Car insurance vs health insurance

[boedicca]

It doesn't reflect increased demand relative to the levels of supply.

 

[Greenbeard]

It doesn't reflect increased demand relative to the levels of supply.

As I said, if you want to assume that the insured are potential primary care patients and the uninsured are not, you can adjust the PCP per capita numbers for each state by taking into account the state's insurance rate. Massachusetts still comes in second in the nation in PCPs per (insured) capita.

The problem isn't with the numbers.

 

[boedicca]

And their waiting times are getting longer while Emergency Room visits are increasing at a higher rate than the rest of the country.

 

[The T]

it's the federal government that won't allow health insurance companies to sell across state lines.

no, it isn't. There's no federal law prohibiting insurers from selling across state lines.

thanks. That is technically true but insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws and thus states are free to allow what basically amounts to monopolies.

Removing that exemption would force insurance companies to compete across state lines.

yep

 

[The T]

Comparing requiring car insurance to mandatory health insurance is specious.

The first is a requirement for the privilege of using public roads.

The second is a tax on one's heart beats, iow one is forced to pay just because one is alive. That is a violation of one's inalienable rights.

Indeed it is.

 

[Care4all]

why can the state require you be covered with auto insurance? what if you did not want to buy it because you had the money to pay for any accident you might have with another person?

same as health care.....why can a State mandate such, like Massachusetts and it not interfere with our inalienable rights?

how can States constitutionally require you to buy ''no fault'' insurance, which covers the non insured? why should citizens have to pay for that kind of insurance on ''the other guy''?

 

[kaz]

I want to make it clear the I despise both political parties, I have never towed a party line nor ever will I. I do not believe they are for the American people, I believe they are out for their own best interests.

But,
One of the Repub's arguments was that Americans should not be forced to buy health insurance against their will by ObamaCare, that it's illegal and unconstitutional.

Now, where the hell were they when I was being forced to buy Car Insurance?

Car Insurance requires you on public roads to insure your actions do not cause harm to others that you cannot pay for. You only are required to buy it in order to drive on the roads that everyone drives on. You are not required to buy comprehensive or collision or medical to cover yourself. Everyone is required to buy health insurance and it's to protect you from your own choices. How can you possibly equate them?

If you get into a car accident and you are not insured, the other driver and the state pick up the difference (car insurance also covers medical care)

If you get injured or severely ill and do not have health insurance you can show up at the emergency room and they have to treat you. Once again, the state picks up the tab

As a taxpayer, I would rather force YOU to pay for health coverage than force ME to pick up the tab once you become sick

Your argument is based on your own liberal rules though

 

[shintao]

why can the state require you be covered with auto insurance? what if you did not want to buy it because you had the money to pay for any accident you might have with another person?

I do believe you can be bonded and not pay auto insurance.

same as health care.....why can a State mandate such, like Massachusetts and it not interfere with our inalienable rights?

how can States constitutionally require you to buy ''no fault'' insurance, which covers the non insured? why should citizens have to pay for that kind of insurance on ''the other guy''?

The state should not have the right to require you pay a private enity, but they do it anyway. Insurance & smog to private corporations. However, if you are like me, you can afford to buy a new car every five years and avoid paying to have a car smogged. The poor pay & the rich get away.

When you buy a house, you are forced to pay a private company PMI insurance on the mortgage. However, if you are like me, and rich enough to plunk the 20% down, the law says the mortgage company has to pay to cover their own butt. So the poor pay while the rich get away.

 

[Valerie]

why can the state require you be covered with auto insurance? what if you did not want to buy it because you had the money to pay for any accident you might have with another person?

same as health care.....why can a State mandate such, like Massachusetts and it not interfere with our inalienable rights?

how can States constitutionally require you to buy ''no fault'' insurance, which covers the non insured? why should citizens have to pay for that kind of insurance on ''the other guy''?

I don't know but one difference is that auto insurance laws are at the state level, whereas the health insurance mandates are at the federal level.

When it comes to insurance laws, no two states are the same. While almost all 50 states have mandatory minimum insurance requirements, the requisite coverage levels vary tremendously. In other states, no mandatory minimums exist; instead, the law requires drivers to prove financial responsibility. The repercussions for failing to comply with car insurance laws also differ significantly by state. Noncompliance may result in hefty fines in one state and license revocation in another.

Clearly, drivers must consider the geographic disparity in auto insurance laws before purchasing a policy. The type and amount of coverage you must purchase will depend heavily on where you live. To drive legally, you will need to comply with the unique regulations of your state. To assist you in selecting the right amount of coverage, we have compiled articles that address the individual insurance requirements of all fifty states, as well as the consequences of noncompliance. Read the post or posts discussing the laws of your state to inform your coverage decisions.

State Insurance Laws

 

[kaz]

why can the state require you be covered with auto insurance? what if you did not want to buy it because you had the money to pay for any accident you might have with another person?

same as health care.....why can a State mandate such, like Massachusetts and it not interfere with our inalienable rights?

how can States constitutionally require you to buy ''no fault'' insurance, which covers the non insured? why should citizens have to pay for that kind of insurance on ''the other guy''?

As a libertarian, I'll take the auto insurance one. Even in 1776 the Founding Fathers recognized the criticality of roads to commerce. From the Constitution

Section. 8. Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

As a libertarian, I believe government, particularly central (aka Federal) government, should be restricted to only those things that only government can do. Because of the massive amount of land, vast distances and coordination that is required, it can't be done by private citizens. And it is a fair use of the Fifth Amendment which states: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." So government can force land to be taken for public use, roads is clearly a public use that cannot be done any other way, but citizens must be fairly compensated.

With building the roads comes regulating them. While I may argue which laws I want, traffic laws, seat belt laws, gas mileage requirements, safety requirements and required auto insurance are all Constitutional. With building roads comes the right to regulate their use, if they didn't have that it would be chaos. And Constitutionally, you can't pick and choose, it's OK to regulate speed but not gas mileage or it's OK to require safety but not auto insurance. Those are arbitrary. Roads are covered, building them, acquiring land, and regulating their use.

As to why require auto when you are willing to assume the risk? It's not your risk, it's others. People should be able to pick the risk they will assume. They should not be able to pick the risk others should assume. One of the rare times I will utter this phrase, that IS the job of government.

Healthcare is all about your own risk. There really is nowhere else to go with that.

 

[kaz]

The state should not have the right to require you pay a private enity, but they do it anyway. Insurance & smog to private corporations. However, if you are like me, you can afford to buy a new car every five years and avoid paying to have a car smogged. The poor pay & the rich get away.

When you buy a house, you are forced to pay a private company PMI insurance on the mortgage. However, if you are like me, and rich enough to plunk the 20% down, the law says the mortgage company has to pay to cover their own butt. So the poor pay while the rich get away.

You aren't required to buy auto insurance to exist, you are required to buy it to drive on public roads.

As for PMI, that shouldn't be a government function. But then neither should underwriting mortgages be and something like 95% are underwritten by government. The same government which blamed banks for making bad loands...

 

[shintao]

Car Insurance requires you on public roads to insure your actions do not cause harm to others that you cannot pay for. You only are required to buy it in order to drive on the roads that everyone drives on. You are not required to buy comprehensive or collision or medical to cover yourself. Everyone is required to buy health insurance and it's to protect you from your own choices. How can you possibly equate them?

If you get into a car accident and you are not insured, the other driver and the state pick up the difference (car insurance also covers medical care)

If you get injured or severely ill and do not have health insurance you can show up at the emergency room and they have to treat you. Once again, the state picks up the tab

As a taxpayer, I would rather force YOU to pay for health coverage than force ME to pick up the tab once you become sick

Your argument is based on your own liberal rules though

Your argument seems to be based on your own conservative rules though.

The state has no business interfering in what transpires between two people. Seems you don't mind as long as a corporation is gouging someone.

 

[Care4all]

the banks DID make very bad long term business decisions via their loose as a goose new loaning practices, all by their lonesome.....they were negligent and should have paid BIG TIME for their own mistakes, instead of being bailed out, instead of being rewarded.

 

[shintao]

The state should not have the right to require you pay a private enity, but they do it anyway. Insurance & smog to private corporations. However, if you are like me, you can afford to buy a new car every five years and avoid paying to have a car smogged. The poor pay & the rich get away.

When you buy a house, you are forced to pay a private company PMI insurance on the mortgage. However, if you are like me, and rich enough to plunk the 20% down, the law says the mortgage company has to pay to cover their own butt. So the poor pay while the rich get away.

You aren't required to buy auto insurance to exist, you are required to buy it to drive on public roads.

As for PMI, that shouldn't be a government function. But then neither should underwriting mortgages be and something like 95% are underwritten by government. The same government which blamed banks for making bad loands...

Yes, I am aware I am forced at the point of the gun to surrender my own responsibilities and buy insurance for the privilege to drive on public roads. It must also be a priviledge to use the court room to solve grievances, for a dented fender. People must be incapable of problem solving on their own, so they are required to hire people to pay or collect their debts.

 

[shintao]

Car Insurance requires you on public roads to insure your actions do not cause harm to others that you cannot pay for.

Don't you find that logically interesting? A government that forces you to buy an item from a private corporation,..........just in case, (you are reckless/you do it on purpose/), just in case, by some terrific odds (that you were semi-conscious/not paying attention) and harmed another citizen (who may have been lax/not paying attention/slow reaction time), and that by some unknown factor, you cannot compensate for the damage.

Now apply that logically to a worker on his job. He drops an I-Beam on joe blow and sends him to the platnium hospital & he can't afford to pay the damages. WHY doesn't the worker have to have accident insurance for the job? And not the employer?

Now apply it to shopping at the mall. You back up to get your girl in a photo, and bump the old lady behind you off the balcony to the floor below. WHY don't you have to carry shopping insurance? Why does the mall have to pay insurance?

This could go on, but basically, logically, it makes no sense to be forced to have insurance for the priviledge of driving on roads you own. None at all.

You only are required to buy it in order to drive on the roads that everyone drives on. You are not required to buy comprehensive or collision or medical to cover yourself. Everyone is required to buy health insurance and it's to protect you from your own choices. How can you possibly equate them?

Isn't that odd as well. You are forced to protect the other driver, but not yourself? It could be a whole load of people on a bus you have to protect, but not yourself. It sounds to me like the people on the bus are not taking personal responsibility for themselves, and covering themselves with insurance. How incompetent is that?

 

[Polk]

This is a bit off-topic, but I find the entire concept of health insurance bizarre, because it's doesn't really serve the same function as any other form of insurance.

 

[Care4all]

wonder how come horse and buggies on the public's roads in yesteryear weren't forced to buy horse and buggy insurance for their accidents by their states?

we have the ''right'' to travel between states, on the public roads, without government interference.....but driving an automobile is a privilege? THAT doesn't make much sense....

 

[Polk]

wonder how come horse and buggies on the public's roads in yesteryear weren't forced to buy horse and buggy insurance for their accidents by their states?

we have the ''right'' to travel between states, on the public roads, without government interference.....but driving an automobile is a privilege? THAT doesn't make much sense....

As a matter of fairness to their argument, the level of potential harm from a buggy accident is much lower.

 

[del]

I want to make it clear the I despise both political parties, I have never towed a party line nor ever will I. I do not believe they are for the American people, I believe they are out for their own best interests.

But,
One of the Repub's arguments was that Americans should not be forced to buy health insurance against their will by ObamaCare, that it's illegal and unconstitutional.

Now, where the hell were they when I was being forced to buy Car Insurance?

probably the same place they were when you were forced to buy a car.

fuckwit

 

[Care4all]

wonder how come horse and buggies on the public's roads in yesteryear weren't forced to buy horse and buggy insurance for their accidents by their states?

we have the ''right'' to travel between states, on the public roads, without government interference.....but driving an automobile is a privilege? THAT doesn't make much sense....

As a matter of fairness to their argument, the level of potential harm from a buggy accident is much lower.

I'm not 100% certain, but....I don't think it was as safe as you might think....I remember seeing some documentary saying it was one of the primary causes of death back then, outside of illnesses....

anyway, I confess that I am really not wondering THAT specifically....I was just trying to get us all to think a little further out of the box in this debate....on when and if, certain things, are government over reach or unconstitutional, or IF at all....

Care

btw Polk, good to see you back posting here....I haven't seen you in a while....of course, i haven't been here much, as of late, due to other things going on....