Motorcycle Forums banner
1 - 20 of 82 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,833 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Those of you who read this article and thought "right on," might wish to consider the words of warning given by our forefathers. A government powerful enough to give you everything you want is aslo powerful enough to take everything that you have.



Where exactly did the people grant the government the power to regulate private business? The answer is of course there is no LEGAL means by which "those that serve us" can regulate what a private enterprise will or will not offer it's customers.



This is precisely the kind of legislation that we who enjoy the sport of motorcycling should oppose. Don't forget that if the government can force insurance companies to insure us against their will at our behest, government can also force all of us to ride 5 hp motorcycles when those companies start squawking about insuring our "risky" behavior. VWW

 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,461 Posts
Oh stop it. You're just going to confuse a lot of people.



We need instant gratification now! Whatever we want is a RIGHT!! And we have the right to get the government to give it to us!



Plus we get to make YOU pay for it. Pretty slick, eh?
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,461 Posts
You know, KPaul, the AMA is as private organization. To stay in business it has to give it's members the support they want. So, since so many of the members are against helmet laws the AMA simply has to work on their behalf. Don't like it? Too bad.



On the other hand the ABATE people are also there to fight for other aspects of biker's rights. Certainly they work harder at it than most sportbiker types. At least in my experience.



Maybe you should move to some country where they dispense with such ideas as private property ownwership and just have the govt do everything. Cuba is a good example. They have plenty of doctors there and everyone can see one for free. Of course they don't have any aspirin but what the hey...



And leave me alone Buz, I know I got caught!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
And I doth quote: "In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which prohibits companies from denying access to employer-sponsored health insurance for motorcyclists and those who participate in other recreational activities. However, federal regulators created a loophole that allows the denial of benefits for injuries sustained while recreating."



Here is a PERFECT example of how government interference created the problem in the first place. Much as with Medicare, Medi-Cal, Mediscam, etc. - Government involvement does nothing but increase the cost to the private sector, i.e you n'me. This effort will only add another layer of confusion, and inevitably another level of cost. Remember, the consumer ALWAYS absorbs the cost, one way or another.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Actually, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants the federal government the ability to regulate interstate commerce and transportation. Re-affirmed in the Supreme Court case Gibbons v. Ogden.



Do you honestly think it would be a good idea for a government not to be able to regulate trade and the type of products offered in a country? Without this right, it would be legal to sell any product that would be profitable, such as crack cocaine to children.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
"Where exactly did the people grant the government the power to regulate private business?"



Uh, I may be mistaken but I believe somewhere in Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America the government is given the right to regulate interstate commerce.



But maybe you're right. Maybe businesses should be able to conduct themselves anyway they want. Just think, a company could refuse to hire women, restaurants could refuse service to whomever they please, banks could refues to loan money to people based on their religion. What a world VWW is envisioning!



The assertion that the government has "no LEGAL means" to regulate private enterprise is ridiculous.



The business of "rights" is a little more complicated than VWW admits to in his post. Unfortunately, "your" rights and "my" rights bump into each other from time to time and it is government's role to sort it out. If you don't like the way gov't is doing it, then vote them out.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,461 Posts
If you are buying insurance from a company licensed to practice in your State then it isn't interstate commerce.



The sort of reasoning that allows the Federal govt to set local school policy or get involved in direct payments of welfare to individuals will eventually get us a totalitarian police State. If you think this is just wacko conspiracy theory I invite you to check a little federal activity called Goals2000, otherwise known as Outcome Based Education.



No child will escape.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
A standard argument for the borderline socialist. The interstate commerce clause and even more broadly, the general welfare clause, are now listed as the constitutional license for the federal government to regulate virtually anything under the sun, whether or not it actually has anything to do with interstate commerce or will, in fact, promote the GENERAL (not individual) welfare.



If in fact these constitutional provisions were intended to be as far-reaching as they are supposed to be today, why wouldn't the framers simply include them as the last part of the constitution? Why write those clauses and then proceed to list multiple specific and limited powers thereafter? Why even list specific powers of the federal government at all, since of course it has gone far beyond those listed?



With regard to our "rights":



A certain segment of our society (read: socialists and liberals) has successfully groomed the populace to believe that we have "rights" far beyond the classic meaning of same. You have the right to life, liberty, and property, but not property that belongs to someone else. You have no "right" to be employed or any "right" to healthcare. It would be perfectly constitutional for a private company to refuse to hire women, and for a resturaunt to refuse servce to anyone they please. A bank can do business with whomever they choose. Under any classical reading of the constitution, no one can be forced into an association against their will. Yes, this gives license to be a bigot or a racist or a sexist, but while those things are horrible, they do not conflict with the constitution. The only way my rights would "bump into" someone else's is if I decided to physically force my will upon them or their property.



Lastly, it's not that we don't like the "way" government is doing it. We don't want the government to do it at all. We cannot vote out politicians who disregard the constutition and trample our liberties because our votes merely cancel out the reams of sheep like you that have been conditioned to meekly bow to the brain wizards in Washington so that you might receive your benefits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
That is just the problem with insurance companies or any other big bidness, they are only worried about there bottom line and how much profit margin they can make. Insurance companies were originally put together to shoulder the brunt of one individual having a loss and put the loss amongst other policy holders so the rates would not go through the roof. Someone got the big Idea to make states require us to have insurance, there still are people that do not carry insurance. So the Insurance companies got the states to mandatory insurance and now they just raise rates because they know people that want to be legal and have insurance are going to carry insurance instead of going to jail or losing your liscense or a big fine. Helmet laws are not the most important item out there, the right to ride would be first, maybe it is because of people not wearing helmets that caused insurance companies not to cover recreational riders!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,833 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
gdrazek, The Commerce Clause in the Constitution was placed there as a check against State to State tariffs or boycotts on another States products. Please read up on your history. There are numerous letters and journals from the framers of our Constituion available to show what the true intent of what the Commerce Clause pertained to. Just because five black robed hacks on the "supreme" court claim that they have interpeted some vague "penumbra," not backed by any concrete evidence, it doesn't mean that it's constitutionally correct.



As for your worries about private enterprises selling crack to children, please see the Tenth Amendment which guarantees the right of the people of each State to decide if they wish to allow such activity or not. VWW
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,465 Posts
There is no real need to ban health coverage to those who engage in "risky" activity. Actuaries will quickly assess the risks and adjust the rates accordingly. Those employers who can afford the coverage may continue to offer it. Those who can't won't. And some of those who can, but don't want to, will have an excuse not to. Health coverage, other than workers' compensation, is not a mandated benefit. Those who pay for their own coverage will bear the brunt of escalating costs or do without. It will then be up to you and me to make some difficult choices should the legislators leave the decision making up to those who offer the coverage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
"That is just the problem with insurance companies or any other big bidness, they are only worried about there bottom line and how much profit margin they can make. "



How is that a problem? Why else would a big business exist? Why else would any-sized business entity exist? If it isn't about the profit, it isn't a business--it's a hobby.



"Greed...is good." --Gordon Gekko

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,752 Posts
"The bipartisan measures are in response to action taken by federal regulators that legalized health-insurance discrimination against riders. " from the article. This was not an action against the insurance providers themselves but rather to counter a loop hole created by federal regulators.



 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,752 Posts
"The bipartisan measures are in response to action taken by federal regulators that legalized health-insurance discrimination against riders. " from the article. This was not an action against the insurance providers themselves but rather to counter a loop hole created by federal regulators.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,833 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
The very fact that federal regulators f#*ked this up so badly in the first place should give pause to anyone who expects them to straighten this mess up now. VWW
 
1 - 20 of 82 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top