The new federal healthcare plan that requires almost all American citizens to purchase health insurance has faced a lot of criticism and is being termed as ‘unconstitutional and highly intrusive’ by the legal opposition.
The opponents to this new healthcare plan state that the government cannot force citizens to pay for something like an insurance policy.
If this argument continues to prevail in the court there are those who are actually looking forward to tearing up their auto insurance policies that the state of Florida makes Floridian motorists purchase year after year. In the same manner, even the flood insurance is mandatory if your home sits in an area that carries the risk of getting flooded in the event of a storm.
Well, it is understandable that the auto insurance coverage is in our own interests as you may be involved in an accident where the other party is an uninsured driver. For that matter, even the flood policy may help in rebuilding homes, especially if you face the wrath of something like Katrina. But, we wonder what is more important – principle or practicality?
In Atlanta, last week, there were 3 federal appeals judges who heard arguments that went for and against the President’s latest healthcare reform that had been passed by the Congress last year. There were a total of 26 states that jointly filed the lawsuit and that included Florida as well. It also included conservative activists and a small group of businesses.
Earlier on, Judge Roger Vinson had struck down the whole healthcare package in Pensacola, due to the individual mandate which would require citizens to get insurance. After this ruling, the case then reached the appellate bench.
Vinson also stayed the decision in order to allow appeals. He stated that the Congress did not have any authority to force citizens to buy any commercial product, nor could it penalize them for inactivity. According to this case, those that did not purchase health coverage would end up paying a fine on their income tax.
In Florida as well as the other states, motorists caught without auto insurance have to pay a ticket and may even end up losing their licenses. As of now, no high court has given any sort of ruling that these penalties were unconstitutional.
In reality, most of the insurance that we purchase is never out of choice but more out of compulsion. If citizens don’t purchase these policies for their homeowner’s protection or flood coverage, then banks and financial institutions can legally impose all this coverage at a hefty price.
