Mandate to buy Auto Insurance the same as Health Care Mandate...

[SkyDaddy7]

...unless you are lucky enough to live in or close to a big city with adequate public transportation.

I hear the Tea Baggers say this all the time and many here on DU as well. However, the nasty little fact is America does not have adequate public transportation for most people so driving a car is not a choice and neither is buying auto insurance! That is if one wants to live and care for their family.

I just think it is dishonest to say otherwise!

What am I missing?

[Frances]

1. Agree with you SkyDaddy7

[Ian David]

2. It's the same as the "mandate" to buy a house.

If you buy a house, you get a home mortgage interest credit on your taxes.

If you buy health insurance, you get a tax credit on your taxes.

Nobody is screaming that the government is forcing you to buy a house.

Credit to Thom Hartmann, who I am paraphrasing.

[emulatorloo]

3. interesting n/t

[Oregone]

6. Funny how the government contradicts its own home purchasing mandate by giving out affordable...

housing aid for low income renters. Seems like its funny to have a mandate policy and then have other contradictory policies.

That or its not a mandate at all.

And wait a minute. What about those people who don't finance their home purchases. Well they don't get that incentive! Thats obscene. Its not an ownership mandate...its a private financing mandate

And apples are oranges. I swear. Its true.

[Statistical]

32. There is no tax credit for health insurance. There is a punative tax for not having it.

Also not everyone who owns a home gets a tax credit. A lot depends on value of home, amount of interest, other deductions, amount of standard deduction, etc.

Congress could have raised taxes 2% even on the poorest of Americans and then offered a tax credit for those who obtained insurance but they didn't. They decided to make lack of insurance punitive.

[Oregone]

4. Sorta, unless you choose not to drive. And your LIABILITY is of other people...

While you choose to use PUBLIC roads...

So, you know, apples are oranges.

[beardown]

13. Agreed.

Much, if not most, of car insurance is to cover the possibility of inflicting direct harm on other people or lenders. Also, whether other posters like it or not it is directly related to the buyer deciding to buy a car. There may be little choice, but it is a choice.

While there is an impact on others from people not buying health insurance it's in no was as direct and easily gets into what is and is not considered the commons.

Besides, no one has to buy car insurance. You can choose to pay the fines or have your car impounded.

[zipplewrath]

5. Functional versus technical

Technically there is a difference. Functionally, there is very little. However, ultimate the "poor" don't have cars and so they don't have to have insurance. Here, the poor aren't particularly exempt. (Although some low income people will be exempt from having the insurance).

[SolidGold]

7. much like health insurance....

the people driving around without auto-insurance are a liability to everyone else. just like the people without health insurance - the costs get passed on to the rest of us when people aren't responsible.

[Oregone]

14. That doesn't work out

If you wreck a ton truck, you hurt a lot of people's property (and maybe health), and a lot of money is involved. You are liable to cover those people. You are not liable, by law, to fix your own car. And if the state allowed you to use their roadway without requiring insurance, they are ultimately liable for everyone's damages (so thats why they pass the bill onto you)

If you catch a common cold, you hurt yourself. You have no obligation to cover anyone else that catches the cold from you. You are not even obligated, by law, to take care of yourself in that situation (and you may not if co pays and deductibles keep you from going to clinics, exacerbating the problems)

The thing is, its not a direct parallel. One is a choice, the other is not. One is about protecting other while being licensed to use a public roadway with a dangerous vehicle, and one is about protecting yourself.


"the costs get passed on to the rest of us when people aren't responsible"

You may be surprised to learn how little the cost of the uninsured really is on your premium, which has been estimated to be around 8% (an amount much lower than the overhead and profit the Democrats have deemed as permissible for the insurers to suck outta the system)

[cbdo2007]

17. Requiring people to have Health Insurance isn't about protecting that person.

Really, I'm pretty compassionate, but if someone chooses to not have health insurance and does not get any health care for their cold then they are welcome to die in their own house and I am fine with that. Let their family and friends deal with it.

But if they decide to go to the hospital ER, the hospital is legally required to treat them even if they don't have health insurance and that is when it starts effecting the rest of us. This is the USA, we generally dont' care about people protecting themselves until it starts costing us money.

And in regards to the costs passed on to us in the form of both health insurance premiums and in health care itself, you are correct that it is a small piece of the whole pie, but no matter which piece of the pie you point to it is a bunch of small pieces that make the whole. There is no one *fix* that will help both the health insurance and health care industries so it's going to take many small ones - one of which is making people responsible for health care that they are legally required to receive.

The only way the car insurance comparison applies is if someone is legally required to drive their car somewhere in the same way hospitals are legally required to give care. The two are not comparable.

[Oregone]

18. But why is it more important to take care of this pie slice, and ignore one 3X as big?

"There is no one *fix* that will help"

Well, there is a fix to address access, as well as profit and overhead, which could be implemented tomorrow without much of a problem (it wouldn't help the insurance industry, nor is it government's job to). It would be a national, universal insurance system (single-payer)


"The two are not comparable."

Nope, not at all

[SkyDaddy7]

19. Good point!

[Stinky The Clown]

8. There is a defacto need for a car, but not one that is mandated

Your move.

[SkyDaddy7]

20. Maybe not mandated by law...

...But let us be real if one does not have a car in America then they more than likely can't get to work. Now, if our society was not built on the automobile as the primary source of transportation and there was adequate Public Transportation I would agree.

[Stinky The Clown]

27. What you applies on a reasonable basis in the 'burbs or in rural areas. In cities, not so much.

Look, the argument doesn't work.

[nightrain]

9. "insurance" is supposed to be for accidents, not usual events.

so, if the analogy were to hold, the auto insurance would pay for oil changes, tune-ups, engine overhauls, etc, and there would be deductibles and copays for those things.

BUT, having a body requires some routine assessment and upkeep besides accidents. That's NOT the purpose of insurance.

We need CARE (oil changes, diagnostics, replacement of parts occasionally).

[truedelphi]

30. That is a good expansion of the analogy.

As it furthers the notion that the analogy does not work.

Consider one main premise, with a car, once the engine is shot, you can get a new engine or buy a new new car rather than continuing to pay, for repairs.

But I am stuck inside my 58 year old body. I cannot get a full body transplant. So then the notion of the co-pays and deductibles having to be met BEFORE I can get any help any all from My INSURER, who is getting three times from me what they get from a twenty something, that means I will likely not be able to afford any real care.

[nightrain]

38. thanks.

[JackintheGreen]

10. State versus Federal mandate

Each and every state has a mandate that its citizens buy auto insurance. It is *not* a federal mandate. All rights of government not enumerated in the Constitution are supposed to devolve to individual state control. But just because every state has the mandate does not make legislatively/legally make it federal, even if the end result is the same.

[TorchTheWitch]

15. absolutely false

Every state mandates that IF you own a motor vehicle that you use on public roads and don't have other means to pay for damage your vehicle does to others then you have to buy liability-only insurance that is tightly regulated. NO state mandates that its citizens who don't own a motor vehicle buy any kind of motor vehicle insurance.

[JackintheGreen]

16. Um, wow...overreact much?

Seriously, I was responding to the OPs question about why the HC mandate is/is not the same as the auto insurance mandate, using the OPs assumption that most people need to have a car (which is a fairly debatable fallacy).

Fact is, *if* you own a car, it is a *state* mandate that you have insurance, not a federal mandate as is in the HC bill. Again, why is it different? asked the OP. State's rights, I answer, which seemed to have been missed by other respondents

Notwithstanding *other* differences that do exist, can you tell that my *additional* detail is wrong? If so, please clarify. If not, please take it for the *addition* to the discussion that is was meant to be. Not the the be-all-end-all that you took it to be. Yikes.

[Obamanaut]

21. Also, it is possible to purchase a vehicle and NOT register it to

be used on public roads - drive it around on your own acreage - and no insurance is required.

[SkyDaddy7]

23. But to the individual a mandate is a mandate...

Even though I am not forced to buy a car by state or federal mandate I am still mandated to buy a car if I want to keep a decent job to provide for myself and my family. I would have loved to save the money I spent on car payment, gas and insurance to ride Public Transportation but that was impossible (as designed by our OIL driven society)...So, I was mandated to buy a car, gas and insurance.

Plus, someone else made a wonderful point that the mandate for auto-insurance is to protect from the cost of an uninsured driver just as the mandate to buy health insurance is designed to protect others from the cost of uninsured.

[JackintheGreen]

28. But the state is *allowed* to mandate

(or so the argument goes). The Feds are not (or so the argument goes).

Again, I was just pointing out a detail. The suit is going to argue that the federal government has no standing to mandate that every American buys health insurance. No one argues that the states are well within their rights to mandate auto insurance.

Although I don't substantively disagree with anyone on this, I have yet to be offered a rebuttal of my primary point: (One of) the differences(s) between the auto insurance mandate and the health insurance mandate is that the state is privileged to make such demands on its citizens while the federal government is not so empowered.

I don't care about the myriad, niggling, mitigating factors offered against my central point (you can use public transportation and therefore *not* have to buy insurance, you con use the vehicle exclusively on your own property, you *have* to own a car for a good job so *that* becomes a mandate ). These do not rebut the distinction between state and federal that I've made three times now.

If somebody CAN rebut it, PLEASE do so. I am ready to be corrected. Otherwise, I will continue to state this as fact when asked.

[beevul]

34. Not accurate.

"Each and every state has a mandate that its citizens buy auto insurance."

I think if you do some research, you'll find that to be an inaccurate and indeed false statement.

[JackintheGreen]

36. Oh my god.

It still doesn't change the thrust of my post. Jesus.

Oh, and by the way, state-by-state minimum insurance requirements:

* Alaska 50/100/25
* Alabama 20/40/10
* Arkansas 25/50/15
* Arizona 15/30/10
* California 15/30/5
* Colorado 25/50/15
* Connecticut 20/40/10
* Delaware 15/30/5
* Florida 10/20/10
* Georgia 15/30/10
* Hawaii 20/40/10
* Idaho 20/50/15
* Illinois 20/40/15
* Indiana 25/50/10
* Iowa 20/40/15
* Kansas 25/50/10
* Kentucky 25/50/10
* Louisiana 10/20/10
* Maine 50/100/25
* Maryland 20/40/10
* Massachusetts 20/40/5
* Michigan 20/40/10
* Minnesota 30/60/10
* Mississippi 25/50/25
* Missouri 25/50/10
* Montana 25/50/10
* Nebraska 25/50/25
* New Hampshire 25/50/25
* New Jersey 15/30/5
* New Mexico 25/50/10
* Nevada 15/30/10
* New York 25/50/10
* North Carolina 30/60/25
* North Dakota 25/50/25
* Ohio 12.5/25/7.5
* Oklahoma 10/20/10
* Oregon 25/50/10
* Pennsylvania 15/30/5
* Rhode Island 25/50/25
* South Carolina 25/50/25
* South Dakota 25/50/25
* Tennessee 25/50/10
* Texas 20/40/15
* Utah 25/65/15
* Virginia 25/50/20
* Vermont 25/50/10
* Washington 25/50/10
* Wisconsin 25/50/10
* West Virginia 20/40/10
* Wyoming 25/50/20

Isn't that 50? And they all have published minimum requirements? So, um, yeah...unless you can offer evidence of your assertion, I'm sticking with "each and every state." Also, see post 37. There are some exception explanations there.

[ixion]

11. Having lived w/o a car (even in a major city) for more than 10 years

I beg to differ.

There is a difference: It's called CHOICE.

[SkyDaddy7]

24. You had access to adequate Public Transportation?

However, for most Americans, we do not have such luxuries. Sure it is still a "choice"...A choice between a job, providing for yourself/family versus being homeless.

[ixion]

29. I had a bicycle

that was all I needed.

And using one family's poverty or situation as an excuse for a mandate is ridiculous and sad even to suggest, in my opinion.

[The_Commonist]

12. This has been going on for months...

[SkyDaddy7]

25. Point taken!

[taterguy]

22. You're missing out on the amazing capabilities of the human body

I don't really feel like wading into this but claiming you have to live in a major metropolitan area to survive without a car is just bullshit.

There are plenty of small cities where you can easily live within cycling distance of places to work, shop, eat and play.

Don't knock it til you've tried it.

[SkyDaddy7]

26. I agree...But that is not the norm.

Plus, most folks can't just up and move their entire family to a city that provides adequate public transportation...Or simply pick any ole job that allows them to ride a bike to work.


I would love to do what you have the luxury of doing! That would be wonderful!

[Statistical]

33. Not the norm is not a mandate.

You could:
* Carpool
* Use public transit (as bad as it is)
* Find another location closer to work
* Lobby your legislature for massive expansion of public transit
* Move to city with better options.
* Move to a state with no insurance requirement (sadly VA has no requirement for auto insurance).
* Lobby your State legislature to remove insurance requirement.

Now these are HARD CHOICES, no doubt about it. Most people )myself included) choose to take the "easy option" to just get a car and insure it however it isn't a mandate. If you want to you have the choice to not have a car and insurance. Really matter on how much you want it.

[taterguy]

35. Once again, you don't need public transportation if a location is convenient enough

This is why I was reluctant to wade in.

No one listens or has an open mind.

[bunnies]

31. My state doesnt have a car insurance mandate.

Just sayin....

[JackintheGreen]

37. Really?

I just posted state-by-state mandates for minimum insurance (comment #36, I think) and they all have published minimums listed. Just sayin...

The likely exceptions that I see are Florida, which has a published minimum but is not required. They do, however, appear to have a PIP exception. So that at least is mandated.

Another is New Hampshire, but they appear to require uninsured motorist coverage (which seems a bit weird to me).

And there's Wisconsin, too, but they will require liability come June 1, I believe.

[Wizard777]

41. A lot of states have farm use exceptions. That allows unregistered and uninsured vehicles.

But you have to own a farm, spray paint FARM USE ONLY on both sides, and you can only drive it to a Farm & Feed store, Vets, or other legitimate farm business. Anything else and you're going to jail for driving unregistered and uninsured. That's the down side to farm use. If you are not within the legal bounds of the exception. You're committing a crime. You can expect every cop you see along the way to stop you and check to make sure you're legit.

[JackintheGreen]

42. I grew up on a farm

so I wasn't unaware of the exception. But it *is* an exception. For the purposes of this discussion I omitted it as not really germane to the point I was trying to make, that of state rights versus federalism. And I've been hammered for it, but no one has yet debunked my assertion, just sort of poked holes in it that don't defeat it. Rightly so, perhaps.

coti links an earlier post down-thread to this exact effect, e.g. the comparison between health mandate and auto mandate is tenuous at best. I agree with that.

While I appreciate the efforts to correct my earlier misstatement, nobody has addressed my point, nor have they proven a fallacy in my broad reasoning, only in the finest point of its definition. It's really quite wearying, but it reminds me to be more mindful when posting.

Cheers.

[coti]

39. What you're missing.

This thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8019461

No, the analogy doesn't work.

[Wizard777]

40. Auto insurance is a mandate only when buying and operating a vehicle.

Health insurance would become a mandate of being born and operating a Human body. If they are truly the same. If your body insurance lapses then you must be immobilized. We'll just put a boot you. That would also create the perfect Catch 22 Government Bureaucracy is born of. You can't go get body insurance until you get the boot off. You can't get the boot off until you have body insurance.

:banghead: Until that damned wall falls!