Owning an automobile is a choice, and thus mandating auto insurance is good. Health care is a right

[rateyes]

And, mandating that people buy health insurance that won't provide affordable health care is criminal.

Using auto insurance mandates as an argument for health care mandates is bogus.

Without real competition that doesn't bring prices down (and, regulating the REAL culprits in health care---the hospitals)--mandating health insurance is immoral.

And, don't fall for the line: "Premiums will come down." That's a lie. Premiums will still rise, just not as quickly.

We had a real chance to bring about real insurance reform in this country, but Obama, Reid, et al blew that chance by insisting on trying to get 60 votes rather than using the budget reconciliation process.

That line: "We need 60 votes" is pure crapola, and insisting on the cloture process left too much on the table.

Happy Holidays, America.

We're screwed.

[ixion]

1. kicked and recommended

spot on, that. :applause:

[NJmaverick]

2. Sounds fine, until one takes to time to THINK and realizes those that don't get insurance

still get treatment when they are sick or injured.

[rateyes]

3. That happens now, in emergency rooms all over the nation.

[NJmaverick]

4. Who foots the bill?

[panzerfaust]

48. I do in part - or did -

... because as a physician I am not going to withhold my services when they are needed to save life or limb simply because I know that I will not get paid.

This is a 'tax' that I paid, that many physicians pay, that most people do not: the necessity of, if I am to remain true to the ideals of my profession, of having to drag my ass out of bed in the middle of the night, drive to the hospital, even when knowing that I will be giving my services away for free, whilst the 'health care is NOT a right' butcher, banker, or baker are home toasty in their beds.

This was one factor in leaving private practice (after 25 years, and where I was writing off 30% - this not counting the 75% Medicare, or 85% Welfare 'discounts' I was forced by law to give) and changing to an academic practice.

I now live in a city, make less, sleep more, know that I will be paid *something* for what I do - and have left an unfilled gap in the underserved rural medical community of which I was a part of for so long.

[sandnsea]

11. That's really just not true

People get treatment if they are dying. They DO NOT get treatment if they are just sick or even injured that isn't an emergency.

[NJmaverick]

14. Actually that depends on the state. Some states require hospitals to care

for any or all comers. Others allow hospitals to turn away the less serious conditions (I guess until they turn life threatening) or transfer them to another facility.

[sandnsea]

28. You can't get cancer treatment in the ER

It is not true that we treat all people in this country. We treat emergencies only.

[cascadiance]

22. If health care isn't a right, then arguably, hospitals should let these people die instead...

I know that sounds harsh, but the fact that we both have laws on the books to treat people with emergencies, albeit a very bogus inefficient, and expensive way to treat them, means that we hold to the principle that people are entitled to their lives and a certain degree of health as a RIGHT. I noted that in a post I made on a thread yesterday. Not sure if that influenced the OP here, but I feel the same way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7308856&mesg_id=7316621

Auto insurance deals with one time losses that are not connected with each other and can usually be resolved in one payout per incident. As I note in the thread there are drivers that are chronically bad, and repeat having accidents and have their rates go up too. They have choices though, whereas the chronically ill person often doesn't. They can:

1) learning to be a better driver and take action to prevent future accidents by becoming a better driver and putting themselves less in situations where they might get in accidents, etc.
2) take mass transit or car pool, etc. instead if they need to commute for work or other reasons.
3) choose to work in a different profession that doesn't have them required to drive each day that makes them accident prone.
4) use bicycles or cheaper cars, etc. to lower the potential cost of the risk of an accident.

Many people can't drive at all because of health or other conditions too. They manage to survive, though they perhaps don't have the degree of freedom that others have. If you are chronically ill, you don't have a lot of choices.

[Usrename]

46. I have a problem with mandated auto insurance.

I do drive the cheap cars, which means I subsidize the guy driving the expensive car. That is bassackwards if you ask me. If someone cannot afford to insure their nice new car without my subsidy then they should drive a cheap car.

In any event, I believe on constitutional grounds that if the state is going to mandate that you have it, the state should provide it. Period.

[cascadiance]

47. if you whack into an expensive car with your cheap car, you're costing him more money...

... without insurance coverage (or others paying for insurance who have to absorb the cost of costs of an accident.

The bottom line is that driving is a totally different marketplace than health care. I challenge one person to put an example of a situation where one HAS to be able to drive to live. As I point out in another post here, one HAS to be able to NOT drive to live if one has a disability preventing them from being able to drive. So there ARE ways to live without driving.

If you aren't able to afford to drive in the area you live or with the job you have, then you either need to adjust your profession, where you live, or perhaps look at public transportation instead. I'm not saying it would be easy, but at some point, we might all have to be riding bicycles ANYWAY to prevent climate change effects from getting out of control. Then we'll ALL be facing that challenge.

People with more expensive cars will pay more to insure their cars. If they drive in areas with more accidents, they pay higher premiums. They try to adjust actuarial tables based on one's liklihood to have an accident, and what likely expenses you will incur in doing so. So I don't think the well off drivers are necessarily better off than those driving cheap cars. Everyone needs to pay for their possibility of being liable for others' damages too. That's the cost of sharing the road with many different vehicles, and other infrastructure. If you don't like the cost of that privilege, then don't drive and find another way to get around where you don't incur those potential liabilities. But you DO have a choice with auto insurance. We do not have mandated auto insurance costs if you don't own a car and don't drive. People can choose not to drive (through the methods noted here), and put cost pressure on the supply/demand curve.

You DON'T have a choice of turning off a chronic health condition, etc. and "switching" to better health. Yes, you can adjust lifestyle habits, etc. to increase your health and live longer and reduce your potential liabilities to get sick, But no one has the ability to put off the inevitable ailments and eventual deaths in their lifetime. So therefore the model of capitalism where the supply/demand curve can correct itself when costs are too high that trigger lower demand when people to go to different solutions doesn't work. If people are forced to demand something no matter what the cost is, then capitalism doesn't work as those with the "captive supply" of healthcare resources will continue to increase the cost until they break the system, like they are doing now, and that's where the government needs to step in and we can no longer count on a for-profit model to do the appropriate thing.

[Usrename]

49. I don’t think this is the proper way to view things.

You don’t need the freedom of speech to survive, but that doesn’t mean that the right to free speech doesn’t exist.

Americanism is a system based on a belief that all men are created equal. This is an important concept, and when you look into the concept two things become apparent. First, people are not equal in every aspect. That is obvious. Some are faster, bigger, smarter, richer, and so forth. But there is another sense in which we are all equal, and that eqality is defined by what we refer to as our civil rights.

As for my right to be on the road with all the rich people, I believe I have just as much right to be there as they do, whether I am collectable in a lawsuit or not. What kind of America are you creating where the rich have special rights that the poor don’t share? I’m pretty sure our founding fathers would have included the right to have a horse-drawn carriage in their bill of rights if it had ever occurred to them that a day would come when that type of freedom was in dispute. It obviously never even occurred to them.

As for the rich asshole with the expensive car, HE can stay off of the public roads with it. Actually many do. There are quite a few expensive cars that are not driven on the roads because they are considered irreplaceable. In any event, let him assume the total responsibility for buying the insurance for his own vehicle, and I will assume the loss for my own vehicle in the event of an accident. Why should I be forced to subsidize him? And if I am forced to subsidize him financially, that subsidy should be based on the ability to pay, shouldn't it. If I have to surrender three or four percent of my net worth (or more in some cases) in order to excercise my so-called "privelege" to drive, why shouldn't the rich have to surrender an equivalent portion of their wealth?

I think your whole analysis (although it does fairly describe the status quo) is completely wrong and creates more problems than it solves.

[Edweird]

27. The root of that "problem" is the insurance companies role. The insurance companies ARE THE PROBLEM

[jgraz]

5. Actually, mandating auto insurance sucks, but that doesn't make the HCR fiasco any better.

[NJmaverick]

7. How does auto insurance "suck"

[jgraz]

9. Reading is fundamental. *Mandating* auto insurance sucks.

Specifically, mandating that the public purchase insurance from private companies sucks.

[NJmaverick]

10. So if uninsured driver blows through a stop sign and totals your car

I am thinking you would be singing a very different tune. Especially if you didn't bother to get any insurance yourself.

[jgraz]

12. Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to. I'll spell it out for you.

The government should not be mandating that we buy private, for-profit services. I have no problem paying for auto insurance. We should do it through progressive taxation like an actual civilized democracy. That way, it won't be possible to have "uninsured drivers", which is a HUGE problem in CA, even with our mandated for-profit insurance laws.

[NJmaverick]

13. Your undeserved and unearned snark doesn't make you sound smart (no matter what you think)

There is only a requirement to be able to cover the cost of an accident. How you achieve that it is up to you. There is nothing that says there can't be not for profit entities doing the insuring. I imagine you could even just keep money aside for accidents if you are willing to go through the effort to set such a thing up (and of have the money).

[jgraz]

26. Oh come on. This fits in with too well with your MO

How many times have you pretended to misunderstand someone and then argued against a point they didn't make? If you were to demonstrate some good-faith debating methods, you'd get far fewer snarky responses.

[ipaint]

17. +1

Policies that create a civilized democracy and don't include the private sector. What a concept.

[JoeyT]

40. Actually, the government doesn't mandate you buy auto insurance.

They just require you to do so if you want to drive.
If you don't want to buy the insurance, don't drive.
They also don't require you to insure your own stuff..you're insuring your ability to pay for whatever car you might hit.
Did you prefer the former system? You know, the old "Don't have insurance, hit someone, get sued, and owe half a million dollars because you were at fault."? That's why auto insurance is mandated. It isn't for you, it's for everyone around you.

[jgraz]

45. Was I not plain enough in spelling out what I was talking about?

And don't spin me a tale about how you "don't have to drive". I live in California. There's no way most people could survive here if they didn't drive.

[JoeyT]

50. Actually I understand what you mean about having to drive.

Where I live it's like 25 miles to the nearest store. If I tried to walk that for groceries I'd have to set out on Monday to make it back on the weekend. ;)

I'm not a fan of the law either, but I don't think they fall into the same category.

[timeforpeace]

32. It makes sense in that it protects the person you hit. No such rationale for mandated health ins.

[tonysam]

6. Owning an automobile ISN'T a "choice" if you want to work and eat

It isn't a bogus argument; few people have access to public transportation, which is a fucking JOKE in almost all areas of the country.

People can and do go without health insurance all the time, and without detrimental effects.

Try a better argument than this bogus one that owning a car is a "choice."

[rateyes]

20. It is a choice.

And, millions use public transportation every day. You choose where to live, which means whether or not you "have" to have a car is dictated by that choice.

[Ikonoklast]

31. And the insurance paid on that 'public transportation' is paid by

the fare-paying public, and through taxation of citizens.

The 'health-care insurance' vs. 'auto insurance' meme is a myth.

Even if one walks everywhere, and never uses motorized transportation of any kind, public or private, their taxes STILL SUPPORT PURCHASING INSURANCE, OR ARE FUNDING THROUGH MANDATORY TAXATION SELF-INSURANCE BY THE POLITICAL ENTITY OPERATING THAT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

Mandated by law to pay. Forced, by the governmental taxing authority, to pay.

Try not paying the local levy for public transportation in your city, county or state, using the 'unconstitutionality' of those assessments as your argument, as you do not use personally use it.

Hilarity will ensue.

[cascadiance]

23. Some people CANNOT drive because of health conditions, etc.

If people are blind or have bad eyesight, or other physical ailments, they have to find other means to live and provide for themselves than driving. It might be public transportation, it might be working from home. But they are able to live successfully, albeit not without the same freedoms many of the rest of us do, which shows that it is a choice to drive or not.

[stillwaiting]

37. It's basically a privilege. When you get moving violations you lose that privilege.

If you have health problems that would preclude you from being able to safely operate a vehicle you lose that privilege.

It IS also a choice for millions of Americans that choose not to contribute to the ugliness that so many pollution emitting vehicles bring to our planet.

If you haven't lost the privilege to drive a vehicle AND you make the choice to buy a vehicle, then you are mandated to buy insurance.

There is absolutely NO parallel to forcing everyone to buy health insurance from a completely unregulated industry.

[izquierdista]

8. Really, a choice?

Owning an automobile in Europe is a choice; they have public transportation that covers all the populated areas in the country. You really can choose from your own car, or the bus, or a train, or a plane. Can you do that in the United States? I don't think so.

I realize your post is a gripe on health care insurance, but you inadvertently point out another glaring failing -- for large numbers of people, owning an automobile is a necessity. In effect, they are mandated to buy insurance so their transportation needs won't burden the system if they get into an accident.

To me, it seems like the insurance companies won when states began mandating that all drivers carry insurance; now they win again when the federal government mandates that all people carry health insurance. And the lawyers win too. Ever since states started mandating auto insurance, I haven't seen any shortage of lawyers advertising that they can get you a big settlement for your accident. I imagine that soon they will be telling you that they can get you that operation that you need.

[HoarseWhisperer]

16. You are correct on all counts, in my opinion

Some people seem to have forgotten that before auto liability insurance was mandate, MOST insured drivers included uninsured motorist
coverage so that in the event of an accident with an uninsured driver who was at fault, their (the insured driver's) damages would be covered.

[cascadiance]

24. So do blind people without drivers licenses die in "those places"?

NO... There still are choices. People can move to a place where they can move about without a drivers' license.

People cannot simply move to get rid of a chronic health condition that needs treatment.

[izquierdista]

33. They can move to a country with national health care

Which is what I am seriously considering.

[AllentownJake]

35. Owning an automobile is a choice in any major Urban Center

It is actually quite an expensive choice in those areas as parking is expensive. I lived a year without a car in Philadelphia. Many of my friends have done likewise, I have friends from New York who have never owned a car who are very well off, and my Grandmother who lives in a SEPTA area has never had a driver's license and got around fine for 50 years.

[izquierdista]

38. You don't get out much, do you?

I live in rural Georgia. Once you get outside of Atlanta, there is no public transportation in Georgia. No intercity buses, no county wide transportation, no Amtrak, just your own two feet. The roads here have no shoulder for bicycles, and walking facing traffic is sometimes difficult as the shoulder is overgrown with weeds. It's three miles to the nearest supermarket, so that makes a motor vehicle (with its mandated insurance) a necessity.

The point I was making to the OP was that people have been forced into a mandate before, and they have meekly accepted it. And if you tell me that well, you just have to move to where transportation is available to not be forced to buy mandated auto insurance, I'll take your suggestion and go one better; I'll move someplace where they have national health care and I'm not mandated to buy health insurance either.

[AllentownJake]

39. It was a condition of a driver's license

and the insurance premiums wasn't huge in the beginning, there was a time people were moving from New Jersey into PA because of auto insurance premiums becoming to expensive.

I've lived in CT,IN,NC, and Philadelphia. Even Boone, NC had a bus.

[taterguy]

44. There's Amtrak in Georgia

I remember going from NC to Florida once. The train stopped plenty of times in Georgia.

Your post has no merit.

HA!

[ipaint]

15. They are privatizing human rights...brilliant.

Keep this up and shortly that palin/mccain threat will be meaningless.

[northernlights]

18. we have the option of paying the penalty

and paying for our health care out of pocket. I plan to use that option, since I've been without health insurance most of my life and when I did have health insurance the corporations left me to die anyway. I realize that's not an option for everybody, but I believe that those who can...should. I'm writing this as a Medical Lab Tech student. Imho, you're all putting the cart before the horse.

A major bottleneck to affordable universal health care is the shortage of facilities and trained providers. And the bottleneck to that education is student funding and the critical "clinical" training. Hospitals can only take on so many students at a time given the need for close supervision with a low teacher:student ratio to prevent medical disasters.

I'm pushing for Bernie Sanders 1350 or so new Community Health Centers (which I understand will also be training centers) to remain in the bill to provide low-cost health care to anybody who walks in the door. Increasing the number 4 or 5-fold (over the existing 350 community health centers) will make health care more available. 10-fold would be sweet! (btw, as an aside, building 1350 community health centers is *major* economic stimulus)

And increasing the grants and loans to students -- so weeding out is based entirely on ability to do the job as opposed to ability to finance learning the job -- is critical. Personally, I'm in a situation along with multiple other students, who may be forced out with one year of training to go due to terminated education loans. It's not our doing and at least 2 of us (myself and one other student) are 4.0s. We could face financial ruin and you could be short several providers as we were blindsided by fine-print rules...that were on a financial aid web page that isn't even public!

The bottom line is that health care is a *Community Service* and should be funded by the community. That means infrastructure and training. Fund the training -- train more providers and stop burdening healthcare students with loans the size of a hefty mortgage -- and service fees will come down.

Without the infrastructure to deliver, universal health care and single payer remain impossible. The fact is that until more *health care* is available, in terms of more trained medical staff and more facilities (beds), both universal health care and single payer will remain out of reach. This is a case where supply-side economics will work.

So I strongly recommend that all of you quit whining about the "sellout," recognize where the real problem lies, and help focus on that. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. And that first step is within reach.

FWIW, I can see a scenario in which, as more and more community health centers come on line, providing lower cost health care while training more and more students, people will start "opting out" of the insurance industry and paying the "fine" (think "tax for down payment on community centers")

[area51]

21. You bring up a good point about not having enough medical personnel

There is no reason why we have to have such a bloated military industrial complex. End the two wars of choice, bring the soldiers home and offer them free or low-cost medical training. Of those who will choose the medical profession, we'll get more medical personnel that we need, and we'd have a real chance of transitioning toward available healthcare.

[northernlights]

19. accidental dupe

[tinrobot]

25. "...that won't provide affordable health care "

There's the rub -- affordable. But I assume you'd support government mandated health care that was 'affordable'.

If so, then we're halfway there. We finally have a lasso around the neck of the insurance companies with this bill. If we choose to reign them in, we can do that, and we won't need 60 votes to do it.

[Hello_Kitty]

29. The auto insurance comparison is so tiresome. eom

[cali]

30. That's not entirely true. For a lot of people a car is

a necessity.

[Odin2005]

34. I'm againt ALL mandating of products of CORPORATIONS.

[kathysart_decoration]

36. Automobile vs. Health Insurance

Something I never see noted with this discussion is the fact that with automobile insurance you have a huge number of choices. You can do a policy through a national insurance company or you can go with a more local company, but the number of choices is substantial. Not so with health insurance. Competition does tend to control auto insurance, not so with health. I think it's a false comparison for that reason alone.

[JoeyT]

41. Good point. I hadn't thought of that one.

I suppose that's why we see incessant commercials with that damned lizard insisting he can save us money on our car insurance. (That and those effing cavemen.) Then we never see Aetna or Blue Cross on TV promising to save us money or not to kill us (more than once) or whatever.
I guess that will all change soon.

[Laelth]

42. I haven't admitted defeat, yet.

But your sentiments are spot on.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[BlueCollar]

43. owning an automobile is only a choice

if there is an alternative. In my case there is no alternative...your argument has no merit.