Why Mandated Health-Insurance is not like Mandated Car-Insurance

[rambone]

President Obama and others have tried to make the case that forcing people into the Government Health Care program is just the same as forcing people to have car insurance. These are my thoughts about why comparing the two leads to a fallacious argument.

• Government decided long ago that driving a car on public roads is a government-regulated privilege, not a right (like it or not). Therefore the Government has reserved the option to mandate that drivers must pay for insurance.

American citizens have the right to live free without being denied life, liberty or property. The Government has no lawful business mandating that a citizen purchase something that he doesn't want, under no condition other than he is under Government-rule. Obamacare is a tax on citizenship, and makes being a citizen more of a taxable privilege than your right.


​

• Drivers have the option to only purchase Liability Insurance (at least in Indiana). This means drivers don't necessarily have to pay for coverage over their own vehicle if they don't want to. They weigh the risks vs. rewards.

American citizens being forced into a mandatory "Government Option" won't have the choice to opt out of coverage.


​

• Drivers can choose to park their vehicles and not drive them on public roads. They then can opt out of needing insurance if they choose to.

American citizens under Obamacare will have no legal choice to opt out of being covered.


​

• Not everybody drives. Children, disabled people, and elderly people often do not drive. City dwellers also sometimes do not drive a car and rely on public transportation or on a bicycle. All these people can avoid buying the mandated car insurance.

The only people exempted from Obamacare are the Congressmen and Senators that voted for it.


​

• Drivers are generally able bodied people. Able bodied people generally can get a job and pay for their own things. If you can drive a car, then surely you can earn your way to pay for your own insurance.

Mandated Government Health Care aims to cover everyone. It is an entirely different scale of program, and different range of people.


​

• Drivers don't get tax funded car insurance. It is a pay-your-own-way system of insurance. Tax dollars are not required to insure disenfranchised drivers.

Obamacare is entirely tax funded.


​

• Drivers pay for car insurance to protect other drivers' from financial loss due to a car accident.
  

Obamacare is a mandated purchase of health insurance "for your own good."
​

• Drivers who have failed to buy car insurance receive small tickets/fines, or risk revocation of their driver's license.
  

Citizens who have failed to pay for Obamacare face punishments of up to a $250,000 fine, and up to 5 years in prison, as well as a possible felony on your record.


​

• The current model of mandated car-insurance is a state-by-state issue, as it should be under the 10th Amendment of the constitution.
  

Obamacare is a national program, thereby ignoring the 10th Amendment's declaration of states' rights. Therefore it is an unconstitutional, and further expands the power of the Federal Government over the states, and the American people, to unprecedented levels.
​

I know half this crowd is sympathetic to socialism, but I just wanted to post my thoughts about why this is a false argument. Mandating car insurance is not the same as mandating Government health insurance.

 

[5.56'aholic]

great post! I think you are spot on, on every count. The problem is, those who want a free ride wont see the logic, only the fact that you are removing their freebie! Ever see the article about the lady who went into the burlington coat factory and said she would pay for everyones purchase, then didn't? That's what will happen when those same types of people realize they wont get anything for free.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

TLDR...where were the free Bluray players? I like free stuff!

Agreed on all points Rambone. Land of the free...except, you have to pay taxes which are spent on charities you disagree with & you have to pay a living-tax...I mean health insurance.

 

[Indecision]

Well said man.

 

[rambone]

I added 2 more points to the list;

• Drivers pay for car insurance to protect other drivers' from financial loss due to a car accident.
  

Obamacare is a mandated purchase of health insurance "for your own good."
​

• Drivers who have failed to buy car insurance receive small tickets/fines, or risk revocation of their driver's license.
  

Citizens who have failed to pay for Obamacare face punishments of up to a $250,000 fine, and up to 5 years in prison, as well as a possible felony on your record.​

 

[The_Possumn]

well put, sir. I friend of mine had just returned from san francisco last week and has been spending every weekend in chicago, we discussed this item at length. we find it to be an logic extension of the urban mindset of relying upon the government for everything.

 

[RCB]

Any requirement to HAVE insurance on ones self is absurd and hugely unconstitutional.

Not only the above, but there is nothing in there to require costs to remain at a certain level.

What they aren't considering is that many people do not visit the doctor because it is too expensive. What happens if they are forced to by health insurance? Well if it were me, I would make sure to get my money's worth, which in essence would mean a massive jump in healthcare use.

Further, as was mentioned before, since we HAVE to have auto insurance, we are given "low cost" option of liability only. Essentially junk insurance. The same thing will happen to healthcare under this bill. Sure, they might insure you, but since they aren't legislating any particular coverages we could get "affordable" options like 50/50 co pays and $5000 dollar deductibles per person for "reasonable" plans.

This current bill is the worst of all worlds. Meanwhile they are still trying to shove cap and trade down our throats as well.

Its a blitzkrieg.

 

[rambone]

I added this one to my list:

• The current model of mandated car-insurance is a state-by-state issue, as it should be under the 10th Amendment of the constitution.
  

Obamacare is a national program, thereby ignoring the 10th Amendment's declaration of states' rights. Therefore it is an unconstitutional, and further expands the power of the Federal Government over the states, and the American people, to unprecedented levels.

 

[Eddie]

great post! I think you are spot on, on every count. The problem is, those who want a free ride wont see the logic, only the fact that you are removing their freebie! Ever see the article about the lady who went into the burlington coat factory and said she would pay for everyones purchase, then didn't? That's what will happen when those same types of people realize they wont get anything for free.

Like I have said in other other threads, we have become a nation of bread and circuses. The poor will vote for whoever will give them the most free stuff, regardless of what it will do to the country in the long run.

 

[smoking357]

If it's not, they both get wet from the same raindrop. That's splitting a pretty fine hair.

Why not just admit that mandatory auto insurance is wrong and driving is a right? That's the pro-freedom course which Republicans steadfastly refuse to take.

 

[rambone]

I believe it should be a right. But it is a right that is universally denied under current laws.

 

[colt45er]

I added this one to my list:

• The current model of mandated car-insurance is a state-by-state issue, as it should be under the 10th Amendment of the constitution.
  

Obamacare is a national program, thereby ignoring the 10th Amendment's declaration of states' rights. Therefore it is an unconstitutional, and further expands the power of the Federal Government over the states, and the American people, to unprecedented levels.

This is a valid argument.

Being an insurance agent I have a few thigns to add.


Some states do not require auto insurance to drive a car...Period. Indiana has the misconception that you are required to carry insurance. this is incorrect. you have to prove financial responsibility to drive a car legally in Indiana. For most people this is buying auto insurance. If you have money you can opt to purchase a bond. This bond is basically set in reserve to cover any accident.

Also, auto insurance companies have the options of denying people. For example, my company will not touch you if you have a DUI within 5 years. we have that option. The preexisting condition crap that they keep talking about is the equivalent to the .gov telling us we have to insure people that have recent DUI's.

 

[Phil502]

Obamacare equates the privilege of driving a car to the privilege of having a body.
Car insurance and Health insurance are not the same thing. Just as having a car and having a body are not the same thing.

 

[dross]

Certainly the ability to get around is a right. But the roads belong to everyone.

If you're against mandated auto insurance, please explain how your system would work. How do I recover my costs if someone without insurance or assets does me harm when they are driving unsafely?

 

[Phil502]

Certainly the ability to get around is a right. But the roads belong to everyone.

If you're against mandated auto insurance, please explain how your system would work. How do I recover my costs if someone without insurance or assets does me harm when they are driving unsafely?

Is that question directed at me?

 

[level.eleven]

Certainly the ability to get around is a right. But the roads belong to everyone.

If you're against mandated auto insurance, please explain how your system would work. How do I recover my costs if someone without insurance or assets does me harm when they are driving unsafely?

I thought you weren't interested in bong water dorm room ideas? Sorry, couldn't resist.

I think you would have to start with the second sentence of your first paragraph. Mentioning privatizing roadways tends to freak people out though. The 3 big hitters are roads, courts and cops.

 

[dross]

Is that question directed at me?

It's directed at whoever holds the opinion that we don't need mandated auto insurance.

I thought you weren't interested in bong water dorm room ideas? Sorry, couldn't resist.

I think you would have to start with the second sentence of your first paragraph. Mentioning privatizing roadways tends to freak people out though. The 3 big hitters are roads, courts and cops.

Cheap shot. What I'm not interested in is comparing existing and real world choices with choices that only exist in someone's imagination.

There are two ways to attack a social policy. One is on moral grounds, the other is on practical grounds. I see no moral issue here, but I realize some might. I'm specifically asking about the practical issue.

Having an alternative - even one that hasn't been tried - is not a bong water discussion. It becomes such a discussion when you're sure your never-before-tried alternative is completely acheivable, workable, and better than the existing structure, all because you imagined it so.

 

[level.eleven]

It's directed at whoever holds the opinion that we don't need mandated auto insurance.



Cheap shot. What I'm not interested in is comparing existing and real world choices with choices that only exist in someone's imagination.

There are two ways to attack a social policy. One is on moral grounds, the other is on practical grounds. I see no moral issue here, but I realize some might. I'm specifically asking about the practical issue.

Having an alternative - even one that hasn't been tried - is not a bong water discussion. It becomes such a discussion when you're sure your never-before-tried alternative is completely acheivable, workable, and better than the existing structure, all because you imagined it so.

As usual, fair enough and good post. I wasn't trying to take a cheap shot. I enjoy reading your posts. I may add some more later. I need to make some vittles for the youngins'.

 

[dross]

As usual, fair enough and good post. I wasn't trying to take a cheap shot. I enjoy reading your posts. I may add some more later. I need to make some vittles for the youngins'.

No sweat. I get it wrong sometimes. My nerves are a little frazzled from troll-dodging.

 

[SavageEagle]

Certainly the ability to get around is a right. But the roads belong to everyone.

If you're against mandated auto insurance, please explain how your system would work. How do I recover my costs if someone without insurance or assets does me harm when they are driving unsafely?

You're right. The roads belong to everyone. The idea of having a license to drive is wrong let alone mandating insurance. In some Countries, if you wreck your car, that's it, no more car. Shouldn't have bought a $200K sports car you can't afford to wreck.

And think about it. Cars would be built so that they were easier to work on. They would become cheaper. Knowing that people can't just buy a new car everyday, companies would make cars that are cheap, but still safe.

Again, if you do get into an accident, tuff nooky. If you were breaking the law, driving recklessly, kill someone, those are crimes and let the courts handle it. If they want to award restitution, so be it. If the other person wants to sue, so be it. That's the chance people will take if they CHOOSE not to carry insurance.

I do think there should be an age limit for being able to drive full size vehicles, but if a 12y/o wants to drive his moped into town, and the parents allow it because they know he/she knows what to do, why not? If a 15y/o wants to drive his fourwheeler to the gas station to fill up, why not?

Do we even REALLY need license plates? Just another tax we pay to drive a car. No one needed a license plate on their horses. No one needed a license to ride a horse. Hell, we didn't even need to have a license to drive a car until, what, the 50's? 40's?

That's my argument. I know I left some stuff out, but the women in the house are driving me batty!