Car insurance vs health insurance

[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.

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....

I haven't been around for a while. Going to try to stop by every so often though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Insofar as both criminal and civil laws ALL deal with "what transpires between two people", where do you come by the assertion that "the state has no business interfering" therein? Seems to me that one of the primary purposes of the government is to protect one person from harm done to them by another person.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Why should THEY insure themselves against YOUR irresponsibility? That insurance you hold to cover other people is to protect them from YOUR actions. Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility, not theirs.

Even if I DO have medical insurance to cover the costs of my injuries when YOU get drunk and slam your car into mine, why should MY insurance company be forced to pay for YOUR reckless disregard, and why should MY premiums go up because of it? YOU fucked up, so YOU should pay the consequences.

And is anyone else utterly unsurprised that leftists have so little grasp of the idea of personal responsibility?

 

[Care4all]

that's what small claims court and other court is for, no? ...if i get in an accident with you and it is my fault and i agree to pay you for the damages and I don't do that...then sue me, or take me to court...

 

[shintao]

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.

Insofar as both criminal and civil laws ALL deal with "what transpires between two people", where do you come by the assertion that "the state has no business interfering" therein? Seems to me that one of the primary purposes of the government is to protect one person from harm done to them by another person.

So you would agree government should force you to buy car, shopping, fishing, boating, cooking, etc. insurances,....just in case, by some wild stretch, you harm someone?? I may open up a insurance company for rape & bank robbery and press government to force you to buy it.

Hmm, LOL! Makes me laugh. I once bought an insurance policy that paid if I were hurt on a plane, train, bus or trolly car. It was about $5. I gave away for the policy.

 

[Care4all]

your insurance does not protect them from your reckless driving...your reckless driving is not curbed, you are still reckless....your insurance protects yourself from them suing you and coming after you for damages....up to the point of what you agree with the insurance company for...anything above that amount in their suit against you, can still come out of your own pocket.....

so essentially, we are required to buy car insurance to protect ourselves...the nanny state....

 

[M14 Shooter]

your insurance does not protect them from your reckless driving...your reckless driving is not curbed, you are still reckless....your insurance protects yourself from them suing you and coming after you for damages....up to the point of what you agree with the insurance company for...anything above that amount in their suit against you, can still come out of your own pocket.....

so essentially, we are required to buy car insurance to protect ourselves...the nanny state....

The primary purpose of car insurance is to protect others from you - if you cause damage to them, the damage is covered by insurance. This is necessary because it is quite possible - indeed, probable - that damage you cause will exceed your ability to pay.

 

[shintao]

your insurance does not protect them from your reckless driving...your reckless driving is not curbed, you are still reckless....your insurance protects yourself from them suing you and coming after you for damages....up to the point of what you agree with the insurance company for...anything above that amount in their suit against you, can still come out of your own pocket.....

so essentially, we are required to buy car insurance to protect ourselves...the nanny state....

And why do I care if they sue me or come after me for damages? We have courts to handle disputes. I could bank $10,000. and tell them to take it or leave it. I could file bankruptcy. OR, I could become a very careful driver. In fact, being insured for insane amounts just makes you less attentive, follow to close, take chances, because what the hell attitude, if I do get in a wreck I have insurance to cover me.

People should be able to decide if they want car insurance IMO. Or are willing to drive among people who maynot have insurance. Their choice, our Freedom.

 

[Care4all]

your insurance does not protect them from your reckless driving...your reckless driving is not curbed, you are still reckless....your insurance protects yourself from them suing you and coming after you for damages....up to the point of what you agree with the insurance company for...anything above that amount in their suit against you, can still come out of your own pocket.....

so essentially, we are required to buy car insurance to protect ourselves...the nanny state....

And why do I care if they sue me or come after me for damages? We have courts to handle disputes. I could bank $10,000. and tell them to take it or leave it. I could file bankruptcy. OR, I could become a very careful driver. In fact, being insured for insane amounts just makes you less attentive, follow to close, take chances, because what the hell attitude, if I do get in a wreck I have insurance to cover me.

People should be able to decide if they want car insurance IMO. Or are willing to drive among people who maynot have insurance. Their choice, our Freedom.

the free market, eh?

Well...i think you have made your point that the 'nanny state', is the State gvt, mandating the purchase of car insurance from private businesses, for your own protection.

But i don't think you have made your case on why the State gvt, shouldn't be the ''nanny watching out for you'', and should not mandate auto insurance....? what advantages are there with the State not mandating car insurance?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Insofar as both criminal and civil laws ALL deal with "what transpires between two people", where do you come by the assertion that "the state has no business interfering" therein? Seems to me that one of the primary purposes of the government is to protect one person from harm done to them by another person.

So you would agree government should force you to buy car, shopping, fishing, boating, cooking, etc. insurances,....just in case, by some wild stretch, you harm someone?? I may open up a insurance company for rape & bank robbery and press government to force you to buy it.

Hmm, LOL! Makes me laugh. I once bought an insurance policy that paid if I were hurt on a plane, train, bus or trolly car. It was about $5. I gave away for the policy.

Once again, you are unable to deal with my ACTUAL points, and instead try to invent the point you WISH you could be answering, and attempt to force it into my mouth.

I don't doubt, however, that you spend a lot of time sitting around, laughing about nothing whatsoever. I hear it's common among mental patients.

 

[rightwinger]

Isn't the major component of auto insurance ......Medical Coverage?

With no fault insurance, isn't the state requiring you to buy medical insurance?

 

[kaz]

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.

Your arguments are retarded even by liberal standards. I didn't think that was possible, but you consistently do it. Yesterday you argued unions were OK with firing union workers but car companies didn't want to pay engineers more then they were paying the union workers. Now you're a socialist advocating less government then a libertarian where government doesn't protect people from being victimized by other people even on public roads. A statement of complete hypocrisy from your extreme liberalism. You're really a complete and utter moron.

 

[kaz]

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.

Wow, when you ask a stupid question sarcastically, it suddenly becomes a powerful argument. You are a master of debate, my friend. I bow to your superior skill in the art...

 

[kaz]

Isn't the major component of auto insurance ......Medical Coverage?

With no fault insurance, isn't the state requiring you to buy medical insurance?

You are not required to by medical for yourself, that is an option. You are required to buy it for others you may harm.

 

[boedicca]

That's a key distinction.

Auto insurance requirements are to protect others from the harm one may cause, not oneself.

Mandatory health insurance is for oneself. There is no harm to others that must be remedied.

 

[del]

Isn't the major component of auto insurance ......Medical Coverage?

With no fault insurance, isn't the state requiring you to buy medical insurance?

no, thanks for asking

 

[Care4all]

here's what I found on it:

No-Fault Insurance
"No-fault" insurance refers to medical coverage which you are required by state law to carry on your automobile insurance. Not all states have "no-fault" statutes, though almost all insurance companies sell some type of medical coverage for their auto policies. Basically, if you have an accident, regardless of whether or not you are at-fault, your own autoinsurance must pay a portion of your medical bills. The "no-fault" part comes from the fact that even though someone, say, plowed into the rear of your car while you were stopped at a red light, your own carrier must pick up the ambulance, hospital, rehabilitation, etc. Some states allow "no-fault" insurance carriers to go after the at-fault party, but this varies too much to discuss here and it's also relatively rare. Typically it's based on the amount of the medical bills or the weight of the at-fault party's vehicle. Many people who live in "no-fault" states often believe they can prohibit their carrier from paying their bills (with the assumption that they don't want any payments made under their policy in case their rates go up). This isn't the case. Much like worker's comp, "no-fault" medical coverage is primary, and the first-party insurance carrier must pay it. Finally, many people who know they live in a "no-fault" state often believe this has something to do with physical damage to a vehicle and liability. That's not true. "No-fault" relates only to the medical coverage. If someone hits your vehicle, and he's at-fault, he is still legally liable to pay for the damages to your vehicle.


Read more: Answers.com - What is no-fault insurance

 

[Valerie]

Isn't the major component of auto insurance ......Medical Coverage?

With no fault insurance, isn't the state requiring you to buy medical insurance?

That's PIP, not full medical coverage...

Personal Injury Protection Also known as "PIP", is a special form of "no fault" insurance that covers the cost of injuries to you, your family, and your passengers. PIP pays for medical expenses and loss of income caused by an auto accident regardless of which driver is at fault. PIP covers the medical and lost income costs those who were injured in your car.


The Personal Injury Protection portion of auto insurance coverage generally pays the expenses actually incurred, up to the specific limit and per-person dollar stated on the auto insurance policy. PIP coverage is limited to the policy limits and pays for injuries to the people inside of your automobile. Some people argue that drivers are better off saving the money they spend for Personal Injury Protection and investing in a good heath insurance policy.

In most of the "no fault" insurance states PIP is required as part of the minimum auto insurance policy. In other states PIP is offered as an optional protection. It's important to understand your own state's auto insurance requirements. Talk with your agent or insurance company and ask what your states Auto Insurance laws are. You may also be able to find information by searching the Internet and looking for "auto insurance laws and requirements" for your own state. No Fault and Personal Injury Protection laws vary widely from state to state.

Personal Injury Protection (PIP) - Insurance - Families.com

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

You are not being forced to buy car insurance, nor are you penalized if you don't buy car insurance.

You have to have insurance if you operate a vehicle; you don't have to operate a vehicle.

 

[The T]

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?

You are not being forced to buy car insurance, nor are you penalized if you don't buy car insurance.

You have to have insurance if you operate a vehicle; you don't have to operate a vehicle.

How long is it going to take before some of these idiots cease equating healthcare insurance (mandate) with Auto Insurance (Mandate)?

Nowhere does the Constitution provide for healthcare...that the Founders thought we were big boys and girls and could provide for doctors on our own?

However? Under Article 1, Section 8? The State provides for posting ROADS, and therefore may madate provisions for their use?

Boggles the mind.