((Orrin Hatch also said that making people buy insurance is unconstitutional: “There are also a number of unconstitutional provisions in here, like, for the first time, requiring, actually compelling people in this country to buy insurance.”

So we don’t have to buy car insurance or contribute to Social Security anymore?))

Both of these don’t work as pro arguments because you have opt outs. Don’t want car insurance? Don’t own
a car. There are other modes of transportation but you accept that not owning a car impacts your life. Don’t want to pay Social security? Don’t work. But accept that your life will be impacted and limited majorly by it but it is your choice. What are you supposed to do to not pay for health insurance? Kill yourself?

And, I feel confident based on his past performance that if Sen Hatch had felt wronged, he’d have no problem expressing his feelings within the interview, as he did in his exchange with iconic Detroit anchor Bill Bonds during the period of Clarence Thomas’ confirmation.

Come on Vidiot… you’re better than that. Auto insurance is around not to protect the driver, rather it’s to protect the OTHER drivers. Additionally, driving is a privilege, not a right… so they can make whatever laws they want in regard to it. As for Social Security… wasn’t it the Republicans who wanted to give the option of privatizing SS a few years back… but were denied by the Democrats? Seems consistent to me.

Where is Malveaux asking Baukus or Reid why BC/BS of Minnesota and BC/BS of Nebraska are now exempted from the taxes that every other BC/BS of every other state have to pay.

Yeah, this kind of continued attacks on republicans will really help their ratings.

Not.

MOTS

Auto insurance is required as the terms for registering and/or operating a motor vehicle. That is perfectly constitutional since driving is a privilege and not a right. Additionally, the auto insurance requirement is at the state level and since it is not a part of “interstate commerce,” the Tenth Amendment leaves that to the states and the feds are hand off.

The auto insurance analogy is getting tiresome. It is also the basis of the proposal to allow “interstate access to health insurance,” which would not have the desired effect. Health insurance here in South Florida costs more because health care itself costs more here. Insurance in Wyoming costs less for the same reasons. It is the local market that drives the cost. So the insurance company in Wyoming is going to charge a South Florida the same rate as a Florida insurer. That is why they are all STATE regulated.

And one more stake in the heart of the auto insurance analogy: If you call the Geico or Progressive number from the TV ad, the second you identify where you live, you are dealing with Geico/Progressive of ‘your state.’ Again, STATE regulated.

If you think about it, the Tenth Amendment might just sink this whole ship.

What is, sadly, not unconstitutional is glomming tax dollars in exchange for a vote in Congress. I have a lot of respect for Orrin Hatch, but that is an uncommonly weaselish answer from a normally honest man.

So we don’t have to buy car insurance or contribute to Social Security anymore?