The car Insurance analogy is a correct one

[WeekendWarrior]

I keep hearing from the naysayers that "you don't HAVE to drive a car" in response to the car insurance mandate analogy -- but you know what? In the REAL world, most of us DO have to drive. Especially here in California.

To me what you're spouting when you say such things is akin to a Republican talking point. "You don't need welfare, just get a job" or "Just eat healthy and don't get sick."

The truth is, cars are a necessity for most people. Maybe if you live in New York you can get by on public transportation, but not in most places in this country. And if you NEED to drive a car, you are required to get insurance or pay a hefty fine.

The analogy is correct.

[ixion]

1. No, it's not. No one is forcing you to live where you live.

You're beating a dead horse. No dice.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Earth_First]

18. re: "I swear to god you sound like a Republican."

Your bucket is leaking, too...

[ixion]

19. Not at all. IS someone forcing you to live in CA?

Well, is there?

[WeekendWarrior]

31. Yes. Reality.

So, basically, what you're suggesting is that I leave California and move to a place that has fantastic public transportation so that I can avoid buying a car and thereby avoid the car insurance mandate.

Is anyone forcing you to live in the US? Why don't you move to Canada or some other country where health insurance is basically free? Then you won't have to WORRY about mandates.

Your argument is ridiculous in the real world.

[ixion]

34. Reality is of your own creation.

So that's not really a 'Yes'. There is no entity outside your own preferences to live where you live. Your argument is invalid.

[WeekendWarrior]

37. How does it feel having to twist logic to make

your argument? You must have a contortionist inside you.

As I said, you can use that same argument and say, if you don't like the mandate, leave the US. But I won't go there, because that would make me a Repug.

[ixion]

38. LOL.. you're the one who's twisting...

my argument has remained the same. You just retort with snark. :rofl:

[WeekendWarrior]

41. Snark?

Please. I'm not the one with the ROFL icon.

[ixion]

42. Feel free to use it...

it makes you feel better. :rofl:

[laughingliberal]

56. There is no way for me to legally leave the US

Beyond that, though, there's a big damned difference between someone living without a car and someone not living.

[TransitJohn]

39. 'Basically free'

Who is and isn't living in reality in this thread, hmmmmmm?

[laughingliberal]

48. Reality is it fits your life to live there and if it no longer did you would move

Many people live without cars. Your basic premise is really that giving up your car or relocating would not allow you to continue your current lifestyle. Giving up a body has far more dire consequences.

There is no way to get around the fact that many people live without cars and no one lives without their body.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. That's Was Reagan's Answer To Joblessness-"You Can Vote With Your Feet"

~

[DCBob]

11. No one is forcing you to live in America either...

gotcha!

[ixion]

23. People like you are like the opposite side of the coin from the neocons

You both believe the people are there to serve your will, and you're both willing to use the Fed as your enforcer.

You are both a disgrace, in my opinion.

[Statistical]

25. Actually you would still be subject to the tax/fine even if living outside the US.

So once again no choice.

[laughingliberal]

50. That's true. If you're paying taxes in the US and not covered by the other country's health plan

that's exactly right.

[laughingliberal]

49. Actually, that's not precisely true

I realized after the theft of the 2000 election that the years of believing and working to change the direction of this country had come to naught. I looked into emigrating then as I am an RN and most countries will take RN's. Unbeknownst to me was that there aren't any who will take you after the age of 45 and I had just turned 45. I know of no legal way for me to move to another country.

It is my sincere advice to the young people I know to find a way to get trained in one of the occupations in demand world wide and start the visa process as soon as possible. The younger and more well trained, the better chance of success.

[Frances]

24. To me,

the analogy is responsibility. If you have a car, you need to have insurance so that you will not cause another person to pay for you. If you have a body, you need to prove that another person won't have to pay for its care.

[Statistical]

28. Except insurance for your car is not required.

No states impose collission insurance requirements (your lender may because they own interest in vehicle).

States impose liability insurance. Your are required to obtain insurance for the potential to INJURE OTHER PEOPLE. Liability insurance doesn't cover damage to yourself or your property. It protects others from your neglignce.

The car insurance meme is freeper level logic.

[Frances]

63. But don't you injure my financial health

when you refuse to prove you can provide for your own health? What assurance do I have that I won't have to pay for you when you could have paid for yourself?

I called Michelle Bachman's office today to say that I was very angry that I, as a taxpayer, am subsidizing her health care and yet she has done everything she can to keep the taxpayers from getting good insurance.

[Naturalist111]

86. Nah that isn't freeper

that is round about way of saying he thinks like a freeper. I disagree totally. I personally believe indirect accusations is totally freeper.

[Yellow Horse]

30. WTF? Not everyone can live in the few areas with good public transportation. Get a grip.

Most of these areas are urban, or close-in suburbs, and in most of them the cost of living is very high and living wage jobs are scarce.

Plus not every family, or even every person has the means to just pick up and move somewhere so they don't have to drive a car.

Where I live, without a car I can't even get to a food store, bank, or post office (it would be an hour's walk for a disabled person along dangerous road each way) and I have NO way to move, unless it is to a cardboard box under a bridge.

You do sound very Republican with such statements.

[ixion]

36. Except when I'm trashing the Republicans

then no one here seems to care. You party loyalists are ludicrous in your lack of intellectual honesty.

[Yellow Horse]

40. How am I a "party loyalist" when I say I need a car and can't move somewhere else?

You're not even making sense now.

[ixion]

44. because you're staying on message

and attacking the messenger, the two tell-tale signs.

[Yellow Horse]

79. I don't need to "attack" you. You are doing a good job on yourself.

You don't make sense. You aren't really reading what you are complaining about.

I don't really have any message about cars and where people or don't live. I simply made a statement. I personally need a car to survive where I live and can't afford to move to where I wouldn't need a car. Places with good public transportation in general have higher living costs and these days few living wage jobs especially for newcomers. All that's simply the truth, not a message.

And here is another true statement that is not a message: What you have posted sounds like a lot like what I have heard many times from Republicans.

[Ikonoklast]

81. And you are what, exactly?

Hater of Democrats? Or just Obama?

Holding your breath until the Socialist Paradise come to fruition, in some magical way?



Most people here live in the reality-based community, and don't come here to bash DEMOCRATS.

[laughingliberal]

52. Yes, living without a car puts a crimp in lifestyles. No doubt about it

Living without a body is a little more serious.

[Yellow Horse]

Living without food isn't so fun, either.

Getting food where I live means getting in a car and going to a store, unless one is able-bodied (and brave) enough to walk an hour each way along dangerous roads. (And anyone doing that better for SURE have health insurance!)

[amborin]

66. lots of people in LA, driving cap of world, do not drive

[LynneSin]

71. So you're going to pay to help move everyone to a location where they don't need a car

and I'm guessing you'll be finding us all great jobs too.

:eyes:

[Sheepshank]

80. yeah got it

EVERYONE...quick, lets all move to NYC so we don't have to buy a car.

Reality?

[DCBob]

2. Not an exact comparison but close enough in terms of reality.

Be prepared to be pounded..

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Keep trying.

You will never convince those of us who know there is a difference - but if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.

[derby378]

4. Actually, it's not

Driving a car is legally considered a privilege. There is no shame in utilizing public transportation, riding a bicycle (which I desperately need to do more of), hailing a taxi, riding a horse, or simply walking.

Our Declaration of Independence spells out "life" as an inalienable right, where the Constitution specifically talks about the need to promote the general welfare, which also includes life.

[WeekendWarrior]

16. Driving a car may be a privilege

legally, but it's a necessity for me and for millions of people. I would have no income without a car.

Really, you folks are stretching, here.

[laughingliberal]

54. Yes. Your lifestyle would be impacted. Living without a body? Well, that's more serious. nt

[Naturalist111]

87. Privilege?

I thought this was a free country? People rode horses didn't they? Was that a privilege? How do you think that would have been greeted? A privilege to ride a horse. What replaced the horse? The horseless carriage.

[Earth_First]

5. You know, come to think of it my wife did hold me at gunpoint this morning...

I really wish she'd quit forcing me to own a car.

[Individualist]

7. Fail

[cali]

8. why especially in CA?

not that I don't agree with your larger point, but believe me it would be a lot easier to get around without a car in most of CA than in Alaska, for example

[WeekendWarrior]

21. Most people in California

live miles away from where they work, and sometimes miles away from where they shop. In most cases it's impractical and sometimes even more expensive to use public transportation, especially when you have kids and all that that entails.

Some people DO use public transportation, but most find it impossible. This isn't a matter of privilege, but necessity here.

[cali]

27. that's no more true in CA than it is in Alaska or Texas

and I'll bet you anything that where I live in the Northeast Kingdom, a car is at least as necessary as anywhere in CA. Dirt roads, 6 months of winter, no public transportation at all and my nearest supermarket is 20 miles away.

[WeekendWarrior]

33. Then I guess you would need a car, wouldn't you?

And, as a result, would have to pay for insurance.

[laughingliberal]

55. And if you didn't have one your lifestyle would suffer.

I'm sorry. A lot of people live without cars. Maybe not well but they live. Those without bodies are no longer counted among the living. You have to carry homeowners insurance if you have a mortgage, too. But many people live without a home, also.

[Donnachaidh]

9. EPIC fail n/t

[Warpy]

10. Purchasing a car and driving it are totally voluntary.

We don't get to choose whether or not to have bodies.

However, the parallel that does hold up is Social Security, our old age insurance, something we are mandated to pay into with each paycheck.

The evil and corrupt court could decide both mandated health insurance and mandated old age insurance are illegal, in which case, my friends, we are fucked.

[ClassWarrior]

12. What? No public transit in California?

:eyes:

NGU.

[Lerkfish]

13. no, not really you're completely wrong.

even in california, you can choose not to have a car (I rode a bike for a year). You can choose to use public transport, you can choose to carpool you can choose to find a job that doesn't require a commute, you can choose to borrow a friend's car.


you cannot choose to leave your body.

You cannot choose borrow your friend's better health.

You cannot force an insurance company to approve certain procedures you might need (even though you can make an auto insurer cover you for certain things or at least spell them out specifically in the policy) A health insurer can CHANGE THEIR MIND about what procedures they will cover, based on their own bottom line, at the drop of a hat, with no notice whatsoever.

You can't get a loaner body while yours is being worked on

And, obviously, if you get dropped from your car insurance and have to take a cab, you can. If you are refused medical care and you have HIV or cancer, there is no where else you can go.


so, no, I don't believe you've thought this out sufficiently, and further, to base your analysis on just california is a bit egocentric.

[tritsofme]

14. I have no problem with the mandate, but it is still a poor analogy.

We are talking about federal vs state regulations, they just aren't the same thing.

Congress' power comes from the ability to tax and to regulate commerce.

[frazzled]

15. Corollary: You can't NOT have a body.

So everyone, insure up your body. You risk yourself and the rest of us, and cause our insurance rates to be higher, when you don't. It's the law now.

[GodlessBiker]

17. I don't think there is a good analogy. This mandate is new ground.

The SC case which upheld the law which sanctioned a farmer from growing wheat for his own personal use because his wheat farm had reached the maximum anyone could grow for commercial use is germain, I think. Commerce Clause powers run pretty deep.

[Statistical]

22. No you don't you CHOOSE to drive (as do I).

1) you could move to another city with good public transit
2) you could lobby local govt to expand public transit
3) you could choose employement/residence locations that make alternatives more realistic
4) you could carpool, telecommute, take a cab, etc.

Would any of that be "easy"? No. Would it be utterly impossible? No.

You have choices. They may not be easy choices. They may be too much work for you to consider but they are choices.

Here even if you wanted to self-insure you can't. You are forced to hand money over to insurance companies (80% of people will never get health-care equal to the cost of their health insurance). You have absolutely no choice other than to pay a TAX for non-compliance.

[ScreamingMeemie]

26. Only in that those who have to buy high risk coverage won't be

able to afford it. As they give up their cars, others will give up their lives. I guess that's fair. What you're saying is that, since driving a car is a privilege so is staying alive.

[G_j]

29. and bike riders?

[tularetom]

32. Well, yes and no

With car insurance, you can pay premiums your whole life and never make a claim. The insurance company bets that you won't make that claim, based on statistics and that's how they make money. With health insurance, the situation is totally different. EVERYBODY is going to get old and sick and when they do, they will need health care. The only way the insurance company makes any money off you is if you die suddenly and don't need any medication or treatments (after a lifetime of making premium payments). So the insurance company can only win the bet by setting the cost of the insurance high enough to cover the probability that you will need the care. And that's just what they've done and that's why health care should be a right and not subject to the whims of insurance companies.

[Bobbie Jo]

35. This is correct on yet another level...

The market will adjust to accommodate the increased business. If you remember back before auto insurance was mandated, there were just a handful of major providers. (Allstate, State Farm, etc..) Since that time, many new companies have emerged to compete with the majors...(GEICO, Safe Auto, Progressive, etc...)to offer more affordable rates that are within reach.

I think the health care market will play out in much the same way, including non-for-profit groups.

Most people would have health insurance, if they could only afford it.

[laughingliberal]

57. Still does not change the fact that it is possible to live without a car

and impossible to live without a body. This is a mandate on people who draw breath. It's impossible to maintain life without doing so. I know quite a few counted among the living who don't have a car.

[Bobbie Jo]

58. Of course that wasn't the point I was making...

Simplistic as it is....

I also mentioned that "most people" would have health insurance if they could only afford it. This bill makes allowances for those who cannot...and goes further to expand Medicaid to many of the "working poor" who would otherwise fall through the cracks.

[laughingliberal]

60. The bill will allow some to purchase health insurance who can't currently afford it

There are quite a few of us out here in our 50's who make more than 400% of the FPL. (I am not any longer in that group but was until the economy collapsed). Now, if you make more than 400% of FPL and you do not have coverage at work you are responsible for your premiums. If you are a couple making $59,000 per year and your premium is more than 17% of your AGI, you can get a waiver so you won't pay a fine if you can't afford the premium but you are not going to have insurance. Our premium before we had to drop our insurance was $1200 per month. And that was 3 years ago. That would be over 25% of the income of a couple making $59,000 per year.

States who allow Medicaid for adults without children who are not disabled will see better coverage of the poor.

But those barely in the middle class who are a bit older are out in the cold. Best you can say is they will be right where they are now. Of course if the premium is 17% or less of their AGI, they will have to pay it. That comes to $815 per month. Depending on their current expenses, that could be a real hit. And they would either have to find it or pay the fine and still be without insurance.

[Bobbie Jo]

65. I see what you're saying...

which goes back to my original point. People in your situation are going to be an untapped market for new providers to develop products to meet your needs.

Such an entity doesn't exist today, but I think you will see a huge expansion in the choices available to you within the next year.

I'm self-employed, but insured through my husband's union. When I went shopping for health insurance for myself and my co-workers, it was just too out of reach. I have a 16 yr old who was dropped due to a pre-existing condition, and is currently un-insurable. I also have an uninsured child in college who has had to use the campus clinic on occasion...and still owes them money.

All this to say....its crappy all over, but I really do think this bill is going to make a real difference for many of us.

Take care.

[Lars39]

43. Are approximately half of the bankruptcies in this country due to car repairs?

:shrug:

[Hosnon]

45. I disagree. It is not only logically possible to not drive, but many people, in reality, do not. nt.

[laughingliberal]

46. No, it's not

There is no denying there are people in the real world living without cars. I know of no one living without a body. You can keep on with this false analogy all you want. It doesn't fly. People can choose to move to areas where public transportation is the standard or any number of things to avoid having a car. All we're talking about here is it' much more convenient to have one. And that's true. But there are many people who can't afford cars and don't have them. I have yet to meet anyone living without their body.

[uppityperson]

47. I understand your point and get irked at those who say things like...

"You can chose to live somewhere with good public transportation, ride a bike or walk."

I should sell my house at a loss, still owing money on it, move to a city and start looking for a new job during times of massive unemployment? Or I can chose to stay living where I am, working at the job I have, and drive my car. If I chose to stay where I am, I am mandated to buy insurance, granted less than $100/month.

The Health Insurance analogy would go "you can chose to be healthy".

For many, because they "chose" to not buy an apartment near their work, and "chose" to not get laid off, and "chose" to live where there is public transportation, or close enough to bike/walk, wonderful. For the rest of us, it isn't that simple.

There is, however, a big difference between >$100/month auto insurance and $400/month health care insurance.

[Fumesucker]

53. The big difference is though that it is *possible* to do those things, make those choices..

It simply is.not.possible to live without a body..

Therein lies the difference..

[laughingliberal]

61. Correct. What we see here is those who equate their lifestyle with their life

I know it feels like the same thing to some but it is not.

[uppityperson]

73. It is not *possible* for me to stay alive without a car

If I were to sell my house at a loss, and move (via public transit?) to a large city, I would need to get a higher paying job, which is not *possible*. I guess it is *possible* for me to become a homeless person in the city and hence not need a car, looks like that "choice" is what you are saying is what I should do. Or is *possible* to do.

For many, a car is not an option. If you need a car, you need to do what state laws say and in most it is buy insurance.

[Fumesucker]

78. There are lots of people that live in the US without a car..

If it were not possible to live without a car then there would be no people doing that.

I knew someone that lived in Atlanta, a car oriented city damn near as much as southern California, and never owned a car because he was a catastrophe as a driver.

Legally blind people don't own cars either and there are a number of other conditions which preclude car ownership, seizures being one such.

On the other hand there is no human being living without a body, it is totally impossible.

[uppityperson]

82. For some, a car is an option. For some, it is not. For those it is not an option, neither is insuran

neither is insurance in most states so for them, it is comparable.

[Fumesucker]

84. Yes, a car is an option..

An option a great many choose but it is an option and driving is a privilege and not a right, that's why you have to have a license to legally drive.

A body is not an option, you don't have to have a license for it.

[samrock]

51. I agree with the OP

If you drive you need car insurance.. and that applies to MOST americans.. So I think this is a fair comparison..

[laughingliberal]

62. Agree all you want. Going without a car affects a person's lifestyle

It's not at all the same as going without a body.

In other words, you may not be able to live the way you want without a car but you are still perfectly capable of drawing breath without. (I know there are those who feel like taking their car is the same as taking their life but it is not).
No one I know of has managed to exist without a body.

[dems_rightnow]

59. Which Federal law.....

Mandates the purchase of car insurance? I can wait.....

[laughingliberal]

64. Another fallacy in this auto insurance argument. Those are all state laws. nt

[Occulus]

67. ANOTHER fallacy: you DON' T have to buy car insurance EVEN IF you drive a car

at least, in MI you don't. You can provide a surety in lieu of insurance.

I am so Goddamn sick of that fallacy. It isn't true and never was.

[Hello_Kitty]

68. There are several reasons, aside from car ownership being voluntary, that it's a bad analogy

Car insurance is reasonably inexpensive because it's insuring you against the relatively small risk of an expensive accident. As a 41 year old woman, they can insure me for up to several hundred thousand dollars in damages because the chance that I'll make that kind of claim is minuscule. Furthermore, car insurance is purely catastrophic. You can ONLY use it for damage to the vehicle or injuries due to a collision or unforeseen damage happening to the car, like a rock hitting your windshield. You cant use it for routine maintenance or to correct a manufacturing defect. Once your car is too old to be worth much you can reduce your coverage to just liability without taking a big financial risk.

Pretty much the opposite situation to the aforementioned is the case with health insurance. They're both called "insurance" so it's tempting to draw an analogy between them but they really bear little similarity to each other. It's a bad analogy and a false meme that will make people expect their health insurance to become cheap like their car insurance when that will not be the case.

[Berry Cool]

69. The fact that so many Americans believe it is essential to have a car,

or that for so many of them NOT having a car would mean engaging in lifestyle changes that would be so dramatic as to be either practically impossible or extremely undesirable, is more an indictment of this country's disregard for public transportation, and for expenditures on it, than anything else.

You don't see people in Europe saying that if they didn't own a car, they literally could not live where they choose to live, have the home they choose to have, or keep the job they currently have. Yet you constantly see Americans on DU saying "Don't tell me that I can't live without my body but that I can live without a car. I, personally, CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT A CAR." Or "I cannot live without a car without GIVING UP EVERYTHING I LIKE ABOUT MY LIFE."

It is a dirty rotten shame that America has become so dependent on personal individual transportation that there are so many of us who feel this way. But that's another thing the Republicans persuaded us of, isn't it? That public transportation is only for poor people, who can't afford to express their egos with sweet personal rides or accommodate their large families with cushy minivans and SUVs, and socialistcommiefascists who want us all to be automatons riding the bus and the subway.

And it's not just a matter of geography. It's not just that we're so big a country that we can't do public transportation. It's that we choose not to spend money on it because we'd rather be rugged individualists driving sweet rides or crappy beaters, depending on what, as individuals, we can afford.

[laughingliberal]

70. +1000 nt

[uppityperson]

76. I hear people in Europe saying that all the time. Friends in France, Germany, England ALL

say that. Maybe we have different friends. Yes, they say "if they didn't own a car, they literally could not live where they choose to live, have the home they choose to have, or keep the job they currently have."

Maybe you only know people living in the city whereas I know people who live outside cities?

It isn't simply USA, though I agree that we do need more public transportation.

[DireStrike]

77. Thank you. -nt-

[Motown_Johnny]

72. NO IT ISN'T... YOU CAN F___ING MOVE !!!!!

You don't need to live where you live

You don't need to work where you work

You don't need to go where you go

You can take a bus, or call a cab, or pay a neighbor or coworker.

This mandate is for just existing, you can't move away from it. You can't alter your lifestyle to avoid it.


The analogy is dead wrong!!!

[uppityperson]

74. Find me a job in the city. Seriously. Find me a place to live. Find me a buyer for

my house. No buses here, so I "pay a neighbor or coworker" to...use their car (for which THEY have to pay insurance, right)?

"move, get a new job" is written many places throughout this thread. It isn't that simple.


"YOU CAN F____ING MOVE!!!" How.

[Motown_Johnny]

88. I didn't say it would be easy. Still the fact remains that it is only your lifestyle that makes you

think that you must have car insurance. You don't. Join the army! They will move you for free.

The mandate applies to everyone no matter where they live or how they live.

[uppityperson]

90. I'm too old for the army. Try again.

[librechik]

75. in my state you only have to buy insurance against the damage you do to somebody else

not a good analogy.

[TheKentuckian]

83. No, it is a rough analogy that ends up more lie than truth

Millions elect not to drive, even many that could by a luxury car with ca$h money in hand.

Hell, in some areas on the well off can choose to drive.

[Naturalist111]

85. Let me help you on this one

your forced as a child to be vaccinated. Why is that? To protect others like car insurance. You have to go to school and must be vaccinated. Gee, that has been going on for awhile. That is OK though. Is it possible that the reason that it is OK, is because it protects you, your family and friends? You bet ya. It's OK to force that on people. It's all about protecting oneself, but as far as anyone else other then you, your family and friends, it's "your on your own pardner". "Look at the dumb lowlife living under that bridge. Yea, Ha Ha what a loser". I'm not the most religious guy in the world, don't even go to church but I don't gamble either. If you believe in GOD and there isn't a GOD, then what did you lose? You tried to be a nice person instead of a murdering ignorant asshole judgmental thieving cheat? By the way, just believing in a GOD doesn't make you a good person. Oh, have we seen proof of that lately. If you don't believe in GOD and there is one I think you will be OK if your heart is right. So it is really important to have your heart right. Judge away!

[AngryOldDem]

89. I wish this would just die.

At some point in your life, you will file a claim with your health insurer. It's almost 100% guaranteed. Not so with auto insurance.

As a point of reference, I've been driving for about 30 years and not once have I had an auto claim. But I have at least one health insurance claim yearly.

And, no, you DON'T have to drive.

[undeterred]

91. The whole world isn't California.

In urban areas, millions of people are better off living without the expense of a car. People WALK, or take public transportation to get where they need to go.

Millions of people are too young or too old or too disabled to drive. Some lose their licenses after too many arrests for drunk driving.

We can choose how we transport ourselves. We can't choose getting or not getting chronic illnesses.