If an insurance for your car is mandatory, why healthcare insurance wouldn't be ?

Beeing European, some concerns of American people are really puzzling for me :

If an insurance for your car is mandatory, why healthcare insurance wouldn't be ?

The question is : WHY a car insurance is mandatory ?
- because in case of an accident hurting somebody else than you, or destroying another car than yours, this person or this owner must not suffer of your lack of money, if you can't pay the damages. That's the goal of an insurance.

Now, if you get get ill, or injured, nobody else than you must pay the doctors and/or the surgeons. If you can't afford it, your insurance will.
It's as simple as that.

When you say : "If you get get ill, or injured, nobody else than you must pay the doctors and/or the surgeons. If you can't afford it, borrow the money, be seized, or go to jail", it sounds very "American" but frankly, is it fair ?
Is it the member of a civilized country who can tell that ?

Car Insurance is a state issue, not a federal one. There is no federal law mandating car insurance.

Brainwrek just summed it up directly - it is a state mandate, not a federal one, and well within the authority of the state to create such a mandate. Secondly, you have a choice - I can CHOOSE to not have car insurance and take the bus instead.

Theres no law saying I must have car insurance. That's New Hampshire for you. State issue not a federal one. Perhaps I shouldnt advertise New Hampshires lack of an insurance law. No doubt the fed will seek to pass a federal one to protect all of us poor rubes in NH.

Must be the 100th time I've responded to this question with this answer.

There are two big differences. One, you are not required by law to own a car. Second, the states generally set the level of auto insurance required within their borders, not the federal government.

The second part of that may well be what defeats this bill in the federal court system. The states will likely argue that since there is no constitutional mandate for healthcare, then the states themselves have a 10th amendment right to determine whether they can pass state level laws that supercede this soon to be federal statute.

reply to post by kozmo


OK.
But you can't CHOOSE not to be ill.
You can't CHOOSE not to be injured.

Secondly the question is : if healthcare insurance is NOT mandatory and you CHOOSE not to have one, and you can't pay, WHO WILL ?

State or Federal issue : what's the difference when answering to that question ?

[edit on 22/3/2010 by orkson]

1.You do not have to have it if you do not want it. You just can not own and register a car.
2.It is regulated by the states not the federal government.
3.You buy it to protect the people/property of other people you destroy with your car. (liability is the only required form of insurance you have to have)
4.Driving is considered a privilege not a right.

If I get an auto body repair(mandatory insurance state), it will cost twice as much if an Insurance company pays for it.

How will it be different with mandatory Health Insurance?

There is a big difference between a car and the human body. The only way to opt out of having a human body well is too not live anymore.. (morbid I know but true). People are not forced to buy and own a car. They can walk or take the bus.
Many people can not afford insurance due to being unemployed or being poor. Why should someone be forced to pay for something that is simply not in the budget. There are free health care clinics and emergency can't turn you away if you don't have insurance. If you are healthy what's the point of paying $300 per month.
If it is free then fine make it madatory but if it costs then in this recession it is unfair. The problem isn't that people are refusing to buy insurance it is because they can't afford it there is a big difference.
By the way what about those who can't get coverage because of a pre existing condition or have overinflated rates due to a pre existing condition. Keep in mind even having an ear infection is considered a pre existing condition.
Yes they have changed the laws on that but that part of it is not in effect for a few years.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by dreamseeker]

I actually can see the debate.

You choose to have a car, you must have car insurance

you choose to have health........

ok, stepping out of this slippery slope real quick.
incidently, isn't there any other conspiracys going on today besides health insurance? we got like 400 threads going already...how about someone find a damned new alien or something.

reply to post by dreamseeker

There are free health care clinics and emergency can't turn you away if you don't have insurance.

Do you know WHO pay them ? - YOU : all taxpayers.

If you are healthy what's the point of paying $300 per month

If your house isn't burning, what's the point of paying an insurance for it ?

The problem isn't that people are refusing to buy insurance it is because they can't afford it

Good point : that's an issue. But THAT is adressable in many ways :
- the price of the insurance could cover the unemployment case
- this seems to me something that taxpayers should agree to pay, like the damages of a WAR : the economic crisis is the consequence of an economic war.

reply to post by orkson


First and fore most because the failure to pay for car insurance does not land you in jail. See you can chose to not pay for car insurance. Then you can still take a bus, walk, ride a bike, or call a taxi. You can still go to work, eat with your kids, and enjoy a bright spring day.

You chose not to pay for health insurance you get taxed, fined or imprisioned. Not exactly the same at all is it?

Plus car insurance laws are imposed at a state level. Not every state requires car insurance and some require lower amounts of coverage.

Because I can choose to not drive a car and take public transportation or stay the frig home, but I cannot choose to not be born...I am here you are here, we have no choice in that matter, we could choose to not get help if we're sick...or simply use other resources to heal, after all, BIG PHARM and corporate healthcare isn't the only thing there is out there; there's medicinal herbs, holistic remedies, accupuncture, accupressure and reikki energy healing... which never has been covered by insurance. So why SHOULD we be forced into it, especially if we feel we don't need or want traditional healthcare?

Your thread is a fail.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by ldyserenity]

reply to post by vor78


I was wondering if it could be protested on religous grounds? I mean, if your religion doesn't allow you to visit a doctor should you pay for insurance you will never use? Could this be spun as a freedom of religion issue?

reply to post by MikeNice81


I suppose it could, but I've yet to hear anyone attempt to make that argument. If someone was successful in doing so, it would likely only provide exemption for the very small percentage of the populace who held such a belief.

Insurance in this country is such a joke.

I can pay 100 or 300 a month depending on a car I drive, even if both are "worth" the same. All because of a "risk" factor.

While in some places, driving is considered a privilege, in many places it is almost mandatory.

Have a family, kid plays a sport? Car.
Have a job 10 miles away, sporadic hours? Well, you can waste an extra 4 hours a week with the bus or take a car (if the bus is an option for you).

I could go on and on. I despise insurance. The way it is run in our country is so corrupt.

A bit off off topic...I have C-SPAN on right now, and I find it amusing that the people in the background are texting and falling asleep

reply to post by ldyserenity


I understand very well what you say.

But look : there are many levels of insurance.
The only one which is mandatory is the LOWEST level : the one which covers the damages you could do to someone ELSE than yourself.

Same for healthcare : you can choose to pay an insurance which puts you in a palace if you fall ill.
But you can choose also to cover the fees that someone ELSE than yourself (like taxpayers, for instance) would pay if you didn't have this insurance. That is a very low level of insurance, and that's why it is mandatory : you MUST be able to pay for the lowest level. Otherwise, somebody else than you will.

By the way, even if I have great confidence in the alternative medecine, I don't think that herbs can repair a broken leg, neither that a bullet can be pulled out by Homeopathics, etc ...

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by vor78

 

I was wondering if it could be protested on religous grounds? I mean, if your religion doesn't allow you to visit a doctor should you pay for insurance you will never use? Could this be spun as a freedom of religion issue?

And that is exactly what I am going for in regards to myself, I am pagan and don't beleive that big pharm or traditional doctors are any good. I will be claiming it against my beleifs...I am all about natural healing myself. I only really ever go the ER if it is life or death like the abcess I had, I couldn't get rid of it without the penicillin, and it had gotten almost septic, but I can count on one hand how many times I have gone for myself in 38 years. I would however, cover my children as per law because they are of a different path, and they need to be healthy, so checkups and stuff like that are definately important. Plus they would tell, so I would not get away with lying.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by ldyserenity]

Its not the same at all.

You are not forced to buy auto insurance if you don't own a car. Anyone can choose to use mass transit, walk or ride a bike if they don't want to have to pay for auto insurance.

The requirement of auto insurance is really for the protection of other people on the road. If you get in an accident and someone gets seriously injured someone has to pay.

Not much choice with mandatory health insurance. I guess dying is the only way to get out of it.

I believe I can answer your question. If I had a car, yes I would be required to either have auto insurance, or enough money to cover all costs in the bank, but there is one small detail that is not covered in your post. If I had a car, I could drive to any state in the United States of America and my car is still covered. I do not need to worry about changing companies or policies to do such. My rates would remain the same and as most auto insurance is nationwide, there is a good amount of competition and the rates are low. A person with auto insurance, can pretty much determine what the deductable is, and what level of coverage that is there. The Federal Government does not control or enforce this, and if you don't have Auto insurance, the worse thing that can happen is you get your liscense revoked, but the fundamental rights that allow a person to participate in daily life is not effected. With this health insurance, you can not go from state to state, without having to change policies and companies, the enforcement of this law is the Federal Government, namely the IRS, and then there is the other problem with that. If you consider, if a person does not have health insurance, they could lose the right to vote, and other rights that are guaranteed by federal law, all cause they are then after alot of court dates, a convicted felon. Does that answer your question?