(Untitled)

Apr 02, 2012 12:24

Will someone PLEASE explain to me how the individual health insurance mandate is ANY different AT ALL from being required to buy liability car insurance?

health & healthcare, current events

Leave a comment

Comments 19

cpsings4him April 2 2012, 19:31:31 UTC
I would love to hear a clear, non-BS answer to that, too. ;-)

The ONLY difference I can think of is that not EVERYONE is required to own a car/drive a car, so therefore, when you make the choice to own/drive, you are also making the choice to purchase insurance.

Reply

anfractuousity April 2 2012, 19:34:23 UTC
Aaaaaah. I suppose maybe you hit the nail on the head.

I still think all this hoopla is ridiculous, though. *muttermutter* As someone pointed out on TV the other day, the people making these decisions have mostly been on government health insurance their entire careers, so how could they possibly identify with the difficulties faced by ordinary citizens?

Reply

demiraks_world April 2 2012, 19:38:47 UTC
I think also the can insurance thing is handled by the state? Maybe?

Reply

jakethejuggalo April 2 2012, 19:40:06 UTC
This is the correct answer. You only need to buy car insurance if you choose to buy a car. It's not mandated otherwise.

Reply


cp April 2 2012, 19:40:11 UTC
As I understand it, the argument goes that while it is required to buy auto liability insurance in order to operate a motor vehicle, it is NOT a requirement that one must operate a motor vehicle. In other words, you can opt out of buying liability insurance by choosing not to drive a car, so the choice is still yours (even if, in reality, it generally isn't much of a choice for most people who need to actually, you know, go places and stuff). The health care mandate isn't a choice, period--you either get health insurance or you pay a penalty in taxes, but either way you pay.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

anfractuousity April 2 2012, 19:41:58 UTC
You could argue that the mandate is there to protect others, as well; just financially instead of physically. >_>

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

anfractuousity April 2 2012, 19:53:59 UTC
Hmm. True.

Dammit, that wouldn't be an issue with single payer! =P

Reply


redacted April 2 2012, 19:48:15 UTC
I wonder if it also has something to do with fault. There is usually someone at fault in a car accident, but not so when someone gets sick.

Reply


redaxe April 2 2012, 19:50:33 UTC
In addition to the driving-is-optional theory, it might also be that auto insurance covers damage you might do to other people (in addition to whatever expenses you might incur with regard to your own damage), while health insurance only applies to the person (or family) being insured.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up