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.
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.
How’s that?
Plus, if I don’t own a car I don’t need the insurance
bump
Or if the vehicle doesn’t leave your property (farm or work truck, plow truck, etc).
For auto insurance? No. In fact, I don't think it's possible to buy auto insurance to cover your own injuries when you're at fault. ("No-fault" states may be different; I have no idea.)
How’s that?
Wow! It looks like I asked the right person! I agree with a lot of this. the only problem I have is with the first suggestion ... there is no way to keep these people out of emergency rooms, and the Doctors are sworn to help all those who need it. This issue is the toughest one, I think.
Good job the rest though, you really thought this through.
Is that a "Yes"?
If a doctor wants to make that individual, compassionate choice, that is his God-given, professional right. And we as a society owe him/her our thanks. In fact, many, many doctors and dentists volunteer their time both home and abroad to help people. This - not government largesse with your and my tax money - should be encouraged.
Hey, I think you just came up with the answer. Why can’t these doctors voluteer at clinics once a month (alternating with other doctors) to provide free healthcare for those who have none. A nominal fee can be charged to keep the clinic operational. Just a thought.
“If we want a doctor, we need insurance.
Your doctor doesn’t accept cash? “
The argument i ran into recently is not the payment with cash but ‘what about someone who doesn’t have the money’ type of argument. How fair is it that some people have to pay full price for a drs appointment and tests and the insurance companies have payment rates that knock that price down for their policy holders. The argument was “why should the ones paying cash have to pay for those who have insurance?” What about those who really can’t pay? I know of some who don’t have insurance because it just isn’t in the budget, but who probably will be making to much to get assistance in paying for the mandated insurance so they still won’t have insurance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.