Healthcare IS NOT the same thing as auto insurance

[Xellos2099]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...health.care/index.html

I read in the news that Obama is claiming that mandatory insurance is a good thing and he compare to mandatory auto insurance. Mandatory is never a good thing and he is lying about it.

The comparison between government health care and auto insurance is dead wrong. Everyone would paid thousand of dollars for health care since it is mandatory and one can CHOOSE not to buy a cars, thus no auto insurance.

 

[spidey07]

Yes, only an idiot would call auto and health insurance the same thing.

One is to insure yourself incase of an auto accident, damages to your capital asset and those who own it (underwriters of the loan one most likely has). The other is to provide health insurance.

Only an idiot would compare them, and only an idiot would turn my statements against me. The president is a complete idiot, this I know. FBHO.

 

[blackangst1]

Oh shit here we go.

/grabs lawn chair and a Sam Adams.

 

[TruePaige]

Requiring health insurance without the reform to bring costs down and make GOOD plans available to people is the dumbest fucking idea I have ever seen.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Correct. As I pointed out in another thread, back before auto insurance became mandatory in this state (one of the early adopters of such laws) it was argued that there were too many uninsured drivers (about 15% at the time) that were driving up litigation and medical costs as well as forcing insurance rate increases. Since making insurance mandatory the number of uninsured motorists has increased to 17%, the average costs of insurance have increased faster than inflation and faster than wage growth by a large amount, health care costs have increased faster, legal costs have increased faster...in short, making insurance mandatory did nothing good (unless you think making revenue by way of tickets for being uninsured is good) and a TON bad...most of it aimed at making the insurance companies rich beyond all measure.

Insurance is bad in general; mandatory insurance is worth armed revolution to oppose.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Supporting people driving without any insurance at all seems an odd position to favor.

Out of curiosity are there any studies showing what the growth would be in uninsured drivers, insurance rates, health care rates and legal costs without the mandatory insurance?

Otherwise we don't know whether everything would be better without forced insurance as you imply, or perhaps much much worse.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Requiring health insurance without the reform to bring costs down and make GOOD plans available to people is the dumbest fucking idea I have ever seen.

Interesting because requiring ins in MA hasn't brought any costs down nor made good plans available to anyone other than the poorest in the state, all of the plans available to the middle class are not that great and still expensive.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Requiring health insurance without the reform to bring costs down and make GOOD plans available to people is the dumbest fucking idea I have ever seen.

Interesting because requiring ins in MA hasn't brought any costs down nor made good plans available to anyone other than the poorest in the state, all of the plans available to the middle class are not that great and still expensive.

I know, that's why I said it is a bad idea.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes, only an idiot would call auto and health insurance the same thing.

One is to insure yourself incase of an auto accident, damages to your capital asset and those who own it (underwriters of the loan one most likely has). The other is to provide health insurance.

Only an idiot would compare them, and only an idiot would turn my statements against me. The president is a complete idiot, this I know. FBHO.

Your answer is incomplete though. The reason that mandatory auto insurance exists is not to protect yourself, but to protect others from you. If you smash into a car and do damage to property or person and cannot (or will not) fulfill your obligation, the other person is left harmed with no real recourse. Suing someone who earns little for substantial damages is pointless.

I have never been hit by someone's gall bladder traveling along at highway speeds.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...health.care/index.html

I read in the news that Obama is claiming that mandatory insurance is a good thing and he compare to mandatory auto insurance. Mandatory is never a good thing and he is lying about it.

The comparison between government health care and auto insurance is dead wrong. Everyone would paid thousand of dollars for health care since it is mandatory and one can CHOOSE not to buy a cars, thus no auto insurance.

The auto insurance industry is heavily regulated, keeping the mandatory rates still relatively low. I pay < $1400/year for two 2007 model cars with full coverage and a $250 deductible. This is with State Farm, not some two-bit company.

Health insurance would have to be strictly regulated like this in order to avoid gouging.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes, only an idiot would call auto and health insurance the same thing.

One is to insure yourself incase of an auto accident, damages to your capital asset and those who own it (underwriters of the loan one most likely has). The other is to provide health insurance.

Only an idiot would compare them, and only an idiot would turn my statements against me. The president is a complete idiot, this I know. FBHO.

Your answer is incomplete though. The reason that mandatory auto insurance exists is not to protect yourself, but to protect others from you. If you smash into a car and do damage to property or person and cannot (or will not) fulfill your obligation, the other person is left harmed with no real recourse. Suing someone who earns little for substantial damages is pointless.

I have never been hit by someone's gall bladder traveling along at highway speeds.

Which is why it was stupid to compare the two.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes, only an idiot would call auto and health insurance the same thing.

One is to insure yourself incase of an auto accident, damages to your capital asset and those who own it (underwriters of the loan one most likely has). The other is to provide health insurance.

Only an idiot would compare them, and only an idiot would turn my statements against me. The president is a complete idiot, this I know. FBHO.

Your answer is incomplete though. The reason that mandatory auto insurance exists is not to protect yourself, but to protect others from you. If you smash into a car and do damage to property or person and cannot (or will not) fulfill your obligation, the other person is left harmed with no real recourse. Suing someone who earns little for substantial damages is pointless.

I have never been hit by someone's gall bladder traveling along at highway speeds.

Which is why it was stupid to compare the two.

Indeed.

 

[WolverineGator]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes, only an idiot would call auto and health insurance the same thing.

One is to insure yourself incase of an auto accident, damages to your capital asset and those who own it (underwriters of the loan one most likely has). The other is to provide health insurance.

Only an idiot would compare them, and only an idiot would turn my statements against me. The president is a complete idiot, this I know. FBHO.

Your answer is incomplete though. The reason that mandatory auto insurance exists is not to protect yourself, but to protect others from you. If you smash into a car and do damage to property or person and cannot (or will not) fulfill your obligation, the other person is left harmed with no real recourse. Suing someone who earns little for substantial damages is pointless.

I have never been hit by someone's gall bladder traveling along at highway speeds.

Which is why it was stupid to compare the two.

Indeed.

Well, duh. That's the point of insurance. You never know when you are going to get hit by a speeding gall bladder!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes, only an idiot would call auto and health insurance the same thing.

One is to insure yourself incase of an auto accident, damages to your capital asset and those who own it (underwriters of the loan one most likely has). The other is to provide health insurance.

Only an idiot would compare them, and only an idiot would turn my statements against me. The president is a complete idiot, this I know. FBHO.

Your answer is incomplete though. The reason that mandatory auto insurance exists is not to protect yourself, but to protect others from you. If you smash into a car and do damage to property or person and cannot (or will not) fulfill your obligation, the other person is left harmed with no real recourse. Suing someone who earns little for substantial damages is pointless.

I have never been hit by someone's gall bladder traveling along at highway speeds.

Right, but health insurance is also to protect us from each other. When you get sick and don't have insurance, if you can't pay for it the rest of us do. My wallet doesn't care if I'm spending my money on my car or on your gall bladder, it's still out of my pocket.

Health insurance is nothing like car insurance, but it's not for that reason. I've said this many times, but the real difference is if you wreck your car without insurance we're very content to have you live without a car. If you wreck your body without health insurance we patch you up anyway. Therefore, the risk/reward tables are completely different... that's why comparing the two is stupid.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: WolverineGator

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes, only an idiot would call auto and health insurance the same thing.

One is to insure yourself incase of an auto accident, damages to your capital asset and those who own it (underwriters of the loan one most likely has). The other is to provide health insurance.

Only an idiot would compare them, and only an idiot would turn my statements against me. The president is a complete idiot, this I know. FBHO.

Your answer is incomplete though. The reason that mandatory auto insurance exists is not to protect yourself, but to protect others from you. If you smash into a car and do damage to property or person and cannot (or will not) fulfill your obligation, the other person is left harmed with no real recourse. Suing someone who earns little for substantial damages is pointless.

I have never been hit by someone's gall bladder traveling along at highway speeds.

Which is why it was stupid to compare the two.

Indeed.

Well, duh. That's the point of insurance. You never know when you are going to get hit by a speeding gall bladder!

that..is not a pretty thought. eww

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

When you get sick and don't have insurance, if you can't pay for it the rest of us do. My wallet doesn't care if I'm spending my money on my car or on your gall bladder, it's still out of my pocket.

You've left something out. If we have mandatory insurance then you are going to have to pay for someone else who can't afford it. Someone, somewhere is going to have to cover that. If it's a business they will pass the costs along. You pay for it.

Now you could say that it costs a lot for uncovered medical expenses and that would be passed up. True, but that's offset by people not passing up insurance costs which they don't utilize in the meantime.

Economically it's probably a no win situation so if the argument on Obama's part is a financial one, it really doesn't work well.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

When you get sick and don't have insurance, if you can't pay for it the rest of us do. My wallet doesn't care if I'm spending my money on my car or on your gall bladder, it's still out of my pocket.

You've left something out. If we have mandatory insurance then you are going to have to pay for someone else who can't afford it. Someone, somewhere is going to have to cover that. If it's a business they will pass the costs along. You pay for it.

Now you could say that it costs a lot for uncovered medical expenses and that would be passed up. True, but that's offset by people not passing up insurance costs which they don't utilize in the meantime.

Economically it's probably a no win situation so if the argument on Obama's part is a financial one, it really doesn't work well.

Well that doesn't make much sense. You are already paying for the people who can't afford it. We're going to be paying for other people's medical care no matter what we do, with an insurance mandate however it's quite likely that the people we are already paying for will contribute SOME level of funding to the system.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

When you get sick and don't have insurance, if you can't pay for it the rest of us do. My wallet doesn't care if I'm spending my money on my car or on your gall bladder, it's still out of my pocket.

You've left something out. If we have mandatory insurance then you are going to have to pay for someone else who can't afford it. Someone, somewhere is going to have to cover that. If it's a business they will pass the costs along. You pay for it.

Now you could say that it costs a lot for uncovered medical expenses and that would be passed up. True, but that's offset by people not passing up insurance costs which they don't utilize in the meantime.

Economically it's probably a no win situation so if the argument on Obama's part is a financial one, it really doesn't work well.

Well that doesn't make much sense. You are already paying for the people who can't afford it. We're going to be paying for other people's medical care no matter what we do, with an insurance mandate however it's quite likely that the people we are already paying for will contribute SOME level of funding to the system.

You forgot to mention that with insurance you're not only paying for other people's health care (just like with socialized medicine), but you're also paying the salaries of a bunch of people that do NOTHING to contribute to your health care (the insurance company). I suppose if any insurance companies are part of publicly traded corporations you're also paying all the investors that don't contribute.

So you can pay the government for everyone's health care, or you can pay an insurance company so the executives and investors can buy themselves new Mercede's AND pay everyone's health care.

 

[Tom]

the reason mandatory health insurance, or the equivalent, makes sense is that everyone is at risk of needing healthcare.

people without health insurance get healthcare, but in irrational, inadequate, and expensive ways. This hurts us all in several ways, reduced productivity, increased taxes, and sicker people who need more healthcare that is paid for one way or another.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Tom
the reason mandatory health inurance, or the equivalent, makes sense is that everyone is at risk of needing healthcare.

people without health insurance get healthcare, but in irrational, inadequate, and expensive ways. This hurts us all in several ways, reduced productivity, increased taxes, and sicker people who need more heaalthcare that is paid for one way or another.

No, that's why mandatory health care makes sense. Insurance will never make sense because it performs the same function as socialism but less efficiently as you have to pay intermediaries (and possibly even their investors) that produce nothing but take a great deal.

A far better method would be socialized preventative care with guaranteed low-interest government secured loans for catastrophic coverage. Even total single payer would be superior to anything insurance driven.

 

[Modelworks]

Health Insurance aka broker fees is a scam anyway. It isn't insurance anymore, it is a payout to some corporate thugs that negotiate fees based on the size of their policy holders. Insurance was created to pay for unexpected expenses not everyday ones. Can't wait till auto repair places catch on and start charging $500 for an oil change. Then everyone can get auto insurance to cover that.

They need to go after the reason health care cost so much.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Everyone would paid thousand of dollars for health care since it is mandatory and one can CHOOSE not to buy a cars, thus no auto insurance.

everyone can choose to jump off a building too. you choose to live.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Correct. As I pointed out in another thread, back before auto insurance became mandatory in this state (one of the early adopters of such laws) it was argued that there were too many uninsured drivers (about 15% at the time) that were driving up litigation and medical costs as well as forcing insurance rate increases. Since making insurance mandatory the number of uninsured motorists has increased to 17%, the average costs of insurance have increased faster than inflation and faster than wage growth by a large amount, health care costs have increased faster, legal costs have increased faster...in short, making insurance mandatory did nothing good (unless you think making revenue by way of tickets for being uninsured is good) and a TON bad...most of it aimed at making the insurance companies rich beyond all measure.

Insurance is bad in general; mandatory insurance is worth armed revolution to oppose.

Your claim that "making insurance mandatory did nothing" is specious. How do you know that the number of uninsured and average insurance costs would not be MUCH higher if auto insurance were NOT mandatory?

If auto insurance were NOT mandatory, then EVERYONE who had no assets to protect would choose to opt out, since that's a very smart PERSONAL economic choice. Think about it: If I'm a college student with zero assets, and auto insurance is, say, $1500 a year, why should I pay to insure against a theoretical $300,000 liability that I wouldn't be sued for anyway (since lawyers don't go after people with no assets)?

The same applies for medical insurance: If I have no assets, why should I pay (say), $4000 a year to insure myself against (say) a $500,000 medical expense, when I know that should such medical expense arise, I WILL be treated and the government will pay for my expense anyway?

Conservatives are very big on "personal responsibility" until they are FORCED to be responsible to protect the rest of us from their irresponsibility.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Correct. As I pointed out in another thread, back before auto insurance became mandatory in this state (one of the early adopters of such laws) it was argued that there were too many uninsured drivers (about 15% at the time) that were driving up litigation and medical costs as well as forcing insurance rate increases. Since making insurance mandatory the number of uninsured motorists has increased to 17%, the average costs of insurance have increased faster than inflation and faster than wage growth by a large amount, health care costs have increased faster, legal costs have increased faster...in short, making insurance mandatory did nothing good (unless you think making revenue by way of tickets for being uninsured is good) and a TON bad...most of it aimed at making the insurance companies rich beyond all measure.

Insurance is bad in general; mandatory insurance is worth armed revolution to oppose.

Your claim that "making insurance mandatory did nothing" is specious. How do you know that the number of uninsured and average insurance costs would not be MUCH higher if auto insurance were NOT mandatory?

If auto insurance were NOT mandatory, then EVERYONE who had no assets to protect would choose to opt out, since that's a very smart PERSONAL economic choice. Think about it: If I'm a college student with zero assets, and auto insurance is, say, $1500 a year, why should I pay to insure against a theoretical $300,000 liability that I wouldn't be sued for anyway (since lawyers don't go after people with no assets)?

The same applies for medical insurance: If I have no assets, why should I pay (say), $4000 a year to insure myself against (say) a $500,000 medical expense, when I know that should such medical expense arise, I WILL be treated and the government will pay for my expense anyway?

Conservatives are very big on "personal responsibility" until they are FORCED to be responsible to protect the rest of us from their irresponsibility.

You are correct, we do not KNOW, but we can reasonably speculate. We know that when it was NOT mandatory, most people still had it (in fact more than now). Yes, there have been other changes which could be factors, but in general we can guess that most people would still have it.

We can also look at the annual percentage of insured drivers and see that immediately after it became mandatory the number of uninsured dropped by almost 50%, and then only rose roughly in proportion to rising insurance costs above personal income. In other words, we can speculate that IF costs were controlled and kept in line with earnings that it would reduce uninsured by a significant amount. However when insurance companies are allowed to increase profits out of proportion to average individual incomes it offsets the gains of mandates (and in fact pushes us worse than we were before). Sine we can see from history that companies (especially insurance companies) WILL attempt to profit as much as possible from such mandates we can assume that mandatory health insurance without regulation will increase insurance costs and cause fewer people to be insured. This will double damn us financially as most citizens will be paying more for insurance but we'll also be eating the costs of even more uninsured.

Not for certain, but very VERY probably.

Also, you cannot expect the average person to act intelligently (financially or otherwise). If they did that we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. Generally speaking people are stupid sheep.

 

[Xellos2099]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Everyone would paid thousand of dollars for health care since it is mandatory and one can CHOOSE not to buy a cars, thus no auto insurance.

everyone can choose to jump off a building too. you choose to live.

You are twisting my word. You do not need a car to survive. You can't possibily compare between car and jumping off a building.