Why not Universal Automobile Insurance?

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: spittledip
Decent automobile insurance is very affordable. Decent medical insurance is not. Also, health coverage is a much more important thing- it is a greater need.

That is simply not true. You may choose to put yourself in a position to not be able to afford medical insurance but everyone can afford it if they choose it over other things that they could spend money on.

Like... college?

Im currently paying my own way through an MBA, should i have 3 part time jobs on top of that? There is no full time work in my county, unemployment is 15.7%.

Please wave your magic wand to fix my finances.

Oh and before you hit me up with the "you dont need the internet" line. I have cheap ass DSL that i downgraded from time warner cable to save money. I need an internet connection for online classes.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: OCguy
My god UHC is not on the table. Where are you reading this?


The current bill being proposed would only cover 1/3 of the currently uninsured. Not 1/3 of Americans.....1/3 of the uninsured.


If I was in that other 2/3 of the uninsured, I would be pissed that the government is going to mortgage even more of our future, and im still out in the cold.

There are actually multiple bills being drafted as we speak. You know that right? So this example you've provided is essentially being pulled out of your ass.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Well with all of this talk about UHC, why isnt there any talk about UAI? It would allow many Americans who do not have auto insurance to be able to drive legally without fear.

The simple plan would to increase the rates of the middle aged safe drivers as then lower the price of the risky drivers under 25 years of age and the elderly.



As of now, Auto Insurance companies basically rape you on the cost of coverage. In parts of the country where mass transit is almost unheard off, you need a car in order to survive. You are basically extorted legally into paying high insurance premiums to make the insurance companies money.

Has there been any talk of something like this in the past or present?

Nice troll.

No one is going bankrupt paying auto insurance. If you need a car, you can buy one for a few hundred dollars. Liability only insurance on an old clunker is next to nothing.

I pay $1400/year for full coverage, max benefits, $250 deductible on 2 two year old cars. My health insurance costs ten times that much. Guess which one leaves me feeling raw and violated?

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Andrew1990

Originally posted by: senseamp
This is what opposition to UHC has come down to, a joke.
There is universal automobile insurance requirement in CA. You cannot drive without insurance.

I am actually not opposing UHC in this topic. I am actually for UAI.

:roll:

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
You dont drive, you dont get a good job and starve to death.

Not really. One of my former coworkers had a problem with drinking and driving and lost his license. He takes cabs and the bus everywhere. He also carpools on occasion. With a different job, he could also work from home. Lack of driving is an inconvenience, not a death sentence.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
You can live without health insurance (how has humanity made it this far without health insurance for the vast majority of human history?!), and no hospital can refuse you for emergency care even if you have no insurance/can't afford it. It's the law.

People use to die a lot younger, too. We can now treat most things. Its unethical to expect people to medically live in the 1500s.

Emergency care is the worst time to get care. Problems that are detected early are treated more effectively and with less cost.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard

Originally posted by: spittledip
Decent automobile insurance is very affordable. Decent medical insurance is not. Also, health coverage is a much more important thing- it is a greater need.

Yes, so the gov't decides what our needs are? No thanks. I decide what my own needs are and live accordingly.

So you can really in vision a reality where there are significantly more important concerns than access to affordable health care?

Seriously, providing and caring for one's self and one's family have always been a top priority for humanity.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
I demand universal accident protection insurance on my LCD TV! Why can't the government protect me if a power surge fries my TV?!

So you're comparing human life to an LCD TV?

That's really the core of this debate. Conservatives view humans as resources, equivalent to a car or a TV. Its the same reason they have no trouble sending our troops to be maimed and killed in a pointless war. Liberals actually view humans as, well, humans.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: spittledip
Decent automobile insurance is very affordable. Decent medical insurance is not. Also, health coverage is a much more important thing- it is a greater need.

That is simply not true. You may choose to put yourself in a position to not be able to afford medical insurance but everyone can afford it if they choose it over other things that they could spend money on.

The problem is that affordable medical insurance is a joke.

Let's say you're poor with no health insurance. You have the option to buy an affordable health insurance plan with a $5000 deductible, no office visits, and $50 copays for generic prescriptions.

Since the deductible and other limitations will leave you bankrupt anyway, what's the point of the insurance? The $50-$100/month is better spent on a cell phone, cable, or whatever else is included in this talking point.

What if someone has diabetes, depression, HIV, or one of those other problems? Think affordable coverage even exists for these people? Think a small business is going to want to hire them and add their expenses to their health care plan?

 

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Why not universal homeowners insurance? Why not universal life insurance? Why not universal employment insurance?

Why do I bother working at all when I can just get it all from the gov't?

Umm you wouldnt be getting it from the governemtn if you didnt work. Where would they get the tax money to fund those things? Sounds like you are looking for an excuse to be lazy.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: senseamp
That is simply a lie that gets repeated in thread after thread. It is simply not true that everyone can afford medical insurance. Some people have preexisting conditions that make it impossible for them to get insurance at a price they could afford even if they spent all their money on it.

That's because *gasp* medical insurance is not designed for people with preexisting conditions!

Insurance is a product designed and regulated in such a way that a group of people with little or no advance knowledge of the future can mitigate risk by sharing it. People with preexisting conditions do not fit that bill. If you get in an accident today, are you any more likely to be in an accident tomorrow? Maybe, maybe not. If you have cancer today, are you more likely to have cancer tomorrow? Yes, almost assuredly so.

It's that assurance that makes "Universal Health Care" and "Universal Health Insurance" an absolute joke. You're trying to force a system designed to smooth out probability and the unknown to accept what is guaranteed. It just won't work.

On the main topic of the thread, OP is on the right track. "Universal Auto Insurance" would be more functional than "Universal Health Insurance". That's because even in the absolute worst-case scenarios with auto insurance, there is STILL uncertainty to if an event will occur. The same cannot be said with health insurance.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: sactoking
That's because *gasp* medical insurance is not designed for people with preexisting conditions!

Insurance is a product designed and regulated in such a way that a group of people with little or no advance knowledge of the future can mitigate risk by sharing it. People with preexisting conditions do not fit that bill. If you get in an accident today, are you any more likely to be in an accident tomorrow? Maybe, maybe not. If you have cancer today, are you more likely to have cancer tomorrow? Yes, almost assuredly so.

If I eat fast food every day, is that considered a pre-existing "condition"?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: senseamp
That is simply a lie that gets repeated in thread after thread. It is simply not true that everyone can afford medical insurance. Some people have preexisting conditions that make it impossible for them to get insurance at a price they could afford even if they spent all their money on it.

That's because *gasp* medical insurance is not designed for people with preexisting conditions!

Which makes Patranus' statement that *everyone* can afford it a bold faced lie

Insurance is a product designed and regulated in such a way that a group of people with little or no advance knowledge of the future can mitigate risk by sharing it. People with preexisting conditions do not fit that bill. If you get in an accident today, are you any more likely to be in an accident tomorrow? Maybe, maybe not. If you have cancer today, are you more likely to have cancer tomorrow? Yes, almost assuredly so.

This is exactly why private insurance is an unworkable model for health care. It denies coverage to those who need it most.

It's that assurance that makes "Universal Health Care" and "Universal Health Insurance" an absolute joke. You're trying to force a system designed to smooth out probability and the unknown to accept what is guaranteed. It just won't work.

That's how employee group plans work. They smooth out probability over large group. It is fairly well known on average what the health care costs are going to be for a large enough group. The larger the group, the less impact individual case costs variations make on the overall average.

On the main topic of the thread, OP is on the right track. "Universal Auto Insurance" would be more functional than "Universal Health Insurance". That's because even in the absolute worst-case scenarios with auto insurance, there is STILL uncertainty to if an event will occur. The same cannot be said with health insurance.

Yep, trying to fit healthcare, which we all need into an insurance model is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: her209
If I eat fast food every day, is that considered a pre-existing "condition"?

No more so than the teenager who consistently goes 90 in 35mph zones. The actuarial models do account for it.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's how employee group plans work. They smooth out probability over large group. It is fairly well known on average what the health care costs are going to be for a large enough group. The larger the group, the less impact individual case costs variations make on the overall average.

My one quibble with what you said is here. The difference between group health policies and what is traditionally viewed as "UHC" is that group health still excludes preexisting conditions whereas "UHC" does not. In a group health policy, when it's issued, the insurer says 'We have X people and these are the risks so we know that in the next 20 years Y of them will get cancer, so the rate needs to be Z.' For "UHC" the discussion is 'We have X people and these are the risks so we know that in 20 years Y of them will get cancer, so the tax rate needs to be Z PLUS the cost of treating cancer times the A number of people who already have it.'

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
What if someone has diabetes, depression, HIV, or one of those other problems? Think affordable coverage even exists for these people? Think a small business is going to want to hire them and add their expenses to their health care plan?

Is it even legal for a company to ask you about any health issues before they hire you?

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Well with all of this talk about UHC, why isnt there any talk about UAI? It would allow many Americans who do not have auto insurance to be able to drive legally without fear.

The simple plan would to increase the rates of the middle aged safe drivers as then lower the price of the risky drivers under 25 years of age and the elderly.



As of now, Auto Insurance companies basically rape you on the cost of coverage. In parts of the country where mass transit is almost unheard off, you need a car in order to survive. You are basically extorted legally into paying high insurance premiums to make the insurance companies money.





Has there been any talk of something like this in the past or present?

Bad idea. Let's leave state's issue to the states please. See: FEMA Response to Katrina, 2005. /topic.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Don't want to pay for car insurance? Don't drive.
Don't want to pay for medical insurance? Don't live.


When it comes to medical insurance, should worst come to worst, you can't just trade in your current 'model' of yourself for a new one. Cancer isn't like needing a new transmission. Apples and oranges.

Sensationalize much? You can live without health insurance (how has humanity made it this far without health insurance for the vast majority of human history?!), and no hospital can refuse you for emergency care even if you have no insurance/can't afford it. It's the law.

That is kinda the point. I sensationalized this to prove a point - namely the absurdity of the comparison to auto insurance. Yes, you can live without health insurance. However, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Once as a society you accept that one cannot be denied treatment, then you must inevitably accept what that necessitates - a state-sponsored health safety net. We have accepted A, but so far refused B, and that leaves us with the convoluted, inefficient, and wasteful billing system we have now.

Relying on the emergency room for medical care if you are poor just because they cannot 'refuse treatment' in many cases is tantamount to a death sentence if you have any sort of chronic or threatening illness. The law says they cannot refuse care, but oftentimes they put up many other artificial barriers to get patients to simply give up. This costs us as a society a lot of extra $$ in terms of lack of preventative care and clogging up our ERs for people that simply aren't there for true emergencies. This is simply unsustainable over the long term.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Don't want to pay for car insurance? Don't drive.
Don't want to pay for medical insurance? Don't live.


When it comes to medical insurance, should worst come to worst, you can't just trade in your current 'model' of yourself for a new one. Cancer isn't like needing a new transmission. Apples and oranges.

Sensationalize much? You can live without health insurance (how has humanity made it this far without health insurance for the vast majority of human history?!), and no hospital can refuse you for emergency care even if you have no insurance/can't afford it. It's the law.

That is kinda the point. I sensationalized this to prove a point - namely the absurdity of the comparison to auto insurance. Yes, you can live without health insurance. However, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Once as a society you accept that one cannot be denied treatment, then you must inevitably accept what that necessitates - a state-sponsored health safety net. We have accepted A, but so far refused B, and that leaves us with the convoluted, inefficient, and wasteful billing system we have now.

Relying on the emergency room for medical care if you are poor just because they cannot 'refuse treatment' in many cases is tantamount to a death sentence if you have any sort of chronic or threatening illness. The law says they cannot refuse care, but oftentimes they put up many other artificial barriers to get patients to simply give up. This costs us as a society a lot of extra $$ in terms of lack of preventative care and clogging up our ERs for people that simply aren't there for true emergencies. This is simply unsustainable over the long term.

So is $1.6 trillion to insured only one third of the currently "uninsured", according to the CBO estimate of the proposed plan.

Not even taking into account the number of people who would lose their private insurance and be forced on the public plan, because their companies would want to offload the costs of the health plan onto the government.

What is the estimate per person under the proposed public health care plan? $66,000? Good grief, and people are whining about the cost of private insurance!

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Both auto and health insurance are commodities that I think everyone would like. Why not make both affordable?

What is "affordable"?

I have seen people at the grocery store pay with food stamps and then load their groceries into Escalades.

I have been to fund raising events at a Boys & Girls club in one of California "most dangerous"/poorest cities and all of the kids have iPods/MP3 players and cell phones.

Are you telling me that these people cannot "afford" health insurance?

Wow. Stereotype much? Do you know any of these people's actual situations in life? Their finances? It seems you do not understand the vast majority of those in poverty. Most do have jobs and work more than most in the 'upper classes' do. They do not drive to work in Escalades, but run down Chrysler LeBarons that should have exploded or crapped a transmission years ago. Besides, do you honestly know how cheap ipods and cellphones are nowadays? Hell, an ipod (or other mp3) player you can get at a yard sale or on ebay for dirt cheap. Cellphones, esp. for those with kids and/or medical conditions simply aren't considered a luxury anymore. Even such luxuries may have been gifts from relatives who care and do have jobs. It simply isn't worth it to sell all one's posessions to get health insurance. I'm sure you'd like little Suzie to be told, "no dear we have to sell the gifts Santa brought you so that we can get health insurance that we can't even afford the copays for."

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

So is $1.6 trillion to insured only one third of the currently "uninsured", according to the CBO estimate of the proposed plan.

Not even taking into account the number of people who would lose their private insurance and be forced on the public plan, because their companies would want to offload the costs of the health plan onto the government.

You guys do realize that this CBO estimate being thrown around doesn't account for things like... the savings from the plan and other stuff like that, right? To use it as some sort of price tag for the program is silly.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Don't want to pay for car insurance? Don't drive.
Don't want to pay for medical insurance? Don't live.


When it comes to medical insurance, should worst come to worst, you can't just trade in your current 'model' of yourself for a new one. Cancer isn't like needing a new transmission. Apples and oranges.

Sensationalize much? You can live without health insurance (how has humanity made it this far without health insurance for the vast majority of human history?!), and no hospital can refuse you for emergency care even if you have no insurance/can't afford it. It's the law.

That is kinda the point. I sensationalized this to prove a point - namely the absurdity of the comparison to auto insurance. Yes, you can live without health insurance. However, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Once as a society you accept that one cannot be denied treatment, then you must inevitably accept what that necessitates - a state-sponsored health safety net. We have accepted A, but so far refused B, and that leaves us with the convoluted, inefficient, and wasteful billing system we have now.

Relying on the emergency room for medical care if you are poor just because they cannot 'refuse treatment' in many cases is tantamount to a death sentence if you have any sort of chronic or threatening illness. The law says they cannot refuse care, but oftentimes they put up many other artificial barriers to get patients to simply give up. This costs us as a society a lot of extra $$ in terms of lack of preventative care and clogging up our ERs for people that simply aren't there for true emergencies. This is simply unsustainable over the long term.

So is $1.6 trillion to insured only one third of the currently "uninsured", according to the CBO estimate of the proposed plan.

Not even taking into account the number of people who would lose their private insurance and be forced on the public plan, because their companies would want to offload the costs of the health plan onto the government.

And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how we are going to pay for it. Lots of people are for it, and that's fine, but if something is going to cost $1.6 tril I want to know where we're getting that $1.6 tril.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: SammyJr
What if someone has diabetes, depression, HIV, or one of those other problems? Think affordable coverage even exists for these people? Think a small business is going to want to hire them and add their expenses to their health care plan?

Is it even legal for a company to ask you about any health issues before they hire you?

No, but they find out soon enough. Then the employee is pressured to quit by everything else after their insurance rates go through the roof.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Don't want to pay for car insurance? Don't drive.
Don't want to pay for medical insurance? Don't live.


When it comes to medical insurance, should worst come to worst, you can't just trade in your current 'model' of yourself for a new one. Cancer isn't like needing a new transmission. Apples and oranges.

Sensationalize much? You can live without health insurance (how has humanity made it this far without health insurance for the vast majority of human history?!), and no hospital can refuse you for emergency care even if you have no insurance/can't afford it. It's the law.

That is kinda the point. I sensationalized this to prove a point - namely the absurdity of the comparison to auto insurance. Yes, you can live without health insurance. However, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Once as a society you accept that one cannot be denied treatment, then you must inevitably accept what that necessitates - a state-sponsored health safety net. We have accepted A, but so far refused B, and that leaves us with the convoluted, inefficient, and wasteful billing system we have now.

Relying on the emergency room for medical care if you are poor just because they cannot 'refuse treatment' in many cases is tantamount to a death sentence if you have any sort of chronic or threatening illness. The law says they cannot refuse care, but oftentimes they put up many other artificial barriers to get patients to simply give up. This costs us as a society a lot of extra $$ in terms of lack of preventative care and clogging up our ERs for people that simply aren't there for true emergencies. This is simply unsustainable over the long term.

So is $1.6 trillion to insured only one third of the currently "uninsured", according to the CBO estimate of the proposed plan.

Not even taking into account the number of people who would lose their private insurance and be forced on the public plan, because their companies would want to offload the costs of the health plan onto the government.

I'm not saying that the current plan is a good one. It is a shoddy frankenstien attempt at UHI to please those who want to keep the status quo. It isn't UHC at all. To answer your question though, if a plan were properly constructed to allow for a public 'option' that would cover everyone, then it would definitely be cheaper. 1.6 trillion will be a drop in the bucket compared to the eventual costs if we keep sustaining the current system for the same amount of time.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Don't want to pay for car insurance? Don't drive.
Don't want to pay for medical insurance? Don't live.


When it comes to medical insurance, should worst come to worst, you can't just trade in your current 'model' of yourself for a new one. Cancer isn't like needing a new transmission. Apples and oranges.

Sensationalize much? You can live without health insurance (how has humanity made it this far without health insurance for the vast majority of human history?!), and no hospital can refuse you for emergency care even if you have no insurance/can't afford it. It's the law.

That is kinda the point. I sensationalized this to prove a point - namely the absurdity of the comparison to auto insurance. Yes, you can live without health insurance. However, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Once as a society you accept that one cannot be denied treatment, then you must inevitably accept what that necessitates - a state-sponsored health safety net. We have accepted A, but so far refused B, and that leaves us with the convoluted, inefficient, and wasteful billing system we have now.

Relying on the emergency room for medical care if you are poor just because they cannot 'refuse treatment' in many cases is tantamount to a death sentence if you have any sort of chronic or threatening illness. The law says they cannot refuse care, but oftentimes they put up many other artificial barriers to get patients to simply give up. This costs us as a society a lot of extra $$ in terms of lack of preventative care and clogging up our ERs for people that simply aren't there for true emergencies. This is simply unsustainable over the long term.

So is $1.6 trillion to insured only one third of the currently "uninsured", according to the CBO estimate of the proposed plan.

Not even taking into account the number of people who would lose their private insurance and be forced on the public plan, because their companies would want to offload the costs of the health plan onto the government.

I'm not saying that the current plan is a good one. It is a shoddy frankenstien attempt at UHI to please those who want to keep the status quo. It isn't UHC at all. To answer your question though, if a plan were properly constructed to allow for a public 'option' that would cover everyone, then it would definitely be cheaper. 1.6 trillion will be a drop in the bucket compared to the eventual costs if we keep sustaining the current system for the same amount of time.

$1.6 trillion is only the ten year cost to get one third of the uninsured onto the public option.

The CBO does not project costs past ten years.