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?
Almost a weak has passed by and the lump of clay at the pit of my stomach won’t go away. It boggles my mind how we in America have allowed this scummery to descend on us. Where were our elder statesmen? Where were the voices of reason even in our media? Why were the boards of directors and administrators and CEOs of our most thriving companies so meek and silent? How was it possible that 3, YES, ONLY 3 determined stealth marxists who have infiltrated the government, able to shove this poisonous pill down America’s throat and march around gloating about their monstrous deed afterward? I am angry and disgusted at the stupidity and lack of foresight of this country.
By the way, I'm reporting your post to firstname.lastname@example.org
Brilliant article. Demolishes the fiction that there’s not going to be Death Panels. Obama lied. Again.
Dave’s the best. No one knows this area of policy better than he does that I’m aware of.
Moreover, there is no MANDATE (yet) to eveyone has to OWN a car and hence would need insurance.
True. But right now, without insurance, a doctors visit is unaffordable (unless you go to the emergency room). Last week, my doctor ordered some simple bloodwork, the cost was $450 That wasn’t including the doctor visit! Once I got the results, I had to return for another visit. I would be looking at $600+ for one/plus follow up visit . If I was referred to a specialist, that would be it, I’d be out of money. That is not an option for most of us. Unfortunately this administration did not choose the right things to reform.
Here’s his website:
"I don't want to pay for mandatory auto insurance."
SOLUTION: Get rid of your car.
"I don't like paying for mandatory health insurance."
SOLUTION: Kill yourself.
I'm sure my sister already has.
If you don't do that sort of thing on a regular basis, it's a lot cheaper than medical insurance premiums.
“No one will die because they cannot drive without auto insurance.”
I believe I could make at least as good an argument that they might as the liberals offer for their claims of people dying because they don’t have health insurance.
Although I'm not sure why you ask, I'll take a stab at it.
Unless I'm mistaken, whenever someone is injured in an auto accident, responsibility for payment falls upon the person(s) who caused the accident. Once their liability or ability to pay is exhausted, the injured person is on his own. Then, yes, if the injured person is covered by Medicare, it will pay, just like anyone else's own medical insurance would.
If you're saying this somehow lends credence to the auto-insurance-and-Obamacare analogy, please explain because I'm not seeing it.
I'm just trying to understand if state auto insurance, not for cars but for bodily injury, is a closed system. That is; is it entirely contained within a state. I think not.
It's logical for states to make you carry insurance to cover injury you may inflict on yourself or others.
Again, I'm not sure what your point is but, I'll bite.
When you smack into him, you should have to pay for his loss. But, too many people (the "poooor" especially) were choosing not to be insured; then, when they smacked into people, their victims were left to sue for damages or, cover their own losses, either out of their own pockets or, if they had collision insurance, by filing a claim of their own (which caused their and others' premiums to increase).
Again, if this is supposed to lend credence to the if-auto-insurance-can-be-mandated-so-can-medical-insurance, you'll need to explain how it does that.
You need insurance (liability only) when you drive because you might hurt or kill someone else. It is a safety/liability issue. You do not need insurance when you visit the doctor because there is not safety/liability issue. In fact, it is the doctor who needs insurance because of the safety/liability issue - not the patient.
Part of the reason health care is so expensive is because of the nature of “insurance.” It is actually a brokerage situation, and whenver you add a broker to any transaction, it will ALWAYS be more expensive. Why? Because the money (”cash”) is not coming directly from my pocket. I am paying someone else to cushion the fall. And I am a bit more lax in my bargain-hunting endeavors because that broker “owes” me for all of the money I have spent on that broker over the years.
So, you're saying people should be forced to buy medical insurance so that the rest of us don't have to pay to patch them up if they cause themselves harm?
RAGHT=RIGHT. Got to get new fingers.
So my next question is "Can/does the state force you to have bodily injury insurance on yourself?"
I'm wondering if they do that now regarding car accidents.
What would your solution be? (just curious, no sarcasm intended.) There has to be a strategy out there that would work for everyone, I just have not run across one yet (I know this Healthcare bill is not it).
Currently EVERYONE is patched up and everyone pays.
You want to consider carefully what you're saying there, FRiend.
First off, consider your assertion about the "right to LIFE." And remember what the Founders said in the Declaration: "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
One might plausibly argue that because life is a right, and government's duty is to secure such rights, it is the government's job to assure proper medical care to those who cannot afford it for themselves. So although Obamacare is a very clear and egregious case of government over-reach, the logic of your comment could be used to actually support a general argument that health insurance or health care is, at some level, a government concern.
The question of rationing is wonderfully scary, but it's not nearly so clear-cut as you might want it to be. Health care is rationed right now, by private insurance companies. Neither government nor private insurance is required to go to the last extremity for every patient: both entities simply have to draw the line somewhere -- and they do so by very similar calculations.
You should also be careful not to go overboard with your objections to government health care. For example, you make the assertion that "untold numbers" will die because of socialized medicine. That should be a claim that you can verify, based on other socialized medicine schemes in other countries -- let's take Germany and Sweden, just to name a couple. But the facts there don't bear out such worst-case claims. Yes, there are those on the margins who might die there, that might not die here. But it's a plain fact that "untold numbers" (i.e., lots of) people aren't dropping like flies from treatable maladies in places like Germany or Sweden.
I'm just as opposed to Obamacare as you are ... but to effectively oppose it, we need to come up with serious arguments that apply to the real situation.
Government can regulate priviliges such as driving, but they cannot govern the most basic of human rights as bestowed upon us by our creator - and acknowledged in our Constitution - to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of happiness.
The argument the Obama Administration is going to make won't compare automobile insurance to health insurance. They know that's a false argument.
Rather, they will argue that the Federal Government has the right by conscription to act in the national best interest, which in this case would be health care. They're preparing to argue that the Federal Government has the right through conscription to act in the national interest whether it's sending men to war, or forcing them to buy health insurance.
That's the argument they're going to make, and I say this confidently because Obama back in 2001 on National Public Radio said as much when he said and I quote:
The Constitution specifies what the Government cannot do to you. The Constitution does not specify what Government must do for you on your behalf. It's very simple: Obama believes that the Government must mandate people to do specific, certain things in the "National Interest" as a back-door to his plan for "social justice."
Just look at what he's doing and ask yourself who benefits the most from what he's doing? C'mon, everyone knows the answer even if they're afraid to say it.
If you have enough property or know someone who does you can drive your car on it all you want without insurance, registration or even a license and there's nothing any government can do.
Like wise, if you (are going) see a private doctor it should be none of the government's business what your insurance situation is.
Here’s a good start:
1. Get rid of the law that says all people have a right to be treated whether they can pay or not. Health care is not a right because that means you could lawfully force someone against their own will to provide a service for you. This law also allows too many people to show up in emergency rooms so they do not have to pay for their own health care. Why should a group of people (doctors, nurses, administrators) be forced by law to provide their services for free? Many hospitals have gone bankrupt at least partially because of this, so this law has to be repealed.
2. For those among us who truly cannot afford health care due to physical, emotional, or psychological disabilities, local governments (not the Federal government) should be encouraged to set aside a certain percentage of the money they collect to provide for these people. And when that money is gone, it is gone. Private charitiies and volunteers would have to make up the slack.
3. Get states to get rid of all mandates - this would decrease costs. Why should any state force me, a male, to buy insurance in case I get pregnant?
4. Get rid of the law that prohibits buying insurance over state lines - this would reduce costs. Why outlaw one of the main things that will reduce costs - competition?
5. Finally, everyone who believes health care should be a right and that doctors, nurses, administrators, and insurance companies should not profit from their craft should go to medical school and/or open an insurance company so they can provide those services any way they want. In fact, they should provide them in the most altruistic way possible - for free.
Plus, if I don’t own a car I don’t need the insurance