Posted on 03/27/2010 8:45:04 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
You’ve likely heard it. “If the government can mandate auto insurance, then why do you say it cannot mandate health insurance?”
There are at least four major differences (and be sure to read number 4, because it is the most critical):
First: The FEDERAL government does not mandate auto insurance. States mandate it. And three states have chosen not to do so. Auto insurance, like health insurance, is a state issue.
Second: The mandate for ownership of auto insurance only covers what the driver might do to someone else. It is liability insurance, not collision, comprehensive, glass, or preventive maintenance. To be like the new FEDERAL health insurance law, auto insurance would have to cover routine maintenance, parts replacements, and just about everything else.
Third: Even though 47 states mandate auto insurance coverage, the average uninsured rate, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is 14.6 percent. (Actually, I believe that estimate is very low, considering that in California and Texas, it exceeds 25 percent.) The uninsured rate in our mostly voluntary health insurance system has held steady at about 15.5 percent or so for a decade.
Four: Auto collision insurance is somewhat like catastrophic health insurance in that it will pay to fix damage from an accident. But it never pays more than the value of the car (there is no limitless benefit).
If an 85-year old man wraps his $3,500 car around a tree, and the car suffers $4,000 in damages, the insurance company pays the old guy $3,500. The auto has a finite value.
If that 85-year old man breaks his bones, and if health insurance worked like auto insurance, the insurance company would give the man three choices: 1) the fair market value of his life in cash, 2) enough money to pay for hospice care until he dies, or 3) pay for assisted suicide.
In the United Kingdom, the value of human life is determined by a formula. For the most ill patients and the elderly, health care regulators decide the value of human life in Quality Adjusted Life Years. If there is not enough economic value in the “repair” of a human life, plans are made to help them adjust to death. In the United States, Oregon demonstrated this principle with 64-year old Barbara Wagner.
Wagner contracted cancer. She wanted to continue to live, and indeed, if she lived in any state other than Oregon, the health system would have given her that chance. Wagner’s doctor prescribed Tarceva, a new chemotherapy drug regimen. Wagner, however, received her health coverage from the Oregon Health Plan – a government health plan. Because of its global budget, Oregon officials notified Wagner that they would not pay for her chemotherapy, but they would pay for either hospice care or an assisted suicide.
Dr. Walter Shaffer, a spokesman for Oregon’s Division of Medical Assistance Programs, explained the realities of the Oregon Health Plan. “We can’t cover everything for everyone. Taxpayer dollars are limited for publicly funded programs. We try to come up with policies that provide the most good for the most people.” Oregon’s health care managers decide, in the end, who will gain relief from pain and suffering, and who will die.
Despite strong bipartisan opposition, [Alleged] President Obama signed the “Patient Protection and Affordability Act” on March 23, 2010. The bill authorizes federal government approved health plans, and will help 68 percent of Americans to receive some form of federal tax subsidy to purchase overly expensive health insurance. Accepting a government subsidy means they will be governed by federal health plan guidelines. Barbara Wagner, were she alive, would tell you what this means.
Health insurance is not auto insurance: So you get the picture. Auto insurance deals with predictable, finite cost. It is a state issue, not a federal issue. And when the cost of the insured item exceeds its finite value, it is cashed out. Why would auto insurance companies cap payments at the value of the auto, and not offer limitless coverage, preventive care, reimbursements for worn out engines and transmissions? Because no one could afford it.
With the stroke of his pen, [Alleged] President Obama has invited you into the world of finite human value.
Almost a weak has passed by and the lump of clay at the pit of my stomach won’t go away. It boggles my mind how we in America have allowed this scummery to descend on us. Where were our elder statesmen? Where were the voices of reason even in our media? Why were the boards of directors and administrators and CEOs of our most thriving companies so meek and silent? How was it possible that 3, YES, ONLY 3 determined stealth marxists who have infiltrated the government, able to shove this poisonous pill down America’s throat and march around gloating about their monstrous deed afterward? I am angry and disgusted at the stupidity and lack of foresight of this country.
I'd check....
mybarrakobama.com
whitehouse.gov
By the way, I'm reporting your post to flag@whitehouse.gov
Brilliant article. Demolishes the fiction that there’s not going to be Death Panels. Obama lied. Again.
Bookmark.
Dave’s the best. No one knows this area of policy better than he does that I’m aware of.
Moreover, there is no MANDATE (yet) to eveyone has to OWN a car and hence would need insurance.
True. But right now, without insurance, a doctors visit is unaffordable (unless you go to the emergency room). Last week, my doctor ordered some simple bloodwork, the cost was $450 That wasn’t including the doctor visit! Once I got the results, I had to return for another visit. I would be looking at $600+ for one/plus follow up visit . If I was referred to a specialist, that would be it, I’d be out of money. That is not an option for most of us. Unfortunately this administration did not choose the right things to reform.
"I don't want to pay for mandatory auto insurance."
SOLUTION: Get rid of your car.
"I don't like paying for mandatory health insurance."
SOLUTION: Kill yourself.
LOL.
I'm sure my sister already has.
If you don't do that sort of thing on a regular basis, it's a lot cheaper than medical insurance premiums.
“No one will die because they cannot drive without auto insurance.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I believe I could make at least as good an argument that they might as the liberals offer for their claims of people dying because they don’t have health insurance.
Exactly.
Although I'm not sure why you ask, I'll take a stab at it.
Unless I'm mistaken, whenever someone is injured in an auto accident, responsibility for payment falls upon the person(s) who caused the accident. Once their liability or ability to pay is exhausted, the injured person is on his own. Then, yes, if the injured person is covered by Medicare, it will pay, just like anyone else's own medical insurance would.
If you're saying this somehow lends credence to the auto-insurance-and-Obamacare analogy, please explain because I'm not seeing it.
I'm just trying to understand if state auto insurance, not for cars but for bodily injury, is a closed system. That is; is it entirely contained within a state. I think not.
It's logical for states to make you carry insurance to cover injury you may inflict on yourself or others.
Again, I'm not sure what your point is but, I'll bite.
When you smack into him, you should have to pay for his loss. But, too many people (the "poooor" especially) were choosing not to be insured; then, when they smacked into people, their victims were left to sue for damages or, cover their own losses, either out of their own pockets or, if they had collision insurance, by filing a claim of their own (which caused their and others' premiums to increase).
Again, if this is supposed to lend credence to the if-auto-insurance-can-be-mandated-so-can-medical-insurance, you'll need to explain how it does that.
You need insurance (liability only) when you drive because you might hurt or kill someone else. It is a safety/liability issue. You do not need insurance when you visit the doctor because there is not safety/liability issue. In fact, it is the doctor who needs insurance because of the safety/liability issue - not the patient.
Part of the reason health care is so expensive is because of the nature of “insurance.” It is actually a brokerage situation, and whenver you add a broker to any transaction, it will ALWAYS be more expensive. Why? Because the money (”cash”) is not coming directly from my pocket. I am paying someone else to cushion the fall. And I am a bit more lax in my bargain-hunting endeavors because that broker “owes” me for all of the money I have spent on that broker over the years.
So, you're saying people should be forced to buy medical insurance so that the rest of us don't have to pay to patch them up if they cause themselves harm?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.