Dear inquest,
"Not even close. Driving was never considered a right, and the insurance is mandated not for your own protection, but for the protection of the people you might harm."
Well, the harm comes when otherwise healthy, uninsured people become injured or unexpectedly ill, and cannot afford the health resources they then require. Then the rest of us are harmed by having to pay for what the uninsured individual cannot.
If the uninsured were willing to sign irrevocable statements assuring that they will not request medical treatment that they cannot pay for in advance of treatment, even under pain of lingering, exruciating, painful death, then you'd be right, there would be no harm to us.
But I've known a few uninsured folks who got into a bit of health trouble, and I didn't notice any of them turn down the health care given to them, and ultimately paid for by slobs like myself.
sitetest
That's a voluntary "harm" that society chooses to bear. No comparison whatsoever to the highly involuntary form of harm incurred by uninsured drivers who crash into you. Sorry, but it's pure sophistry to draw any kind of equivalence between them.
If this had been part of the plan back when it was first proposed that the state help reimburse hospitals for patients who don't pay their bills, then that proposal never would have passed in the first place.
The estimates tend to the high side when policy decisions are on the table but most folk without insurance are wiser shoppers than those who simply hand over a card.
Forcing everyone to participate will only serve to raise the demand for services since the holders of policies will act as though they are deserving of a tangible reward for having parted with their money and the ERs will still be crowded, there will still be tons of unpaid bills (deductibles) and the mortality tables will remain much the same.
Healthy uninsured people are often making a rational decision in not buying insurance--because of regulation of the insurance policies the healthy and low risk policyholders are forced to subsidize the unheatlhy, and policies are often larded with mandated coverages that the consumer would at the price forgo.
Then the rest of us are harmed by having to pay for what the uninsured individual cannot.
This logic is why the Nanny State is out of control. There is no limit to the degree of government intervention in people's lives that cannot be approved based on cost to society argument; including mandatory medical exams, mandated diet and exercise, prohibition of tobacco and alcohol.
If the uninsured were willing to sign irrevocable statements assuring that they will not request medical treatment that they cannot pay for in advance of treatment, even under pain of lingering, exruciating, painful death, then you'd be right, there would be no harm to us.
Why not respect the private property rights of hospitals and repeal the "emergency" (which has been expanded to include just about anything) mandate to treat without regard to payment. If you can't pay, you might just have to go to a cheap charity hospital.