Health/Car Insurance

[HumblePie]

Yes, the loony left is happy to force people to be more and more dependent on big government. They won't rest until we are controlled cradle to grave by the nanny state, you're disgusting.

Except, most of those were implemented by the right....

 

[xj0hnx]

Except, most of those were implemented by the right....

Me thinks you're pulling that statement out of your ass. And even if they were, where did I say I support the GOP?

 

[jstern01]

The key difference between auto and health insurance is the following: auto insurance is designed to protect others. If you crash into someone else, you should be able to pay for their medical and property damage. If you can't afford that, you shouldn't be driving. Health insurance is designed to protect you. If you get cancer, it won't directly affect anyone else.

Not in a no fault state like Florida, Michigan or Pennsylvania to name a few. In a no fault state, your insurance pays for your damages, and attempts to recover from the other party. If as in most states, the other party does not have insurance or adequate insurance, there is no recovery.

Now the scary part of auto insurance is that, although you are required to have it to drive on public roads, in most states they do not enforce it. On average anywhere from 25% to 35% of the drivers on Florida roads do not have auto insurance. So it is a crap shoot.

 

[herm0016]

Some people can afford schooling, but we force that. Some people can't afford postal services, but we force that. Some people can't afford roads, police, fire department, or other emergency services, but we force that. Some people can't afford a defense force that prevents terrorists from crashing planes into our buildings daily, but we force that.


Again, stupid argument when the service provided is for the betterment of all.

you don't have to buy stamps, the constitution says we can defend ourselves. fire, police, emergency services, schools are all local issues paid for by your local taxes. your argument is not an argument at all.

 

[GaryJohnson]

fire, police, emergency services, schools are all local issues paid for by your local taxes.

That's not accurate. In the case of local & state emergency services a significant amount of money comes from the federal level. Specifically through the DHS:
http://www.dhs.gov/xgovt/grants/

The Department distributes billions of dollars in grants to states, territories, urban areas and transportation authorities under programs to bolster national preparedness capabilities and protect critical infrastructure. More about each grant allocation is available at FEMA.

Maybe you think they should be local issues paid for by local taxes... but they're not entirely.

 

[HumblePie]

you don't have to buy stamps, the constitution says we can defend ourselves. fire, police, emergency services, schools are all local issues paid for by your local taxes. your argument is not an argument at all.

LOL, you think stamps only funds USPS? Get real. They are subsidized by taxes. And what kind of defense force are you going to provide by yourself in face of a national threat like a war? Downing a few bottles of whiskey and grabbing your shotty with your buds isn't going to defend much. This isn't 1776 anymore.

And not all police and emergency services are local either. FBI? CIA? National Guard? Coast Guard? neither are all roads. As Gary pointed out, many local services can't survive on local taxes alone either. They are further subsidized by the federal level. So my argument is very valid.


Then there is federal grants for research, medicine, and a whole host of other services we would be without that I bet you use daily without thinking about it.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Also, in at least some states (like WA) you aren't required to have auto insurance if you carry a bond ($10,000 I think).

 

[Zebo]

Insurance is not required. Many companies and high net worth individuals self insure or bond. Regardless insurance is a choice simply by not driving on public roads. My kids can ride their motorcycles all day long on tracks and off-road. Nor are licenses.

 

[her209]

If you're a bad driver and your insurance premiums are sky high as a result, well, that's your fault.

 

[LTC8K6]

If you're a bad driver and your insurance premiums are sky high as a result, well, that's your fault.

With your new health insurance, too...bad person, high rates and refusal of services.

Smoker? Might as well shoot yourself.

Obese? Might get a break because you are disabled. Maybe. Maybe that new hip won't do you any good since you're obese? Obese might only be 25 or 30 pounds overweight, too.

 

[paperfist]

Car insurance: If you do not want to pay it, do not drive on public roads. And even though it is required, there is no government oversight ensuring that you have it. It is possible to own a car without insurance...just don't get caught driving it on a public road. Further, it is only required that you carry liability, not comprehensive. This means your vehicle won't be paid for, but your insurance will cover the other person.

Health insurance: it will now be required for you to have it. There will most likely be a sport on your 1040 that asks for policy holder and policy number. Audits will be done and even if you live in the backwoods as a hermit, you will be required to have health care. Therefore you can now be fined for simply living if you choose NOT to buy a product from a private company.

But if someone gets out of buying car insurance and totals your car you're pretty much SoL. I don't think the 'penalty' they pay is anything like what the health care one will be if you don't buy it.

 

[cubby1223]

States do not force buying insurance to drive, what they do is require "proof of financial responsibility" to properly register your vehicle for use on public roads, of which state-minimum auto insurance is just one form of sufficient proof.

And the insurance insures the car, not the person.

You can have a valid drivers license, own no car, pay no car insurance, have no proof of financial responsibility - and legally drive someone else's car, just so long as the owner of the car has some form of coverage on it.


The way auto insurance works is very different from how health insurance works.


But then again this is partisan P&N where everyone is a numbnut yet also simultaneously a genius...

 

[shira]

The key difference between auto and health insurance is the following: auto insurance is designed to protect others. If you crash into someone else, you should be able to pay for their medical and property damage. If you can't afford that, you shouldn't be driving. Health insurance is designed to protect you. If you get cancer, it won't directly affect anyone else.

Oh yes it will. If you don't have health insurance, your $300k cancer treatment will be paid for by the rest of us.

How come the party of "personal responsibility" is so dead set against personal responsibility?

 

[cubby1223]

Oh yes it will. If you don't have health insurance, your $300k cancer treatment will be paid for by the rest of us.

How come the party of "personal responsibility" is so dead set against personal responsibility?

Do you have any fucking clue how private business works?

Seriously, from your words, I doubt you do.

 

[cubby1223]

Come on, shira, let's get at the root of your "progressive" ideology here, let's see at which point you will finally see the bullshit in all of it.

Doctors and hospitals largely supply goods and services on credit. It is up to the doctors and the hospitals to set their prices and also up to them to handle collecting payments.

However, that is how pretty much *every* business out there operates. What do you think happens when someone signs up for a credit card, maxes it out and never pays the bill?

What do you think happens when, for instance, a retail store buys merchandise on credit then goes bankrupt? When you buy the same brand name merchandise from a different retail store, worked in to the price that you pay, is an amount that covers the failure of the first store. Same situation.


And now let's come to entitlement paid for by the government. Or, as "progressives" would like it, paid for by taxes on evil corporations. Corporations don't pay taxes. They raise their prices. And the consumers (i.e. you) cover the taxes when you buy their products. What happens is, before the government entitlement program, you kept the dollar that was in your pocket. But now since the entitlement, your dollar gets passed to the corporation, passed to the government, passed out to some agency, then back to your pocket. And at every step of the way a part of the money is taken away.

Where you originally would have kept the dollar in your pocket, now thanks to the wonderful caring government, your dollar circled around and came back as 50 cents. Sure you would want to figure out how to game the system and have your dollar come back as a greater amount, but how are you going to do that? And is that fair?

 

[shira]

Come on, shira, let's get at the root of your "progressive" ideology here, let's see at which point you will finally see the bullshit in all of it.

Doctors and hospitals largely supply goods and services on credit. It is up to the doctors and the hospitals to set their prices and also up to them to handle collecting payments.

However, that is how pretty much *every* business out there operates. What do you think happens when someone signs up for a credit card, maxes it out and never pays the bill?

What do you think happens when, for instance, a retail store buys merchandise on credit then goes bankrupt? When you buy the same brand name merchandise from a different retail store, worked in to the price that you pay, is an amount that covers the failure of the first store. Same situation.


And now let's come to entitlement paid for by the government. Or, as "progressives" would like it, paid for by taxes on evil corporations. Corporations don't pay taxes. They raise their prices. And the consumers (i.e. you) cover the taxes when you buy their products. What happens is, before the government entitlement program, you kept the dollar that was in your pocket. But now since the entitlement, your dollar gets passed to the corporation, passed to the government, passed out to some agency, then back to your pocket. And at every step of the way a part of the money is taken away.

Where you originally would have kept the dollar in your pocket, now thanks to the wonderful caring government, your dollar circled around and came back as 50 cents. Sure you would want to figure out how to game the system and have your dollar come back as a greater amount, but how are you going to do that? And is that fair?

I don't think you see the contradiction in what you're writing:

Yes, exactly, hospitals and health care providers RAISE PRICES to cover those who lack health coverage. Now, who do you think pays those inflated prices? We all do. We are paying higher health-care prices to cover for those who lack insurance.

What I wrote before was EXACTLY correct: The rest of us pay for that uninsured's 300k cancer treatment.

So who's gaming the system: The 100,000 people who each paid $3 extra for health care, or the 150 Republicans (one of whom later develops cancer) who refuse to get health insurance and instead spend the $2000 they save in premiums (they would have been subsidized, of course, so they wouldn't have had to pay the full cost) on yet another handgun to "protect" themselves from all of us "pinko, left-wing commies"?