Question

[☭proletarian☭]

Those who oppose the personal mandate, do you also oppose the mandate requiring people to buy car insurance?

Is not the reasoning behind the two (making people buy insurance so others don't have to cover their costs when they get in an accident or go to the ER) the same?

 

[uscitizen]

Ahh finally someone posts this quandry.

 

[Zoom-boing]

This provides some answers. Yes, I know it's Fox. You'll live.

FOXNews.com - A Health Insurance Mandate That Works Like Auto Insurance? Think Again

 

[Cal]

It should also be mentioned, The Mandate was originally a Republican idea..Back in the Clinton years. I believe Orrin Hatch was one of the first people to intruduce the idea.

 

[LuckyDan]

Those who oppose the personal mandate, do you also oppose the mandate requiring people to buy car insurance?

Is not the reasoning behind the two (making people buy insurance so others don't have to cover their costs when they get in an accident or go to the ER) the same?

That's not what financial responsibility laws regarding auto insurance are meant to address.

Auto liability insurance is not for your vehicle, it's for the property you damage while using it, or the people you injure.

This question comes up all the time. You must have heard this before.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

First, the auto insurance mandate is easily avoidable. If you don't want to pay, don't drive a car.

If you don't want to pay, don't get sick, get hit by a car, get hit by a stray bullet...

In all likelihood, you're going to go to a hospital or clinic at some point in your life. If you don't have insurance, you're likely to only go when it's serious. This has led to ERs being flooded with cases they shouldn't be dealing with. This is a drain on everyone, and the hospital either raises prices for everyone else or gets the money from taxpayers. In my hometown, most of the ERs were shut down because they couldn't afford it anymore, due in large part to this very problem.

Now, you can say 'what about free clinics?', but then you're back to the same problem- how to pay for it. If it's public, it's still tax money- you've not really solved the problem, though you might alleviate it by offering regular care to prevent major complications. You can say it should be left to private parties, but those parties are too few in number and resources, which is why we have this problem to begin with- and the same objection goes both ways: why can't churches and non-profits buy people car insurance, too?

Don't want to pay for health insurance? Drop dead.

Very nice...

Second, auto insurance is mandated in large part so that drivers carry liability insurance to cover other people and other cars they may damage. Covering damage to their own cars is of secondary importance.

See above.

Auto insurance mandates have not eliminated the problem, though.

So the objection to the mandate is that there are wetbacks and other criminals in existence?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

That's not what financial responsibility laws regarding auto insurance are meant to address.

Auto liability insurance is not for your vehicle, it's for the property you damage while using it, or the people you injure.

And mandated health insurance isn't about your body. It's about the taxdollars you cost when you show up in the ER because you didn't get regular healthcare because you had no insurance. Both are about the way your actions/choices effect other people.

 

[American Horse]

Wondering what would happen in the automobile insurance market place if the government mandated that drivers could wait until they had an accident before purchasing their liability and collision policies by simply paying a small annual fine with their taxes? What would happen to auto insurance rates? And when the rates exploded what if the government rejected the increases in premiums? Does that sound like a system that would work?

 

[Immanuel]

I would not be opposed to the Health Insurance mandate if it were not that the only option they want to provide is a bureaucratic nightmare with the specific designs of forcing us into another social program trap.

Immie

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I would not be opposed to the Health Insurance mandate if it were not that the only option they want to provide is a bureaucratic nightmare with the specific designs of forcing us into another social program trap.

Immie

So it's the Public option and management at the federal level you oppose, rather than the mandate itself?

 

[FireGod]

At the current time there is a percentage of the population making a choice between eating and housing, car, heat, power etc. Now a mandated system comes along and now it is a choice between food and health insurance or end up in jail to cause even more stress. I see no good in this as it actually causes more harm to the people it is supposed to HELP.

I dare say it would be better for those in the predicament above to just succumb to death or commit suicide than to place an even larger burden on the family. We will get our utopia after all those that are poor and creating such a stain on our systems and humanity are allowed to die.

 

[LuckyDan]

That's not what financial responsibility laws regarding auto insurance are meant to address.

Auto liability insurance is not for your vehicle, it's for the property you damage while using it, or the people you injure.

And mandated health insurance isn't about your body. It's about the taxdollars you cost when you show up in the ER because you didn't get regular healthcare because you had no insurance. Both are about the way your actions/choices effect other people.

But I still get treatment, and a bill, whether I can pay it or not.

Massachusetts has an individual mandate - and the highest premiums for family plans in the country. And longer wait times with family doctors taking on fewer new patients.

 

[chikenwing]

Apples and potatoes,not even close to comparing the two.

NEXT!

 

[chikenwing]

And mandated health insurance isn't about your body. It's about the taxdollars you cost when you show up in the ER because you didn't get regular healthcare because you had no insurance. Both are about the way your actions/choices effect other people.

Can one assume more????!!!! Healthiness does NOT require insurance.

 

[chikenwing]

And mandated health insurance isn't about your body. It's about the taxdollars you cost when you show up in the ER because you didn't get regular healthcare because you had no insurance. Both are about the way your actions/choices effect other people.


So its really only about the money not people's health,funny how that works out.

 

[chikenwing]

It should also be mentioned, The Mandate was originally a Republican idea..Back in the Clinton years. I believe Orrin Hatch was one of the first people to intruduce the idea.


Bad idea then bad idea now,just a simple fast look at the idea.

why would you want to require people to purchase a products from the evil insurance companies that are raping the people already??

Isn't that pretzel logic?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

But I still get treatment, and a bill, whether I can pay it or not.

Exactly. The People end up footing the bill- your decisions harm others.

That's the very argument forwarded for mandated insurance in both cases.

 

[chikenwing]

But I still get treatment, and a bill, whether I can pay it or not.

Exactly. The People end up footing the bill- your decisions harm others.

That's the very argument forwarded for mandated insurance in both cases.

Your assuming that people won't pay their bills.Most do,some don't,the hospital,then enther sues,or writes it off,not sent back to the tax payers.using the TAXPAYER as an excuse to capture more and more money and power is what??

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Your assuming that people won't pay their bills.

Many don't. And they don't get regular care because they have no insurance. So they show up @ the ER.

We already covered this.

Now.. whose puppet are you?

 

[Liability]

Those who oppose the personal mandate, do you also oppose the mandate requiring people to buy car insurance?

Is not the reasoning behind the two (making people buy insurance so others don't have to cover their costs when they get in an accident or go to the ER) the same?

I believe (although I am not prepared to spend the time fleshing it out right now) that the two similar sounding notions are actually different for a variety of reasons.

Oh, ok: just a bit of the flesh: For one thing, driving a car is a matter of privilege, not right. Priviliges can be conditioned on other things -- such as "thou must first get a license, and getting the license is itself conditioned on other things, like the eye test, the driving test and the written test." Licenses moreover can be revoked for violation of certain rules -- such as "thou shalt never drive drunk." And "Thou must have a proper registration for thine vehicles!." And "Thou shalt not obtaineth a registration without the vehicle being duly inspected and passing said inspection, verily, forsooth, etc." And that brings us to "Thou SHALT carry insurance so that if thou doth striketh anybody with thine vehicle, their costs may be covered."

The same does not, generally speaking, apply to actual by God RIGHTS.

By what legitiamte claim of authority, then, can the Government compel me to obtain health insurance at all, much less of a certain type or from a certain source?