Thread: Philisophical question

I'm not interested in anyone's political perspective on this issue and I'd really like to have this thread not get closed because it became political. I am interested in your philosophical perspective as it relates to the following:

What is the difference between requiring a person who operates a vehicle (in essence exercising a priviledge) to have a minimum amount of insurance and requiring a person to have health insurance? Should a gun owner have to carry liability insurance similar to the minimum requirements for vehicle owners?

That is the difference between a Right and a privilege.

I been driving since 1973 in that time I have been involved in or my autos have been involved in 9 accidents that could have or did involve an insurance company. I have been shooting on my own with no adult supper vision since I was 10 in 1968 in that time I have never had a reason to involve insurance with my shooting sports.

And see Nwcid above.

short answer. NO... longer answer, as home owners the wife and i pay extra in the form of an umbrella policy, in case some crackhead decides to kill himself on my property, or, somebody trips on something on my property, or some body runs down the neighborhood dog walker, branches fall out of the tree. whatever. i believe we are also covered so long as a court of law doesnt find me guilty of commiting a crime while killing the perp.

Carrying ins on your car is mandatory on the liability side. You must be able to pay a minimum amount if you do damage to others property etc. while exercising your privilege to drive.

There is no mandate to carry car insurance that covers damage to your own vehicle, or your own life. If you acquired a loan to buy it, the lender may require vehicle coverage as a condition of the loan, but the state doesn't as a condition to own/drive it.

The health care ins. mandate is about covering yourself, while exercising your right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Quite a bit of difference I'd say.

Furthermore, in cases where I am liable to shoot someone else, it would be in self defense, or in defense from someone committing a felony against me or mine.
I shouldn't be forced to carry insurance that covers felons acting against me.
As a matter of fact, I should have a castle doctrine law at home, and a clearly defined right to self defense with deadly force if confronted on the street, that would preclude the need for insurance.

Originally Posted by Jamie6.5

Carrying ins on your car is mandatory on the liability side. You must be able to pay a minimum amount if you do damage to others property etc. while exercising your privilege to drive.

There is no mandate to carry car insurance that covers damage to your own vehicle, or your own life. If you acquired a loan to buy it, the lender may require vehicle coverage as a condition of the loan, but the state doesn't as a condition to own/drive it.

The health care ins. mandate is about covering yourself, while exercising your right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Quite a bit of difference I'd say.

Furthermore, in cases where I am liable to shoot someone else, it would be in self defense, or in defense from someone committing a felony against me or mine.
I shouldn't be forced to carry insurance that covers felons acting against me.
As a matter of fact, I should have a castle doctrine law at home, and a clearly defined right to self defense with deadly force if confronted on the street, that would preclude the need for insurance.

^ That answers your question perfectly.

On the bigger picture, forget about insurance, healthcare, liabilities, etc. and consider what has been done to us. The government is forcing us to buy something for doing nothing. Everyone, all of us. Don't want it? Too bad. Don't comply, pay more. It just does not sound American to me. I believe it's all about money and control. It certainly is not about individual freedom and liberty.

Originally Posted by Kevatc

What is the difference between requiring a person who operates a vehicle (in essence exercising a priviledge) to have a minimum amount of insurance and requiring a person to have health insurance?

You can choose to not operate a motor vehicle.

Originally Posted by Abiqua

You can choose to not operate a motor vehicle.

These days? Not really.

Originally Posted by Redcap

These days? Not really.

Philosophical question, philosophical answer.

The car is operated on public roads and so becomes a permitted societal activity, the private citizen accesses public resources (priviledge). e.g. A farmer with a truck that never leaves his land is not required to insure it.

The argument for mandatory health insurance is partly based on the notion, and there are many laws to this effect, that if one needs medical attention public health institutions (hospitals) cannot refuse to treat them. Another example of private access to public resources (priviledge).

As of yet, I have not heard of a valid reason for a liability ins. requirement for private citizens on the basis of: possesion of a firearm, its use in competition or practice, its carry for defense, it carry and use for hunting, transportation or storage. None of these activities demonstrate the use by a private entitiy of public resources, with respect to the firearm specifically. To hunt you often need a state license.

So this can be broken down along private/public resource lines. This is also why I oppose universal health care. When you demand universal care, you are giving the State a pass to intrude on your life, and they will over time. Until it all fails, you can expect an ever encroaching State to dictact diet (cut back on the fats), behaviour(smoking first of course) sports (no BB gun you for you, you will put your eye out!) and anything that might lead to disease, injury or loss of public resources. Your body has now become public resources, OBTW.

the diference is if i dont drive i DONT have to have ins
with the health law it would be you WILL have ins. for a car it is volitary for health it is forced

Originally Posted by Nwcid

That is the difference between a Right and a privilege.

End of discussion

If we put politics aside, I think the rights vs privilege argument is tenuous. I say that because we are only allowed our "rights" because our political system holds them self evident. That's not to say I disagree, only that those "rights" are protected as "rights" because our political system agrees. So let me see if I can word this without using that argument.

Mandatory car insurance covers other people you may hurt. I.E. if you affect someone else.

Mandatory health insurance covers the people on the policy, no one else. I.E. it does not cover other people you may hurt.

Mandatory firearms insurance? Statistical chance of ever needing it would be extremely low, unlike car insurance. I believe the only reason car insurance is required is the statistical chance of needing it at some point is extremely high. My guess would be that monetary/civil liability is a lot higher with cars as well. Car vs Person is likely to cause more injury than Gun vs Person. Car vs Property is going to cause far more damage than Gun vs Property.

States' rights, and freedom of choice. With car insurance it's required by your state IF you choose to drive. They don't make you drive, so they don't make everyone buy insurance. Some people don't drive.

With this health insurance, it is mandated by the feds in an unconstitutional power grab requiring everyone to buy a product. The tenth amendment to the US Constitution clearly limits the powers of the Feds, and no where are they given the right to mandate that we purchase a product.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - tenth amendment.

Originally Posted by mortre

If we put politics aside, I think the rights vs privilege argument is tenuous. I say that because we are only allowed our "rights" because our political system holds them self evident. That's not to say I disagree, only that those "rights" are protected as "rights" because our political system agrees. So let me see if I can word this without using that argument.

Mandatory car insurance covers other people you may hurt. I.E. if you affect someone else.

Mandatory health insurance covers the people on the policy, no one else. I.E. it does not cover other people you may hurt.

Mandatory firearms insurance? Statistical chance of ever needing it would be extremely low, unlike car insurance. I believe the only reason car insurance is required is the statistical chance of needing it at some point is extremely high. My guess would be that monetary/civil liability is a lot higher with cars as well. Car vs Person is likely to cause more injury than Gun vs Person. Car vs Property is going to cause far more damage than Gun vs Property.

Thanks mortre. No offense to others but I feel like your answer gets down to the core part of the issues. With that in mind, and based on the essence of some of the other posts I'd like to ask the questions in a different way.

Why do you feel health care is a privilege and not a right? If you are a person who has insurance are you privileged and deserve more access to the system versus someone who is equally in need but doesn't have the money?

Is this right vs. privilege thing confusing? You have the right to purchase your own healthcare. Obama does not have the right or the privilege to make you purchase anything. It really is that simple, why make it difficult?

Forget healthcare, what about food? If you have food, are you privileged? What about the family that has no food? Is food a right? What about housing? The list never ends.

If the US Constitution specifically denies the Federal government the power to demand something of us, and they do it anyway, the rest of the argument is moot.

The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are called "The Bill of Rights." That's the rights of the people, not the government. Those amendment were put into place to limit the power of the Federal Government. It's there that we get our rights to free speech, free press, free association, freedom of religion, gun rights, protection from unreasonable search and seizure and so on.

It ends by saying that any power not specifically given to the Feds in the Constitution is reserved for the states and for the people. The Federal Government stepped unconstitutionally outside of its power when it mandated that private individuals must buy a product.

Our founders were afraid of the Federal Government, and that's why they amended the constitution and wrote the Bill of Rights, restricting the Feds.

Originally Posted by Gunner3456

If the US Constitution specifically denies the Federal government the power to demand something of us, and they do it anyway, the rest of the argument is moot.

The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are called "The Bill of Rights." That's the rights of the people, not the government. Those amendment were put into place to limit the power of the Federal Government. It's there that we get our rights to free speech, free press, free association, freedom of religion, gun rights, protection from unreasonable search and seizure and so on.

It ends by saying that any power not specifically given to the Feds in the Constitution is reserved for the states and for the people. The Federal Government stepped unconstitutionally outside of its power when it mandated that private individuals must buy a product.

Our founders were afraid of the Federal Government, and that's why they amended the constitution and wrote the Bill of Rights, restricting the Feds.

You are spot on, but he has conveniently framed his "Philisophical question" in a way where none of that matters.

What is the difference between requiring a person who operates a vehicle (in essence exercising a priviledge) to have a minimum amount of insurance and requiring a person to have health insurance? Should a gun owner have to carry liability insurance similar to the minimum requirements for vehicle owners?

Cannot speak about those doing the requiring. Kind of neuters the whole unconstitutional argument.

Why do you feel health care is a privilege and not a right? If you are a person who has insurance are you privileged and deserve more access to the system versus someone who is equally in need but doesn't have the money?

Here comes the fairness BS. I don't "feel" health care is a privilege or a right. If you have food, is that to be considered a privilege?

I don't see what the point is, unless you are trying to justify another Obama vote. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Kevatc

Why do you feel health care is a privilege and not a right?

Because I'm not a communist/socialist.

Because I'm not interested in class warfare, or taking from those who worked and earned, and giving it to those who didn't.

Obama: I Pushed Dodd-Frank And Health Care Reform Because Of Christ