Do people understand differences in mandating insurance coverage?

There seems to be a lot of confusion on the internet over the difference between mandating health insurance and mandating auto insurance for drivers. Simply put, if you do not want to purchase auto insurance, don?t choose to operate a motor vehicle, something many people don?t do and utilize public transportation. Mandating health insurance has no such escape. Simply by being alive you would be required to purchase it through the individual mandate.

Regardless of the seemingly straight forward and easy to understand difference between the two, one can not peruse the comments section of any recent article about the health care law being declared unconstitutional without inevitably seeing the old "OMGADZORS well I guess I shoulNDT have to puchaze auto inSURANCE either!!!"

My question is this: Are the folks who repeatedly try and hammer this argument down our throats simply unable to understand the difference between the two insurances, or are they just so desperate for a talking point that they will forgo giving it some rational thought in a rapid attempt to "win" the argument for their political affiliation?

There are several differences between mandating auto insurance and mandating health insurance:

1) Auto insurance is mandated by the individual states, not the federal government.

2) Auto insurance is not required of everyone; it is only required if you are driving. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

3) But the most important difference is this: The states that require auto insurance require it only to protect the OTHER drivers on the road. There is no state law requiring anyone to insure themselves or their own vehicle. No state requires you to buy auto insurance to cover your OWN medical expenses if you are injured in an auto accident. And the states do not require you to buy insurance to cover repairs to your OWN vehicle, (although your lender might.)

The people who try to hammer the argument down our throats are trying to defend the new health care law. There is no good defense, so they use that argument and also the one that says we all need to buy insurance so the freeloaders who don?t buy insurance don?t run up every one else?s premiums. Actually that argument is no good either, because the new law exempts most of the people who have not been buying insurance. For example: illegal immigrants, low income people and people who qualify for Medicaid are exempt. These are the people who are "not paying their own way" but these are the people who are not mandated to start "paying their own way." There was a good article in the National Review about this.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/274693/eleventh-circuit-takes-aim-obamacare-avik-roy#

.

Source: http://www.bid4insurance.com/auto-insurance-reviews/do-people-understand-differences-in-mandating-insurance-coverage

masters tickets one direction tulsa news scalloped potatoes the ten commandments charlton heston moses