PDA

View Full Version : Obama Auto Insurance vs. Health Care Insurance..


petegz28
03-17-2010, 12:38 PM
Let's dispel the myth that many Democrats and Obama have and are still trying to perpetuate.

Auto Insurance:

Required by the STATE. Not the Fed Gov. And only if you choose to exercise and are permitted by the State to exercise your privilege to drive, you must carry liability inurance at a minimum. Why? This covers you financially should you cause an accident and be liable to pay for the other driver\passengers' medical bills and damage to the other driver's car. You do NOT have to have insurance. You simply can choose not to have a driver's license. The only time you are required to carry what is called "comprehensive and collision" insurance, A.K.A. "full coverage", is if you have a lien on your vehicle. This insures the finacier of your loan that they will be covered should you destroy or damage the vehicle while they carry the loan on your car. And that is part of the contract of your loan with the finaning party. Not a law by the State or Fed Gov, for that matter.

Mandated Health Insurance:

Now, the proposed mandated health coverage. It is simply that. Obama and some Democrats want to mandate that you "buy" health insurance. They try to chalk it up to the above argument about auto inurance. To be clear, there is no Constitutional basis for the Fed Gov to mandate anyone buy anything. The Constitution grants them the power to "tax". Therefore they can only tax you for health insurace and thereby have to provide said insurance.
It is just plain ignornat to try and perputate the myth that everyone MUST HAVE auto insurance. You don't. It's that simple.


It is a sad, sad day in America when some of what are supposed to be the brightest people in the country are so easily discredited by the ignorance of the argument they choose to present.

I write this cause people are reporting that as they call their Dem Reps in disapproval of the health care bill, they are being told this is no different than you having to get auto insurance. Eitehr they are really stupid or they think you are.

Garcia Bronco
03-17-2010, 01:53 PM
Props. I have seen this argument before...but it gets the beat down pretty quick.

alnorth
03-17-2010, 04:58 PM
One problem with this thought. Everyone basically is "insured". If you choose not to buy insurance then you are a freeloader mooching off the taxpayer. You arent forced to buy auto insurance to protect yourself, it is to protect the guy you hit.

Similarly, as a taxpayer, if you can afford to buy insurance, I'd prefer you pay for it rather than force me to indirectly pay for your health care.

WoodDraw
03-17-2010, 06:03 PM
One problem with this thought. Everyone basically is "insured". If you choose not to buy insurance then you are a freeloader mooching off the taxpayer. You arent forced to buy auto insurance to protect yourself, it is to protect the guy you hit.

Similarly, as a taxpayer, if you can afford to buy insurance, I'd prefer you pay for it rather than force me to indirectly pay for your health care.

It also the only way you can ever get rid of the preexisting condition bias. And by most accounts, that would be a reasonable thing to do.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-17-2010, 06:10 PM
I've got no problem with the premise of the argument. But car insurance is absolutely mandated by the federal government. When states didn't create the laws, the feds cut off their highway funding.

Again though, in no way does that affect my outlook on the health care debate.

alnorth
03-17-2010, 06:39 PM
All that aside though, I'm still very unhappy with this obsession that we should make everyone buy insurance that pays the first dollar of care. (or an insignificant little deductible).

I'd prefer a mandate that everyone buys catastrophic insurance. Maybe a huge deductible, like $1,000, $2,000, $5,000, maybe make it scale by income but something that would really sting.

High-deductible catastrophic health insurance is *extremely* cheap, and could encourage more people to invest in HSA's to save for that monster deductible. Its not the little treatments hospitals are forced to give for free that drive up costs, its the ultra-expensive stuff, the half million or million-dollar surgery that has to be given away for free that screws everything up.

But no, we have this mindset that everyone should be able to waltz in with 25 bucks in their pocket and get anything they want. I'm fine with a mandate, but this particular implementation is expensive and sort of sucks.

Saul Good
03-17-2010, 08:46 PM
One problem with this thought. Everyone basically is "insured". If you choose not to buy insurance then you are a freeloader mooching off the taxpayer. You arent forced to buy auto insurance to protect yourself, it is to protect the guy you hit.

Similarly, as a taxpayer, if you can afford to buy insurance, I'd prefer you pay for it rather than force me to indirectly pay for your health care.

That analogy would only hold if mechanics were forced to fix your damaged car regardless of your ability to pay if you took it to an emergency mechanic.

Saul Good
03-17-2010, 08:50 PM
All that aside though, I'm still very unhappy with this obsession that we should make everyone buy insurance that pays the first dollar of care. (or an insignificant little deductible).

I'd prefer a mandate that everyone buys catastrophic insurance. Maybe a huge deductible, like $1,000, $2,000, $5,000, maybe make it scale by income but something that would really sting.

High-deductible catastrophic health insurance is *extremely* cheap, and could encourage more people to invest in HSA's to save for that monster deductible. Its not the little treatments hospitals are forced to give for free that drive up costs, its the ultra-expensive stuff, the half million or million-dollar surgery that has to be given away for free that screws everything up.

But no, we have this mindset that everyone should be able to waltz in with 25 bucks in their pocket and get anything they want. I'm fine with a mandate, but this particular implementation is expensive and sort of sucks.

I could sort of see it if they did something like a 403B where they required you to have a certain amount of money withheld to pay the premiums for catastrophic care (say something with a $5,000 deductible that cost you $50 per month). Then, they could make you withhold a certain additional amount (say another $50 a month) to be put into an account up until the point where there was an amount in the account equal to your deductible. At that time, the deduction would stop.

petegz28
03-17-2010, 08:51 PM
I could sort of see it if they did something like a 403B where they required you to have a certain amount of money withheld to pay the premiums for catastrophic care (say something with a $5,000 deductible that cost you $50 per month). Then, they could make you withhold a certain additional amount (say another $50 a month) to be put into an account up until the point where there was an amount in the account equal to your deductible. At that time, the deduction would stop.

That would be a tax and would be legal. I guess.

Saul Good
03-17-2010, 08:54 PM
That would be a tax and would be legal. I guess.

That catastrophic care plan would also have to be a "public option" type of plan where the rates are the same across the board regardless of individual circumstances.

alnorth
03-17-2010, 08:56 PM
That analogy would only hold if mechanics were forced to fix your damaged car regardless of your ability to pay if you took it to an emergency mechanic.

It works for liability. You banged someone up and they now have a $50,000 hospital bill? Oops, you have no insurance and can go bankrupt on it. I guess they just have to suffer through no fault of their own.

petegz28
03-17-2010, 08:57 PM
That catastrophic care plan would also have to be a "public option" type of plan where the rates are the same across the board regardless of individual circumstances.

The only problem with charging people equal prices is we are pretending they need equal amounts of care.

petegz28
03-17-2010, 08:57 PM
It works for liability. You banged someone up and they now have a $50,000 hospital bill? Oops, you have no insurance and can go bankrupt on it. I guess they just have to suffer through no fault of their own.

Techically you are not allowed to have a driver's license without insurance. If you do not have insurance and are driving the State is not doing their job and you end up in jail.

Saul Good
03-17-2010, 09:05 PM
It works for liability. You banged someone up and they now have a $50,000 hospital bill? Oops, you have no insurance and can go bankrupt on it. I guess they just have to suffer through no fault of their own.

Does your health insurance pay for someone else's hospital bills if you accidentally knock them down a flight of stairs? If it does, you aren't stupid for making that analogy. Otherwise, you might consider a vasectomy.

Saul Good
03-17-2010, 09:08 PM
The only problem with charging people equal prices is we are pretending they need equal amounts of care.

I get it, but you can't FORCE someone to buy something and then penalize them with higher premiums for being high risk. (Of course by "can't", I mean wouldn't if you weren't a politician seeking to...well, you get it.)

memyselfI
03-17-2010, 09:20 PM
The whole thing that burns me about this is that neither the government or the insurance industry is without incompetence, fraud, and waste and yet the two of them are now collaborating and conspiring to make sure that they give me what I don't want from them in the first place?

We see how the post office is run. I'm quite certain we will be praying the government runs health care that effectively.

alnorth
03-17-2010, 09:22 PM
Does your health insurance pay for someone else's hospital bills if you accidentally knock them down a flight of stairs? If it does, you aren't stupid for making that analogy. Otherwise, you might consider a vasectomy.

Awesome. What, are you getting frustrated, so now you want to throw some sort of temper tantrum? I dont recall ever being hostile to you. For a second I thought we might have an intelligent discussion but I guess this is just a waste of time. No wonder this whole forum is a s***-smeared cesspool.

Anyway, the analogy works because when you decide not to buy insurance and stick everyone with your hospital bill, there is a victim. Just like there's a victim when you hurt someone driving a car without insurance. The victims of this selfish freeloader are the taxpayers.

WoodDraw
03-17-2010, 09:32 PM
Does your health insurance pay for someone else's hospital bills if you accidentally knock them down a flight of stairs? If it does, you aren't stupid for making that analogy. Otherwise, you might consider a vasectomy.

This would be covered under home insurance, not health insurance.

Saul Good
03-17-2010, 10:00 PM
This would be covered under home insurance, not health insurance.

Correct, and homeowners insurance is not mandatory.

WoodDraw
03-17-2010, 10:04 PM
Correct, and homeowners insurance is not mandatory.

Well no, but if you come to my house and fall down the stairs, I'm liable whether I have insurance or not.

If I have a heart attack but don't have health insurance, the hospital still must treat me.

Saul Good
03-17-2010, 10:06 PM
Awesome. What, are you getting frustrated, so now you want to throw some sort of temper tantrum? I dont recall ever being hostile to you. For a second I thought we might have an intelligent discussion but I guess this is just a waste of time. No wonder this whole forum is a s***-smeared cesspool.

Anyway, the analogy works because when you decide not to buy insurance and stick everyone with your hospital bill, there is a victim. Just like there's a victim when you hurt someone driving a car without insurance. The victims of this selfish freeloader are the taxpayers.

Again, the comparison would only hold water if there were laws mandating that mechanics must fix vehicles regardless of a person's ability to pay. (As an aside, what the hell does "taxpayers" have to do with anything? It's insurance premiums that would go up, not taxes.)

People supporting this healthcare plan seem to be using two arguments which are completely at odds with each other.

1. Everyone, not just the rich, deserve access to care. For this reason, we need universal health care.

2. Everyone should have to buy health insurance so the rest of us don't get stuck with the bill.

If the uninsured aren't getting care, where are these bills that we are all getting stuck with coming from?

Saul Good
03-17-2010, 10:07 PM
Well no, but if you come to my house and fall down the stairs, I'm liable whether I have insurance or not.

If I have a heart attack but don't have health insurance, the hospital still must treat me.

So it's pretty much nothing like auto insurance...got it.

WoodDraw
03-17-2010, 10:27 PM
So it's pretty much nothing like auto insurance...got it.

Yes, I'm saying you can't compare health, house, and auto insurance.

If I have a preexisting condition and get dropped by my current health coverage, any new health coverage I buy, absent certain circumstances, can deny me care for that one condition, for a period up to a lifetime of my care with them.

That's to prevent people from failing to buy insurance until they need it at the last moment, obviously.

To prevent that, you'd force a universal mandate. Everyone must buy some level of health care or pay a fine.

petegz28
03-17-2010, 10:35 PM
Yes, I'm saying you can't compare health, house, and auto insurance.

If I have a preexisting condition and get dropped by my current health coverage, any new health coverage I buy, absent certain circumstances, can deny me care for that one condition, for a period up to a lifetime of my care with them.

That's to prevent people from failing to buy insurance until they need it at the last moment, obviously.

To prevent that, you'd force a universal mandate. Everyone must buy some level of health care or pay a fine.

And everyone's premiums go up. WOW!

If you take insurance out of the work place and put it strictly at the individual level then you won't lose your health insurance if you change jobs. Pretty fucking simple really.

WoodDraw
03-17-2010, 10:37 PM
And everyone's premiums go up. WOW!

If you take insurance out of the work place and put it strictly at the individual level then you won't lose your health insurance if you change jobs. Pretty ****ing simple really.

That doesn't solve the preexisting condition problem. Another hypothetical example,

I'm 20 years old and get diagnosed with diabetes. My insurance under the parents plan ends when I'm 21. Does that count as a preexisting condition for me now?

petegz28
03-17-2010, 10:40 PM
That doesn't solve the preexisting condition problem. Another hypothetical example,

I'm 20 years old and get diagnosed with diabetes. My insurance under the parents plan ends when I'm 21. Does that count as a preexisting condition for me now?

The problem with pre-existing conditions is Obama wants someone with a pre-existing to pay the same premiums as someone who is totally healthy.

Sorry about your diabetes. My Aunt was born with it and has it very bad. But let me ask you, do you think she should have to pay more for her insurance than someone who is healthy since she uses more medical resources?

I agree we need to allow pre-existing conditions. Just not at the same price as someone who doesn't have one.

WoodDraw
03-17-2010, 10:43 PM
The problem with pre-existing conditions is Obama wants someone with a pre-existing to pay the same premiums as someone who is totally healthy.

Sorry about your diabetes. My Aunt was born with it and has it very bad. But let me ask you, do you think she should have to pay more for her insurance than someone who is healthy since she uses more medical resources?

Just to clarify, I don't have diabetes and want to take nothing away from people that do. I'm using it purely as a hypothetical.

[edit] hit that too soon. I'll reply in a second

WoodDraw
03-17-2010, 10:57 PM
Do I think they should have the same premium? Probably not, but it's hard. If you choose to live under a volcano, or in hurricane area, that's your choice. If you are born with a predisposition to some disease, that becomes more ethically tricky for me. You can effectively price people out of being able to pay for their own care, even if they want to do so.

petegz28
03-17-2010, 11:00 PM
Do I think they should have the same premium? Probably not, but it's hard. If you choose to live under a volcano, or in hurricane area, that's your choice. If you are born with a predisposition to some disease, that becomes more ethically tricky for me. You can effectively price people out of being able to pay for their own care, even if they want to do so.

The problem with your ethical question is the only answer is to make life fair from a health aspect. We cannot do that. Won't ever happen. And it is unfair to healthy people to have to continualy pay more and more for health premiums that they do not use. It's a cruel aspect of life but that is how it is. I wish we could make sure no one was ever born with any diseases or disabilities. But that just ain't gonna happen.

WoodDraw
03-17-2010, 11:13 PM
The problem with your ethical question is the only answer is to make life fair from a health aspect. We cannot do that. Won't ever happen. And it is unfair to healthy people to have to continualy pay more and more for health premiums that they do not use. It's a cruel aspect of life but that is how it is. I wish we could make sure no one was ever born with any diseases or disabilities. But that just ain't gonna happen.

I suppose. But you benefit from having a state mandate saying every single auto driver must have liability insurance. Surely there are some out there who given the choice, would say they won't get in an accident, and should they, they'd rather pay for it on their own.

So for those people, the price goes up. But most people don't look at universal liability as a social negative.

petegz28
03-17-2010, 11:24 PM
I suppose. But you benefit from having a state mandate saying every single auto driver must have liability insurance. Surely there are some out there who given the choice, would say they won't get in an accident, and should they, they'd rather pay for it on their own.

So for those people, the price goes up. But most people don't look at universal liability as a social negative.

Yes, but you can choose not to drive. That is the key difference.

cdcox
03-17-2010, 11:31 PM
Auto insurance and health insurance are exactly the same in that responsible people have to pay the way for the freeloaders.

The idea that every motorist carries insurance is a lie. We say that to make ourselves feel good. We've had three fender benders since 2004 all the fault of the other driver. Two of the three other drivers were uninsured. A friend had her car totaled by an uninsured driver. Responsible people have to carry "uninsured motor vehicle insurance" to protect themselves from people who don't carry insurance.

It's the same with heath care. The uninsured go to the emergency room for routine treatment. There is no prayer of ever collecting that money. People with money and/or health insurance pay for that.

cdcox
03-17-2010, 11:33 PM
Yes, but you can choose not to drive. That is the key difference.

For every person that chooses not to drive there are 100 people who choose to drive without insurance. Apparently the penalties aren't severe enough to dissuade them.

WoodDraw
03-18-2010, 12:20 AM
Yes, but you can choose not to drive. That is the key difference.

But can you choose not to die?

I can say I'll never get sick. I'll live the healthiest lifestyle I possibly can. Never go to the doctor. And then one day I have a heart attack and an ambulance rushes me to the hospital. Should they treat me?

Taco John
03-18-2010, 01:30 AM
Auto insurance and health insurance are exactly the same in that responsible people have to pay the way for the freeloaders.



I love it when progressives start calling poor people "free loaders." It shows just how hypocritical they're willing to be to get their utopia.

Saul Good
03-18-2010, 07:14 AM
Auto insurance and health insurance are exactly the same in that responsible people have to pay the way for the freeloaders.

The idea that every motorist carries insurance is a lie. We say that to make ourselves feel good. We've had three fender benders since 2004 all the fault of the other driver. Two of the three other drivers were uninsured. A friend had her car totaled by an uninsured driver. Responsible people have to carry "uninsured motor vehicle insurance" to protect themselves from people who don't carry insurance.

It's the same with heath care. The uninsured go to the emergency room for routine treatment. There is no prayer of ever collecting that money. People with money and/or health insurance pay for that.

So what are you arguing? Are you saying that forcing people to purchase insurance doesn't work so this is a good plan or that forcing people to purchase insurance doesn't work so this is a bad plan?

BucEyedPea
03-18-2010, 07:22 AM
Auto insurance and health insurance are exactly the same in that responsible people have to pay the way for the freeloaders.

I can't believe you teach science and make a leap of logic like that. They are not in the same category of thing. They only share some similarities. One key one being that the Federal govt has no authority in the area.

orange
03-18-2010, 09:01 AM
So what are you arguing? Are you saying that forcing people to purchase insurance doesn't work so this is a good plan or that forcing people to purchase insurance doesn't work so this is a bad plan?

Maybe he's saying that his state does a bad job of enforcing the mandate.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 09:02 AM
Maybe he's saying that his state does a bad job of enforcing the mandate.

Can't be any worse than the Fed Gov not enforcing the mandate that you can only be in this country legaly.

stevieray
03-18-2010, 09:13 AM
a car? comparing a person to a car?

pathetic.

you don't have a right to a car, or to even drive that car.

cdcox
03-18-2010, 01:25 PM
Maybe he's saying that his state does a bad job of enforcing the mandate.

Yes, pretty much. One of the arguements used against health care reform is that people aren't entitled to health care. Well, yes they are. They get it now but don't pay for it. People who drive without insurance get the benefit of driving and escape liability because the existing laws are weakly enforced. Both systems give people benefits that they don't pay for. I'm on record for allowing health coverage to be optional as long as people bare the full responsibility and consequenses for their negligence. For health insurance that means denial of treatment. For car insurance that means hard prison time.

Our system now isn't transparent. People can't see where the problems are because it is all balled up in a knot.

BWillie
03-18-2010, 01:27 PM
Let's dispel the myth that many Democrats and Obama have and are still trying to perpetuate.

Auto Insurance:

Required by the STATE. Not the Fed Gov. And only if you choose to exercise and are permitted by the State to exercise your privilege to drive, you must carry liability inurance at a minimum. Why? This covers you financially should you cause an accident and be liable to pay for the other driver\passengers' medical bills and damage to the other driver's car. You do NOT have to have insurance. You simply can choose not to have a driver's license. The only time you are required to carry what is called "comprehensive and collision" insurance, A.K.A. "full coverage", is if you have a lien on your vehicle. This insures the finacier of your loan that they will be covered should you destroy or damage the vehicle while they carry the loan on your car. And that is part of the contract of your loan with the finaning party. Not a law by the State or Fed Gov, for that matter.

Mandated Health Insurance:

Now, the proposed mandated health coverage. It is simply that. Obama and some Democrats want to mandate that you "buy" health insurance. They try to chalk it up to the above argument about auto inurance. To be clear, there is no Constitutional basis for the Fed Gov to mandate anyone buy anything. The Constitution grants them the power to "tax". Therefore they can only tax you for health insurace and thereby have to provide said insurance.
It is just plain ignornat to try and perputate the myth that everyone MUST HAVE auto insurance. You don't. It's that simple.


It is a sad, sad day in America when some of what are supposed to be the brightest people in the country are so easily discredited by the ignorance of the argument they choose to present.

I write this cause people are reporting that as they call their Dem Reps in disapproval of the health care bill, they are being told this is no different than you having to get auto insurance. Eitehr they are really stupid or they think you are.

You actually don't have to HAVE liability insurance in most states, it's just the easiest way to prove your financial responsibility should you cause an accident. In most states, they allow you to get some sort of bond, or you can go to the courthouse or something and prove you have x amount of liquid assets. Don't know anybody that chooses to do that though.

cdcox
03-18-2010, 01:31 PM
I love it when progressives start calling poor people "free loaders." It shows just how hypocritical they're willing to be to get their utopia.

I'm not driven by idology or pat truisms. My proposal above should fit nicely with your libertarianism. You might actually need to apply ideas from different ideologies to solve a given problem.

cdcox
03-18-2010, 01:33 PM
I can't believe you teach science and make a leap of logic like that. They are not in the same category of thing. They only share some similarities. One key one being that the Federal govt has no authority in the area.

The words "in that" qualify the ways in which they are alike.