

Much more at http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml

[kpitcher]

As the health care bill forces someone to buy private insurance, by the same argument the feds could force citizens to buy any private goods or service. Imagine if the Feds said you can only buy a GM car.

[speciallyblend]

car insurance is a scam like health insurance. in the end their goal is to profit off you not help you!! insurance is legal thievery!