Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"Force drivers to have insurance in order to make sure they have insurance--really"
Everyone who drives, has a vested interest in sharing the road only with people who have adequate insurance.
I have more of a vested interest in sharing the road with people who are safe drivers than with adequately insured ones.
At this time, mandated auto insurance is at the State level. If the people of a State agree to it, so be it. I live in a State that has no-fault auto insurance. So whether the other driver is adequately insured or not is less of an issue than if I am adequately insured. Since I have an older car, I only carry the required liability insurance. My latest 6 month bill of $1463.00 included $930.00 for Medical Personal injury Protection. This is the highest in the nation. On top of which living in Detroit makes my policy actuarially higher than most of the rest in my State--even though I have never caused an accident or caused property damage or ever injured anyone by driving, nor have ever been so injured. And that is a record compiled for almost 60 years of driving. The insurance companies have made tons of money off of me from all the comprehensive insurance premiums I've paid for new cars as well as the liability fees over that time none of which I cashed in on. It is drivers like me that are their cash cow to make up for the reckless or careless ones. So I don't feel as generous as you when it comes to "sharing the burden."
Before no fault, compensation was decided through tort litigation. A fellow I worked with, before no fault, was responsible for paying the medical bills and a lifetime monthly stipend to a person who his wife had permanently injured in an automobile accident that she caused. I am more in favor of those who cause damage paying for it rather than sharing costs for which I am not at fault.
My State recently had a ballot proposal to eliminate the medical personal injury protection fee, but the citizens voted to keep it. We had a choice, it wasn't summarily forced on us. And I appreciate that I can move to a State that doesn't have no fault insurance and has much lower insurance costs (which I am planning to do for other reasons, but cheap auto insurance is a substantial bonus).
And I would prefer that insurance was a commodity which gave me an advantage if I purchased it. If I was willing to pay a premium in advance in the event that I might reek expensive damage which the insurance company would pay for, then I might consider it an advantage to buy the insurance over those who don't buy it. But when everyone is required by law to buy it, especially if it is universal coverage, then there is no advantage, and worse there is the disadvantage of much higher costs inherent in universal coverage.
Not to mention the loss of choice and the setting or further practice of liberty busting precedent. Oh . . . I guess I did.
Comparing State or locally mandated auto insurance to Federally mandated Obama Care, which is meant to transition into Federally provided universal healthcare is a false analogy.
And doesn't government mandated "universal" insurance actually destroy the original concept of free market insurance? wasn't insurance something separate from a universal "right"? Something that you could acquire to help you protect yourself personally from some calamity or expense. And doesn't universality replace that with some societally guaranteed right not to be burdened by calamity or expense paid for by society rather than by the individual?
It seems to me that calling a "right" "insurance" is superfluous. We can eliminate the antiquated word "insurance" from our vocabulary. And we can eliminate the plight of individual burdens by guaranteeing the right to be free from them, rather than have the individual responsibility to seek ways of avoiding them.
I worked in Personal Auto insurance, I've seen what happens to people who are hurt by drivers who don't have adequate insurance. Does the requirement limit freedom? Sure. So does the law that says I can't park in handicap parking spaces, but I don't quarrel about that, either.
What makes you think that just because you have a car you have some inherent freedom to park wherever you want which should not be abridged?
"Exactly. Force everyone to buy health insurance. And when that eventually fails, transition to "universal" government health care. "
I make no claim to having any kind of viable solution. But while I was lucky to be born ailment-free, others are not so lucky, and I have no issue with all of us sharing the financial costs of un-preventable medical problems that some are born with. I'd rather pay to treat a little kid born with leukemia, than pay for someone to get food stamps that they trade for beer and cigarettes. That's my Catholicism talking.
|
That's the problem with your Catholicism. Everyone else should feel obligated to share in it.
I have tremendous respect for your church. And for Christianity, and a good amount for Judaism, and for good atheists, but none, as everyone can guess from my posts, for Islam. And there are other religions, cults, and philosophies that I feel some kinship with.
But I don't want to be compelled by government, especially some distant central one, to share in inclinations that arise from the practice of those various beliefs or disciplines.
If you want to pay for the treatment of a kid born with leukemia, you're welcome to it. There are already charities that do it. You can contribute to them. You are FREE to do that. But if your sentiments are imposed on me, I am not free to do that or not to. I am impelled, coerced, forced to do what you want to do.
Since you claim to not have any kind of viable solution, perhaps, then, you don't believe in a free market, nor in the charity of a free people. Perhaps, your Catholicism requires a controlled market and a regulated people to "do the right thing."
Where is the "faith" in all that? Do you have faith in the good, or do you require good to be mandated by the opinion and force of men.