Motorcycle Forums banner

100 Lawmakers Support End Biker Health Insurance Bias

17526 Views 81 Replies 18 Participants Last post by  BMW4VWW
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

21 - 40 of 82 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.

Get of out Kook free card

He's a big V-twin guy now so I guess it's ok.
Re: Get of out Kook free card

Buells are cool. I love Harleys
Thank you

Thanks for the compliment ;) If being pragmatic makes me unlike McCain then you should read his biography. This country would not be in the mess now if McCain was elected.
Re: Thank you

If by "being pragmatic" you mean he is selling his soul for policical gain by totally ignoring his solomn oath of office which requires him to follow constitutional edicts and refrain from socialist legislation, then you're right K Paul. The country would not be in the mess it is now. The "mess" would be far greater. I will give him this though, at least he is upfront about his socialist proclivities, which is more than I can say for most other Republican polititians, whose actions in office seldom match their campeign rhetoric
Oh please

"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. " Which planet have you been living on. The John Birch society has disbanded dude. There is no Jewish contolling consipiracy. The UN is not a evil Rockefeller plot to take over the world.
Re: Oh please

The planet I live on is one where people with the requisite gray matter to separate fact from propaganda offer cogent discourse when disagreeing on subjects of importance. A world that you are apparently alien to.

K Paul, you're ad hominem sniping offers substantial refutation to neither my question nor my postulation. VWW
Wow. What a bunch of crap.

If anything, the framers of our constitution meant for it to change and be interpreted as our nation changes. I believe that this works successfully. To interpret it so literally is a disservice to us all. So we should let the libertarians run the country and have them turn a blind eye towards...everything?

I'm sorry you think we're all sheep and we believe everything we're told, but I certainly don't. However, I do believe that our government plays an important role in shaping the evolution of this country. That includes passing laws limiting commerce. Private businesses are not allowed to discriminate against their customers because that's what the people want. Perhaps you're confusing sheep-like behavior with what's known as a majority -- the concept that this country was founded on.

In general, I think that most people can think for themselves. I for one almost always have copy of the Constitution with me and in fact just today I wrote my Congressman expressing my displeasure on a certain issue.

See less See more
Amen, VWW. My whole point was that the problem would not exist if not for the fact that the government got involved in the first place.
To quote yourself ferb, "What a bunch of crap."!

To say that the Constitution changes with society is absolutely insane. So, according to your line of thought, freedom of speech as interpreted in today's society means we don't say anything that could be construed as anti-politically-correct. Words mean what they mean. They are quite literal. The framers, if anything, specifically stated their intent so certain rights could NOT be re-interpreted as meaning something else.

The left-wing of this country is doing their best to eliminate the right to bear arms, the right to say certain things that they deem "offensive", the right to eliminate our private property rights all thru "interpretation" in the liberal courts. If anyone has the ability to interpret, it's the Supreme Court.

Read the Federalist Papers sometime if you want to know their intent. Quite refreshing!!
See less See more
To say that the Constitution DOESN'T change with society is insane. How do you explain amendments 11 through 27?
Damn, people have been getting off since I last checked.

I should know better than to get dragged in to this crap, but once more into the...

Your interpretation of the constitution is like your mind, hopelessly narrow. The founding fathers did not intend to construct a complete laundry list. To suggest they did is baseless. The Constitution was drafted to be mutable within the systems defined (exec,leg,jud)and there are cues to that throughout the constitution and throughout the writings of its authors, especially the federalists.

You find a narrow reading of listed powers compelling in regards to the scope of legislative authority, but ignore it as it relates to the limits on legislative authority and provide no reasoning for doing so. The fact that there are two lists (scope and limits)indicates that the founding fathers saw room for interpretation and change. If they did not foresee this dynamic, then one list would have sufficed. The founding fathers could have just listed those powers expressly allowed and been done with it. Your argument would make some sense in that scenario. However, that is not the way they chose to go and they did so for good reason.

Your argument has been lost twice. Once at the Constitutional Convention and again with the Civil War. Maybe you can start a new confederacy in Cuba after Castro dies.

Other points:

"Life, Liberty etc" is not in the constitution it's in the Declaration of Independence which, while a wonderful work of prose, has no legal standing.

Did I see someone use the Federalist papers to advance a Jeffersonian position?

Someone raised the question of whether an insurance company issuing me an insurance policy for my state in my state is actually inter-state commerce. He may actually have a point.

"Froman", you may like to believe that you would thrive in your (for lack of a better term) libertarian paradise but I imagine your existence would be rather Hobbesian; miserable and short.

See less See more
Yes, but today we no longer bother with the amendment process. It's too inconvenient. We rely on the Supreme Court to generate penumbras so that we can discover all kind of new rights that no one ever noticed before.

Jeeez. Just look at SC decisions. They have completely destroyed the 4th amendment for example. So-called conservative judges are just as guilty as liberals.
If ferb actually has a copy of the constitution perahaps he hasn't read enough of it to come to the part that allows for the LEGAL amendment process. It is in this context and only in this context that the framers allowed for any changes to be made to our paramount governing document. Our founding fathers were prescient enough know that some fine tuning of the constitution might be necessary so they carefully laid out a process that protected our republican form of governance. There was never any intent to have changes made by some government official deciding that today's needs required someone to reinterpet the clearly stated rules laid out in that contract with the people. VWW
Who do you think "regulators" are? They are people who are looking for nice fat retirement jobs in the area of business they regulate. Just look at the revolving doors. Defense and FDA are prime examples of people who protect private business interests while in govt so that they can get a sweet retirement job down the line. Insurance regulators are no different. Protect Travellers Ins Co. and get a nice sinecure when you retire!
Mr. Brown, Limits on legislative authority are the exact reason that anti-federalist factions insisted on the inclusion of the Bill of Rights prior to ratifying the Constitution. It was specifically because of our forefathers fears that people like you would attempt to bastardize the original intent of the framers that we have the first ten amendments. Please read Articles Nine and Ten in particular.

BTW how dare you include the unconstitutional atrocity known as the Civil War in any discussion on constitutional rights. I would suggest that you give Tomas DiLorenzo's book The Real Lincoln a careful read prior to your next mention of the Civil War. VWW
seurzawa, if you're reminding me how the system of business patronage to government bureaucrats works, just to get that vein on my forehead to bulge out even farther, you've suceeded. VWW
Okay fine, you don't want the govt' messing in private business affairs so who is going to keep private business from running all over our rights? If you didn't have some form of watch dog on private business you will just as quickly see your rights erode as you will by not keeping an eye on the govt'. Checks and balances. When private business grows so large and becomes so financially powerful that it's actions have a resounding affect on the people it has to be checked. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on where your interests are) groups like the AMA, NRA, etc. help do that and the do it through lobbying politicians, i.e. the government. Do you really think the insurance companies are hurting because they have to honor company insurance policies for motorcyclists? Of course not, they are just trying to add to their already big pile of money. Private business can’t be trusted any more to be principled than govt’. If someone didn't step in there, before you know it insurance companies won't honor insurance policies for skiing/snowboarding, bike riding, ice fishing, or badminton. Whatever they can deem dangerous so they can make an extra buck. If you can't afford or are denied insurance because of an activity you participate in you won't be doing it (at least not for long) and in that way private business can take away your rights. What is the solution to that? Ride without insurance? A ridiculous solution for many reasons. Move to Liberia? I’m sure that motorcycles and insurance are low on their priority list these days. The best solution is to support lobbyist groups that support what you want. I’m in the NRA. I don’t like everything they stand for but it is the only group with enough influence to protect the rights I do want to keep. It’s take and give. Same with our govt’. Sometimes they make legislation to our benefit and sometimes they just ***** you off. It’s a constant struggle that hopefully will keep things somewhat in balance.

In this insurance case, we as motorcycle riders are fortunate for the govt’ intervention. When the govt tells us our bikes can’t have more than 35 hp we’ll be crying and cussing. Hopefully the AMA will prevent that from happening just like they did this bs insurance policy business.

On another note, don't you think you are overlooking a key point when you say:

"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."

Right, at our behest. We, meaning those of us in the AMA, helped protect our rights through our govt'. Isn't that one of the most important parts of our freedom? To have a govt' that works for us based on what we want?
See less See more
It is good that someone can make a profit, at what point is it abuse. I do not mind if they make a decent profit but lets not go overboard."Enron"
"Someone raised the question of whether an insurance company issuing me an insurance policy for my state in my state is actually inter-state commerce. He may actually have a point."

Actually, this point is no more valid than the rest of the fourth grade constitutional interpretations put forth in these threads. The fact that insurance coverage extends beyond the border of one's state is easily sufficient to qualify as interstate commerce.

21 - 40 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.