Wonder what the state of automobile insurance would be if it wasn’t mandatory?

[busterbrown]

Imagine what comprehensive would cost? Millions driving around w/o insurance..

[geek tragedy]

1. Or if you could buy it after you got into an accident. nt

[busterbrown]

3. Exactly!!! n/t

[wickerwoman]

2. Still a false analogy.

There are alternatives to driving. There aren't to having a body that gets sick.

[geek tragedy]

6. Better analogy (from Paul Krugman): imagine if you didn't have to pay Medicare

taxes until you wound up needing Medicare.

[wickerwoman]

9. I'm happy to pay Medicare taxes

because they guarantee care through a public system. I'm not happy to be forced to buy a shoddy product that doesn't guarantee when I get sick that I will be able to get care.

[geek tragedy]

13. 'shoddy product that doesn't guarantee when I get sick I will be able to get care."

Do tell.

[wickerwoman]

20. Tell what?

I live in New Zealand where, when I get sick, I don't need to go shopping. I go to the doctor and get care. And I don't even pay any more in taxes relative to what I would pay in the US. Hell, even for elective procedure like IVF, if I'm happy to sit on a waiting list long enough the state will cover it.

Why should the state tell me to go out and buy insurance from a private *for profit* industry with massive deductibles and copays where I still have to send in bills and argue to get reimbursed? That's my definition of a shoddy product.

[geek tragedy]

22. the ACA banned junk insurance, which is why there's controversy--because a lot of junk

insurance plans are going away and people are supposedly pissed.

[wickerwoman]

23. Did it ban for profit insurance or provide a public option to everyone?

If not, I think the problems with the mandate still exist.

[geek tragedy]

24. The mandate is an imperfect solution to the problem, any rational person

would agree.

But, it's better than what the alternative was, nothing.

[NoOneMan]

27. Single payer was the solution to the problem

You need more rational people

[geek tragedy]

28. We need a lot more of them. 61 million or so at least. nt

[busterbrown]

16. Yes and I’m quite happy with my mandated car insurance..n/t

[busterbrown]

7. Sure there is....Just asks the religious zealots.

[kentuck]

10. However...

If a car dies, the most the insurance company will be out will be a few thousand dollars, unlike tens of thousands of dollars in medical costs. It is a much simpler profit-making industry.

Also, as I recall, insurance rates were lower when everyone was not covered? And people that wanted coverage could still get it. How did they manage to make profits in that world??

[kydo]

12. yeah walking and getting run over by a car

Riding your bike and getting run over by a car.

Riding the bus that gets hit by a car.

Riding a horse that gets hit by a car.

Riding a skateboard that gets hit by car.

Trains hit cars that get stuck on the rails.

I guess airplanes could be safe from car accidents but they can fall out of the sky for a slew of reasons, and why would I fly to go to the store?

Not every one lives in areas with mass transit like sub ways. And not everyone lives within walking distance of things like stores, their jobs, school and so on.

It really isn't a false analogy on the mandate part.

[wickerwoman]

17. Sorry it still is.

If you don't live near your job/shops etc. you have a better chance of moving or carpooling or telecommuting or online shopping than you do of getting a new body that never gets sick.

And in terms of victim payments, those shouldn't be dependant on whether the person causing the accident has insurance or not and how much they have in personal assets. In New Zealand, the state run Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provides compensation for personal injuries. So if you're a pedestrian and hit by a car, your medical bills and paid and you get compensation for lost time at work regardless of whether the person who hit you had insurance or would be able to pay for your care.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to me, but then I don't make big bucks off other peoples' misery like the American insurance industry does.

[kydo]

26. umm

but like in this possibility you stated

And in terms of victim payments, those shouldn't be dependant on whether the person causing the accident has insurance or not and how much they have in personal assets. In New Zealand, the state run Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provides compensation for personal injuries. So if you're a pedestrian and hit by a car, your medical bills and paid and you get compensation for lost time at work regardless of whether the person who hit you had insurance or would be able to pay for your care.

First - New Zealand isn't apart of the USA so mega false analogy there.

Second - if I'm a pedestrian and hit by a car and the person that hit me didn't have insurance chances are they don't have money to pay my medical bills. If I sue the person they still aren't going the money.


I hate insurance companies, its one big Ponzi scheme. I wanted single payer on health care insurance. But the mandate on insurances isn't a false analogy. Sorry.

[wickerwoman]

30. First - It's not an analogy.

It's an alternative paradigm.

Second- You've made my point for me. Victim compensation shouldn't be dependant on whether the offender has the means to compensate them or the foresight and responsibility to purchase insurance.

And car vs. health insurance is a false analogy because the alternatives to driving are qualitatively different to the alternatives to living. People are sent to the health insurance market with a gun to their heads.

[kydo]

37. no

they are not being sent to health insurance markets with a gun to their heads. they can refuse and pay the penalty fee and pay for health care out of pocket.

And yet one more time

And car vs. health insurance is a false analogy because the alternatives to driving are qualitatively different to the alternatives to living.

IT IS NOT ABOUT CAR OR HEALTH!!!!!

Its about the INSURANCE MANDATE!

That's what the OP was talking about.

Your argument is a false argument and thus a false analogy.

Besides you are to busy preaching to the choir to see that I am in the choir you are preaching to - I agree on insurance it sucks its a scam. But that's not what the OP was about.

[jmowreader]

42. Try living in Nebraska or North Dakota

People who live in rural areas have to drive.

[wickerwoman]

45. No thanks.

I have a choice to live somewhere else, unlike breathing or getting cancer.

As I said upthread, if you live in a rural area and don't want to drive/buy car insurance you're going to find it a hell of a lot easier to move, change jobs, telecommute or online shop than someone who doesn't want to buy health insurance is going to find not existing.

It's a qualitative difference which is why car vs. health insurance is a false analogy.

[leftstreet]

4. People who don't own cars would save some money n/t

[WinkyDink]

5. Please stop. Driving a car isn't a requirement for living in the United States.

[busterbrown]

8. HUh??? I thought I was pointing out the merits of ACA mandate.

Give me a break..

[WinkyDink]

11. It's ACA, and no, you weren't.

[busterbrown]

14. Your a smart one aren’t you?

Just a little bit quicker than everyone else. Or so you think..

[lynne]

15. Auto insurance is NOT mandatory -

- at least, not in every state.

I can only speak about Virginia but you have the option there of NOT having auto insurance providing you pay the Uninsured Motorist Fee to the DMV - or - post a bond in an amount equal to the required minimum limits of liability. I believe that vehicles owned by a business have an option to self-insure via submission of a financial statement providing evidence that the business can meet the minimum limits of liability.

Virginia personal auto owners have three different ways to provide evidence of financial responsibility for their vehicle liability. Insurance is only one of the options.

[busterbrown]

18. The state is mandating the three things you mention...n/t

[lynne]

21. Exactly. But only one of three is insurance.

As I said, insurance is not required by Virginia as they have other choices.

[busterbrown]

25. Yea and its example of govt.. being able to make things work.

And thats why the comparison to the AHA...

[sammytko]

19. Same in Texas - which i didn't know about until i printed out my new card and really took

a look at it.

"All drivers in Texas must carry liability insurance on their vehicles or otherwise meet legal requirements for financial responsibility".

[Niceguy1]

36. and if you don't own a car

You don't have to pay for auto insurance.

[NoOneMan]

29. You know insurance is about covering people you hit

Its the tradeoff for laxer driving standards on public roadways.

Your non-driving children don't need policies (they aren't going to hit anyone).

Its not a tax on the ability to live, for each and every person

[busterbrown]

33. But it is required by the state so that people can be protected..

from those choosing to drive around w/o insurance...
All I’m saying is govt. is needed in this critical area.
Just like healthcare..

[NoOneMan]

34. It required so you can be allowed to drive on the road

The government doesn't need to allow you. This is their get out of liability free card

In anycase, its apples to oranges. The comparison just doesn't compute

[Art_from_Ark]

46. The state usually only requires liability insurance

This is to (theoretically) reduce the number of uninsured drivers.
However, one's own basic liability insurance does not (financially) protect that person from damage or injury caused by another driver.

[Sgent]

47. Depends on the state

most states don't require it, but some do require Uninsured Motorist Insurance which would cover you (or your children) if your hit by a car and the driver of the car doesn't have enough insurance to pay your medical bills -- even if your a pedestrian.

[solarhydrocan]

31. The exact same argument used by the Right Wing Heritage Foundation which is the basis

for ACA. Doesn't this make the ACA something that, under a Republican administration, would be uh...unwelcome at a Democratic site?

The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at Heritage in a publication titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans".[20] This was also the model for Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts. [21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_foundation#Policy_influence

Everyone should read the Heritage Document that started this descent into insurance purgatory: Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans. Except almost no one has. Have you read this critical piece of the puzzle?

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans
By Stuart M. Butler PHD

excerpt: 2) ...Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness.

Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. This mandate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is t h e family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection.

If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance... MORE:
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans

Democrats can attack the Heritage Foundation in the future, however it will be an exercise in hypocrisy.

When it comes to insurance, We're all Republicans now.

[NoOneMan]

32. ouch

[kentuck]

35. Double - ouch

We knew it was the Heritage Plan but we grew to like it.

[christx30]

38. When I was broke, and driving,

I went 11 months without insurance. Never was in an accident. Then I got caught. $250 per year for 3 years. That makes total sense. If someone's too broke to buy insurance, the best thing to do is to tack on $750 in fines. But I still owe for the final year (2012). My licence was suspended, but I don't drive anymore, so it doesn't matter.

[FreeJoe]

39. I don't think was mandatory in Texas until fairly recently

I think that uninsured motorist coverage dropped fairly significantly, but it didn't affect liability or collision coverage. The market functioned, but there were definitely more free riders.

Honestly, there still are. People still drive without coverage. I've been told (don't know whether it is true) that they get short term policies when they need to renew registration and get an inspection.

[gopiscrap]

40. good point

[Puzzledtraveller]

41. How many times....

[Fumesucker]

43. Auto insurance isn't mandatory

There are tens of millions of Americans who are legally going without auto insurance.

[former9thward]

44. Should life insurance be mandatory?

If someone dies with little assets it can be devastating to the family. Even if they are single there are burial and other expenses that society has to cover. Young people would subsidize older people by having their premiums raised.