Skip to comments.Auto Insurance Mandate is a False Argument - Humans are not autos
Posted on 03/27/2010 8:45:04 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
You’ve likely heard it. “If the government can mandate auto insurance, then why do you say it cannot mandate health insurance?”
There are at least four major differences (and be sure to read number 4, because it is the most critical):
First: The FEDERAL government does not mandate auto insurance. States mandate it. And three states have chosen not to do so. Auto insurance, like health insurance, is a state issue.
Second: The mandate for ownership of auto insurance only covers what the driver might do to someone else. It is liability insurance, not collision, comprehensive, glass, or preventive maintenance. To be like the new FEDERAL health insurance law, auto insurance would have to cover routine maintenance, parts replacements, and just about everything else.
Third: Even though 47 states mandate auto insurance coverage, the average uninsured rate, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is 14.6 percent. (Actually, I believe that estimate is very low, considering that in California and Texas, it exceeds 25 percent.) The uninsured rate in our mostly voluntary health insurance system has held steady at about 15.5 percent or so for a decade.
Four: Auto collision insurance is somewhat like catastrophic health insurance in that it will pay to fix damage from an accident. But it never pays more than the value of the car (there is no limitless benefit).
If an 85-year old man wraps his $3,500 car around a tree, and the car suffers $4,000 in damages, the insurance company pays the old guy $3,500. The auto has a finite value.
If that 85-year old man breaks his bones, and if health insurance worked like auto insurance, the insurance company would give the man three choices: 1) the fair market value of his life in cash, 2) enough money to pay for hospice care until he dies, or 3) pay for assisted suicide.
In the United Kingdom, the value of human life is determined by a formula. For the most ill patients and the elderly, health care regulators decide the value of human life in Quality Adjusted Life Years. If there is not enough economic value in the “repair” of a human life, plans are made to help them adjust to death. In the United States, Oregon demonstrated this principle with 64-year old Barbara Wagner.
Wagner contracted cancer. She wanted to continue to live, and indeed, if she lived in any state other than Oregon, the health system would have given her that chance. Wagner’s doctor prescribed Tarceva, a new chemotherapy drug regimen. Wagner, however, received her health coverage from the Oregon Health Plan – a government health plan. Because of its global budget, Oregon officials notified Wagner that they would not pay for her chemotherapy, but they would pay for either hospice care or an assisted suicide.
Dr. Walter Shaffer, a spokesman for Oregon’s Division of Medical Assistance Programs, explained the realities of the Oregon Health Plan. “We can’t cover everything for everyone. Taxpayer dollars are limited for publicly funded programs. We try to come up with policies that provide the most good for the most people.” Oregon’s health care managers decide, in the end, who will gain relief from pain and suffering, and who will die.
Despite strong bipartisan opposition, [Alleged] President Obama signed the “Patient Protection and Affordability Act” on March 23, 2010. The bill authorizes federal government approved health plans, and will help 68 percent of Americans to receive some form of federal tax subsidy to purchase overly expensive health insurance. Accepting a government subsidy means they will be governed by federal health plan guidelines. Barbara Wagner, were she alive, would tell you what this means.
Health insurance is not auto insurance: So you get the picture. Auto insurance deals with predictable, finite cost. It is a state issue, not a federal issue. And when the cost of the insured item exceeds its finite value, it is cashed out. Why would auto insurance companies cap payments at the value of the auto, and not offer limitless coverage, preventive care, reimbursements for worn out engines and transmissions? Because no one could afford it.
With the stroke of his pen, [Alleged] President Obama has invited you into the world of finite human value.
Perhaps it is not a false analogy, I guess we could convert to Muslim, or Amishism.
Never...repeat never accept the Marxists premise when starting a discussion.
It’s a false analogy because auto insurance is required in order to drive a vehicle, which is not a requirement, just has home-owner’s insurance is a requirement for owning a home (or mortgage), which is also not a requirement.
The federal government is requiring us to purchase something simply for having been created by our Creator. That is, in order to avoid being illegal, we must purchase something.
What’s funny is that the follow-up to their false argument is that we need to purchase that thing (insurance) in order to ensure that OTHERS DO NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR US.
So, they REQUIRE OTHERS TO PAY in order to ensure that OTHERS DO NOT PAY.
Brilliant logic only in the minds of leftists/statists/totalitarians.
I can’t add any more — you are spot on. It sunrises me the article missed your fundamental point.
Requiring every breathing human to pay for insurance is completely different.
If you are a senior and you get in a car accident doesn’t medicare have to pay when the auto insurance liability runs out?
We should also look at how many of the taxes and fees associated with insuring and driving a car go to funding public transportation. (Not to mention raided to pay for totally unrelated crap)
One of my wife’s friends started into this line of argument yesterday. I was dumbfounded that it could even be considered.
The left must have a daily e-mail of talking points they send out to everyone.
You said what I was going to say.
The federal healthcare bill is seriously flawed logically. We will summarize that elsewhere, it has to do with the fundamental nature of insurance; but the truly sickening thing is, like my tolerant wife even says, how could so many supposedly reasonable politicians in DC ever ever ever sign on to this fiasco - Lautenberg, Nelson, Lanrieu, Webb, Specter, and on and on?
Is it just to show support for Obama, the half-black man? Is it they are so consumed by power they need to impress their flaws on the citizens? Is it they are so extorted by Rahm and the Mossad they can't declare themselves? Is it they are so preoccupied with self-aggrandizement they are just plain ignorant of reality?
This thing really really is a national boondoggle and your (and mine) Senator and Rep imposed it.
If the other guy has car insurance why should I have to have it? He’s already covered is I smack into him.
Health insurance was developed long before our exceptional advances in life-saving surgery, pharmaceuticals and imaging. As a result of medical research and development costs, these technologies are extraordinarily expensive.
Health insurance accommodated these catastrophic costs and offered - guess what? CATASTROPHIC COVERAGE!!!!
With employer based insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, the public nevertheless maintained an ignorance for the value of this important product - UNTIL THEY EXPERIENCE A CHRONIC, LIFE THREATENING, COSTLY ILLNESS!!!!!
The opportunistic Marxists jumped on this complacency and will now confiscate & destroyu a well funded, financially sound formula of heath insurance that served us well.
5. You are free to choose not to participate. If your circumstances warrant not having a car, you aren’t forced to buy insurance for yourself or take part in a system buying it for others.
6. The government isn’t putting a competitive insurance ‘company’ in the fold that isn’t obligated to follow business practices like making a profit for investors, thus, unfair competition to private companies.
7. Auto insurance plans for the most part, are ala carte (like buying apps). There is a minimum you buy but then you buy the policy that fits your needs from a choice of hundreds of companies. Not a mandated one size fits all plan like FedGov is forcing for health-care.
8. Those who work for insurance companies aren’t compelled against their will to work against their wishes or values or in a place they don’t wish to move like mandates in Obamacare.
I could keep going and going and going....
Others, however, have "Financial Responsibility" laws, which merely require you demonstrate the ability to cover damages to another's person or property you may cause while operating your vehicle.
The most common way of doing this is to purchase an auto insurance policy.
However, "financial responsibility" can also be demonstrated by posting a bond equal to at least the minimum insurance limits for your state.
If Washington, for example, does not explicitly mandate insurance, but merely has a "financial responsibility" law, I'm pretty sure Bill Gates does not have auto insurance.
Probably doesn't have medical insurance, either.
If we want to drive, we need insurance.
If we want a doctor, we need insurance.
If you don’t want to drive you don’t need insurance
If you want a car, you get a job and buy one
If you want insurance, you get a job and coverage.
There is no reason these folks can’t get a job but if they get the same amount (or more) for doing nothing, why not?
I do understand that people need a helping hand sometimes, but these people do get on their feet eventually. I think they should limit for lifetime welfare benefits then maybe it will not be abused. People will save it for when they need it instead of welfare becoming a way of life.
Because then his insurance company has to pay for his loss and every policy holder of that company then has higher rates, due to an event they had no culpability in.
That's actually not correct and one of the false arguments going around. You don't need insurance to see a doctor, and depending on your circumstances, you don't even need to be able to pay (emergency room). However, for the instances that you do need to pay, you can pay out of pocket, you can work out a payment plan with your doctor or the hospital, you can join a medical co-op, etc.
Your doctor doesn't accept cash?