Mandatory Insurance is Wrong

[dblack]

The reason we have government in the first place is to deal with the risks of living in a free society. Outsourcing that job to private companies by mandating that citizens purchase insurance is a corruption of the social contract. If people are engaging in behavior that poses an unacceptable risk to others, then make that behavior illegal. Otherwise, leave them alone. If and when they harm someone else, hold them accountable. Prepaid punishment for crimes we may never commit is insane.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you believe in the social contract claptrap you cannot assert that anything the government does violates it. Even Locke's version of social contract implies that the government exist naturally. Government is imposed on us by others, it is not natural.

 

[dblack]

If you believe in the social contract claptrap you cannot assert that anything the government does violates it. Even Locke's version of social contract implies that the government exist naturally. Government is imposed on us by others, it is not natural.

I'm not leaning on any social contract theory. Just commenting that my grant of sovereignty is to government, not insurance companies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you believe in the social contract claptrap you cannot assert that anything the government does violates it. Even Locke's version of social contract implies that the government exist naturally. Government is imposed on us by others, it is not natural.

I'm not leaning on any social contract theory. Just commenting that my grant of sovereignty is to government, not insurance companies.

You said it violated the social contract. I object to the concept of a social contract because it implies that government is natural and necessary to any human interaction.

 

[dblack]

If you believe in the social contract claptrap you cannot assert that anything the government does violates it. Even Locke's version of social contract implies that the government exist naturally. Government is imposed on us by others, it is not natural.

I'm not leaning on any social contract theory. Just commenting that my grant of sovereignty is to government, not insurance companies.

You said it violated the social contract. I object to the concept of a social contract because it implies that government is natural and necessary to any human interaction.

ok.

That's fine. I'm not really making any claims about 'social contracts' per se. My point is that I'm willing to grant government the authority to tax me to finance the services it provides re: managing risk and keeping the peace. I'm not willing to grant that authority to private companies, which is essentially what we're doing when we turn to mandatory insurance to solve problems that should be dealt with by constitutionally limited, representative government.

 

[William Joyce]

Fair point.

How many "businesses" actually have the government FORCE us to buy their product?

Law! You Must Buy Cheerios! Makes it easy to be in the Cheerios business, I guess.

 

[Againsheila]

The reason we have government in the first place is to deal with the risks of living in a free society. Outsourcing that job to private companies by mandating that citizens purchase insurance is a corruption of the social contract. If people are engaging in behavior that poses an unacceptable risk to others, then make that behavior illegal. Otherwise, leave them alone. If and when they harm someone else, hold them accountable. Prepaid punishment for crimes we may never commit is insane.

We already have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people on the road without car insurance which is required by law because they can't afford it. What exactly is gonna be the punishment for those who can't afford to purchase health insurance?

 

[Bubba]

I don't think we should be criminalizing things because they may be dangerous.

football, boxing, nascar, hockey, mountain climbing are ALL dangerous!

but shouldn't be illegal

however I DO OPPOSE MANDATORY insurance
(for health, for cars, for houses)

with the exception of house insurance which your bank/loan company has a right and responsibility to demand

SOME of the problems I see with mandatory car insurance is;
the RESPONSIBLE PARTY is quite often no longer responsible
and
since people know they can get insurance to cover any damage they are more likely to drive in a dangerous manner! "That's ok! my insurance covers it!"

Which also drives up OTHER INSURANCE PAYERS COSTS!

I've been driving for 40 years and NEVER had an accident and NEVER filed a claim!

and HOW MUCH have I paid in insurance in all those years?!?!?!?!

 

[George Costanza]

The reason we have government in the first place is to deal with the risks of living in a free society. Outsourcing that job to private companies by mandating that citizens purchase insurance is a corruption of the social contract. If people are engaging in behavior that poses an unacceptable risk to others, then make that behavior illegal. Otherwise, leave them alone. If and when they harm someone else, hold them accountable. Prepaid punishment for crimes we may never commit is insane.

We already have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people on the road without car insurance which is required by law because they can't afford it. What exactly is gonna be the punishment for those who can't afford to purchase health insurance?

I have the same question.

 

[dblack]

The reason we have government in the first place is to deal with the risks of living in a free society. Outsourcing that job to private companies by mandating that citizens purchase insurance is a corruption of the social contract. If people are engaging in behavior that poses an unacceptable risk to others, then make that behavior illegal. Otherwise, leave them alone. If and when they harm someone else, hold them accountable. Prepaid punishment for crimes we may never commit is insane.

We already have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people on the road without car insurance which is required by law because they can't afford it. What exactly is gonna be the punishment for those who can't afford to purchase health insurance?

Same thing as for the car insurance I suppose; increasingly onerous fines, jail time, etc...

 

[George Costanza]

I don't think we should be criminalizing things because they may be dangerous.

football, boxing, nascar, hockey, mountain climbing are ALL dangerous!

but shouldn't be illegal

however I DO OPPOSE MANDATORY insurance
(for health, for cars, for houses)

with the exception of house insurance which your bank/loan company has a right and responsibility to demand

SOME of the problems I see with mandatory car insurance is;
the RESPONSIBLE PARTY is quite often no longer responsible
and
since people know they can get insurance to cover any damage they are more likely to drive in a dangerous manner! "That's ok! my insurance covers it!"

Which also drives up OTHER INSURANCE PAYERS COSTS!

I've been driving for 40 years and NEVER had an accident and NEVER filed a claim!

and HOW MUCH have I paid in insurance in all those years?!?!?!?!

No one ever needs insurance - until they need it.

 

[syrenn]

Fair point.

How many "businesses" actually have the government FORCE us to buy their product?

Law! You Must Buy Cheerios! Makes it easy to be in the Cheerios business, I guess.

low flow toilets and shower heads
energy efficient light bulbs
Catalytic converts


any more questions?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The reason we have government in the first place is to deal with the risks of living in a free society. Outsourcing that job to private companies by mandating that citizens purchase insurance is a corruption of the social contract. If people are engaging in behavior that poses an unacceptable risk to others, then make that behavior illegal. Otherwise, leave them alone. If and when they harm someone else, hold them accountable. Prepaid punishment for crimes we may never commit is insane.

In terms of health insurance, I agree with you. When it comes to auto insurance, however, I do not.

The reason auto insurance in mandated is to make sure you are able to pay for any damages your actions cause someone else. If somebody hits my car and totals it, I want them to be able to pay for it. Not everybody has assets that you can sue for through court. Sure, if they can't pay for my damages and have nothing of theirs I can seize through legal means they'll end up in jail and be punished, but that doesn't help me buy and pay for a new car that I may not be in a position to do.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Fair point.

How many "businesses" actually have the government FORCE us to buy their product?

Law! You Must Buy Cheerios! Makes it easy to be in the Cheerios business, I guess.

low flow toilets and shower heads
energy efficient light bulbs
Catalytic converts


any more questions?

Yeah, that kind of stuff is just ridiculously stupid.

 

[JohnA]

The reason we have government in the first place is to deal with the risks of living in a free society. Outsourcing that job to private companies by mandating that citizens purchase insurance is a corruption of the social contract. If people are engaging in behavior that poses an unacceptable risk to others, then make that behavior illegal. Otherwise, leave them alone. If and when they harm someone else, hold them accountable. Prepaid punishment for crimes we may never commit is insane.

We already have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people on the road without car insurance which is required by law because they can't afford it. What exactly is gonna be the punishment for those who can't afford to purchase health insurance?

its not quite the same thing .
buying car insurance is part of the contract you sign with society which allows you to drive a portentially dangerous machine while interacting amounst us .
no federal law says you HAVE to drive and buy car insurance thats a state function

 

[JohnA]

Fair point.

How many "businesses" actually have the government FORCE us to buy their product?

Law! You Must Buy Cheerios! Makes it easy to be in the Cheerios business, I guess.

low flow toilets and shower heads
energy efficient light bulbs
Catalytic converts


any more questions?

differance again the first two items mandate the makers of that product to be energy efficent before selling it to the public . the goverment is not FORCING yo to have a shower fitted in your home many old home dont same with light bulb

the 3 item is auto related you DONT have to own a car

 

[Wiseacre]

If you believe in the social contract claptrap you cannot assert that anything the government does violates it. Even Locke's version of social contract implies that the government exist naturally. Government is imposed on us by others, it is not natural.

I'm not leaning on any social contract theory. Just commenting that my grant of sovereignty is to government, not insurance companies.

First of all, you need to provide your idea of sovereignty. Mine is supreme and independent control, fuck that for gov't or any other entity in this country. Let's get this straight - our gov't does not have supreme authority over us, much as the progressives would like us to believe. Over the past century or so they have gradually usurped a lot of power, but it was never really theirs and it can be taken away.

Don't understand this idea of control by insurance companies. They should be subject to gov't regulation like any other industry, the fact that said governance has been weak and ineffective is the fault of the gov't. If insurance companies are cheating people or lying to them, that ain't a question of sovereignty of those companies, that's an issue of bad governance.

 

[JohnA]

I don't think we should be criminalizing things because they may be dangerous.

football, boxing, nascar, hockey, mountain climbing are ALL dangerous!

but shouldn't be illegal

however I DO OPPOSE MANDATORY insurance
(for health, for cars, for houses)

with the exception of house insurance which your bank/loan company has a right and responsibility to demand

SOME of the problems I see with mandatory car insurance is;
the RESPONSIBLE PARTY is quite often no longer responsible
and
since people know they can get insurance to cover any damage they are more likely to drive in a dangerous manner! "That's ok! my insurance covers it!"

Which also drives up OTHER INSURANCE PAYERS COSTS!

I've been driving for 40 years and NEVER had an accident and NEVER filed a claim!

and HOW MUCH have I paid in insurance in all those years?!?!?!?!

Disagree you are not FORCED to have home insurance only if you if you have a contract with a morgage company to finance it .
auto insurance is require by society if we are interacting with each other on our PUBLIC OWNED ROADS for everybodies safety .

on a private road there is no law requiring insurance .
there are many other laws we agree to when living in a society .protection of kids from harm, protection of your property from abuse by others etc etc

 

[dblack]

We already have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people on the road without car insurance which is required by law because they can't afford it. What exactly is gonna be the punishment for those who can't afford to purchase health insurance?

its not quite the same thing .
buying car insurance is part of the contract you sign with society which allows you to drive a portentially dangerous machine while interacting amounst us .
no federal law says you HAVE to drive and buy car insurance thats a state function

In my view it's close enough to the same thing. It's based on the same idea: that you should be held accountable for something you haven't done yet, something you may never do. Mandatory auto insurance assumes you will cause damages to someone else and not reimburse them. Mandatory health insurance assumes you will get sick, rack up medical bills and not pay them. In both cases we're being treated as though we are guilty of a crime before we've done anything wrong. It seems to me a like a dangerous way to effect law. It turns "guilty until proven innocent" on it's head, and treats us all as eminent lawbreakers.

 

[dblack]

In terms of health insurance, I agree with you. When it comes to auto insurance, however, I do not.

The reason auto insurance in mandated is to make sure you are able to pay for any damages your actions cause someone else. If somebody hits my car and totals it, I want them to be able to pay for it. Not everybody has assets that you can sue for through court. Sure, if they can't pay for my damages and have nothing of theirs I can seize through legal means they'll end up in jail and be punished, but that doesn't help me buy and pay for a new car that I may not be in a position to do.

It's the same rationale for mandatory health insurance. If you get sick and can't pay your hospital bill, other's will be stuck with the tab. The only difference is that you can at least choose not to drive a car, whereas the health insurance mandate is aimed at every living person for their entire life. That is a significant differences, and it does make it much worse in my opinion. But they are still based on the same idea of pre-punishing someone for something they haven't done yet, something they may never do.