Tuesday, 30 March 2010


I sat and pondered today over how mandated health insurance will pass via Supreme Court when questioned. I've watched "experts" over the past ten days claim that congress can do just about anything they want over commercial services and actually make you buy health insurance.

So I sat there and imagined standing by the Supreme Court guys....and asking some stupid questions...which really have nothing to do with health insurance.

In a week or month or year or decade...if congress stood up and said that we all had to buy travel insurance when we travel via air...would the same mandate work in that case? Could congress force us all to buy travel insurance?

Then I'd continue on....could congress mandate we buy rent guarantee insurance...to help us when we rent and the owners raise the prices? Did they have the power to mandate that?

So onward I went.

Mandated property insurance? Mandated pet insurance? Mandated home insurance? Mandated title insurance? Mandated landlord insurance? Mandated loan protection insurance? Mandated weather insurance? Mandated cattle insurance? Mandated crop insurance? Mandated crime or robbery insurance? Mandated earthquake insurance? Mandated medigap insurance?

Then I came to this funny area where I could actually envision coming up within a year or two...flood insurance. Imagine mandating that anyone in a flood plain area....had to buy flood insurance? Naturally, the folks in New Orleans would complain and want a lesser rate than the guys in Florida...so you'd grade the "have/have not" flood insurance rate....to be "FAIR".

Would the Supreme Court agree to mandated flood insurance and possibly some rigged up rates to help the poor of New Orleans?

I'm thinking that all nine members are going to sit there and pause over this. Basically...it opens up a can of worms about how much insurance you could mandate and how this would ever be fair or constitutional.

I sat and watched some "expert" try to explain away this mess in that we already have mandated car insurance in all fifty states....but the funny thing is that if you don't have a car...you don't have such insurance. The other funny thing is that this is rigged up via each and every state...so a guy in Bama pays $250 a year for truck insurance, while a guy in California pays $1200 a year for the same type insurance. The logic here would demand that we run health care the same way...so a guy in Bama pays $1500 a year, and a guy in California pays $5000 a year.

For some reason, I'm not buying into the experts argument on CNN. I'm suspecting that once you toss a bunch of insurance concepts toward the Supreme Court...they will all sit there and start to ponder where this starts and where it ends. And frankly...mandating some guy to buy flood insurance when there's been one flood in 85 years...just won't wash. The same argument could be used for healthcare....where a guy has been to the doctor once in thirty years.

No comments: