Some states require you do buy auto insurance if you own a car. The health insurance mandate, by contrast, applies to everyone who has a pulse.

David,

Here’s my source for the jail claim. Even if it was only fining people for not buying a private product, that would still be a first, and in my opinion a big deal.

Blackadder,

Not so fast. The House and Senate bills must be reconciled. The Senate bill imposes a $750 fine per adult (limited to $1500 per household) for not buying insurance, and there are no penalties except that the IRS may deduct what you owe should you be due a refund.

The House bill does not send you to jail for not buying insurance. There is a fee (or a fine, or a tax — apparently it’s not clear yet what it will be considered), and if you refuse to pay that, then there are penalties, phased in over a period of years, which I suppose could result in criminal prosecution.

Can’t you go to jail in some states for refusing to buy auto insurance?

I know what is in the bill. I read it. I don’t see the problem.

Not only that, but in some instances the product in question will be worthless. Many states, for example, mandate that health insurance policies cover quack treatments and forms of “alternative medicine” that, scientifically speaking, have little to no medical value. If someone wants to buy an insurance policy that covers such things, I have no objection. But I see no reason why I should have to do so.

The problem with your argument is it can be legitimately asked whether or not this bill is really the result of a free people putting their beliefs into practice.

Not even the legislators themselves know what is in the bill.

The bill is the result primarily of giving and taking between interest groups including insurance companies and medical groups that hope to benefit financially.

The bill was not even made available to the people of this country to ponder and make their views known to their representatives.

Your idealism is nice, but the process of passage of this legislation and the profit-oriented interests still calling the shots call your claims into question.

Like when people have their income tax withheld, and at the end of the year think they’re getting free money from the government?

If you want them to keep the cost in mind, have them pay it separately, and by themselves in one lump sum on the 1st of November. They’ll not only keep it in mind, but will keep it in mind when they vote a few days later.

Zach,

What is going to be “given away for free”?

You mean like national defense?

If something is given away for free by a democratic government, that thing is subject to the whims of legislators who come and go and whose opinions change with the time of day. The more politicians have to give, the more they can take away, the more they can corrupt and ruin.

The argument is not simply that we will be less free (which we will). It is that we will become less disposed towards government that best facilitate the common good.