Ummm.... oops. Thanks for that rebuking. But you knew what I meant, but I do appreciate the correction because who knew how long I would have gone on spelling it like that making a total ass of myself. Also, I find the word pedantic a bit pretentious but useful. Of course, pretentious itself is a pretentious word, so where does that leave me?

I also wanted to add to my previous argument. By saying that, 'yes' mandatory insurance is a good idea, but so is paying the bruiser when he stops by to pick up the protection money for the "Jonny". This doesn't make it right.

{For the pleasure of Linus and to avoid any further embarrassment, I went back and corrected my spelling of extortion.)

Also, as far as car insurance goes, how many people are deterred from driving or imprisoned or fined due to not being able to afford car insurance? I don't know the stats, but anything that limits people's options should, in my opinion, be dealt with in such a way as to expediate and further the causes of personal transportation, hence employment, hence in the "American Ideal", a form of freedom through money. Again I don't know the statistics, but I am willing to bet one of my testicles that the mandatory insurance laws have more of a negative impact on minorities , which would explain why the Republican from Massachusetts is all for required health insurance, because only those who have the means to pay for it will receive it, anyone else will be further pushed down into the dregs of society. This in a sense is becoming more like a "financial or economical monarchy" where the peasants keep getting poorer and the rich get richer. Maybe the mandatory insurance law for cars is supposed to promote mass transit?

Ultimately, it just seems to me that a person should have a choice whether or not they want to take the risk of having or not having car insurance. Regardless of how this would effect the insurance industry and other peoples rates, again this is all set and the responsiblity of the car insurance corporations. It's not like insurance companies are doing business out of the kindness of their hearts, its a business and a service, which I'm sure due to reasons and circumstances that are mostly in the interest and favor of these companies, has become a service which the government has set consequences for those who don't purchase.

Ok, final example. My wife has an uncle who has never purchased health insurance and purchases only mandatory insurance and through luck and whatever other factors you want to include, he has only been to the hospital once in the last 10 years. He figured the amount that he saved doing this and he ended up saving, well, lots of money. Even though he did pay for his hospital bill out of his pocket, the money he saved by not paying 10 years of insurance payments was well above the amount he paid for the hospital visit. The same can also be said in my case. In the two years, I have paid well over $3000 in health insurance, yet all of my combined hospital bills and clinic visits have come to less than $800.

So I guess in a way it comes down to gambling whether or not you're going to get sick or injured in a certain amount of time. And to reiterate my argument in a different light, the government should not force a person to gamble on 'red' when they should also have the freedom to bet on 'black'.

Sounds like a bad idea to me. People are bringing up mandatory auto insurance to compare. IT's a good one. In Florida we are a no-fault state, meaning -- if you are in an auto accident you take care of yourself regardless of who caused it or received the ticket. Seems screwy to me. My boyfriend, one peaceful day while we were driving, was arrested because he couldn't afford insurance for a few months. His criminal record was lilly white before that. Weird. So, I'm saying... this mandatory health insurance stuff. That's even more bizonkers. Sounds like a lot of hassle for a lot of people who don't need it. Although, I would like some health insurance myself.

disco suicide wrote:Also, as far as car insurance goes, how many people are deterred from driving or imprisoned or fined due to not being able to afford car insurance? I don't know the stats, but anything that limits people's options should, in my opinion, be dealt with in such a way as to expediate and further the causes of personal transportation, hence employment, hence in the "American Ideal", a form of freedom through money.

I'm guessing more people are deterred from driving by not being able to afford a car. Some people are probably deterred by not being able to afford repairs, others by not being able to afford regular maintenance, and still others by not being able to afford gasoline. There may even be some who are deterred by not being able to afford parking. There are many costs involved in driving a car, and I don't think it's unreasonable that insurance be one of them.

Again I don't know the statistics, but I am willing to bet one of my testicles that the mandatory insurance laws have more of a negative impact on minorities , which would explain why the Republican from Massachusetts is all for required health insurance, because only those who have the means to pay for it will receive it, anyone else will be further pushed down into the dregs of society. This in a sense is becoming more like a "financial or economical monarchy" where the peasants keep getting poorer and the rich get richer. Maybe the mandatory insurance law for cars is supposed to promote mass transit?

I don't think this seems plausible.

Ultimately, it just seems to me that a person should have a choice whether or not they want to take the risk of having or not having car insurance.

This sounds great until you are hit by an uninsured driver. Who's picking up the tab? The driver? You can't get blood from a stone. You? Even if you can afford it, that hardly seems fair. The state?

I'm not totally sure about health insurance, etc., but it seems like mandatory auto insurance is just fine. I also don't think it's designed to discourage people from driving at all.

Also, as far as car insurance goes, how many people are deterred from driving or imprisoned or fined due to not being able to afford car insurance? I don't know the stats, but anything that limits people's options should, in my opinion, be dealt with in such a way as to expediate and further the causes of personal transportation, hence employment, hence in the "American Ideal", a form of freedom through money.

I'm guessing more people are deterred from driving by not being able to afford a car. Some people are probably deterred by not being able to afford repairs, others by not being able to afford regular maintenance, and still others by not being able to afford gasoline. There may even be some who are deterred by not being able to afford parking. There are many costs involved in driving a car, and I don't think it's unreasonable that insurance be one of them.

Be that as it may, insurance only exarcerbates and does not help anyone who has problems affording a car. I don't think it is completely outlandish to assume that there are a number of drivers who aren't able to drive due to insurance costs or insurance related fines, costs, etc.

Again I don't know the statistics, but I am willing to bet one of my testicles that the mandatory insurance laws have more of a negative impact on minorities , which would explain why the Republican from Massachusetts is all for required health insurance, because only those who have the means to pay for it will receive it, anyone else will be further pushed down into the dregs of society. This in a sense is becoming more like a "financial or economical monarchy" where the peasants keep getting poorer and the rich get richer. Maybe the mandatory insurance law for cars is supposed to promote mass transit?

I don't think this seems plausible.

also don't think it is completely implausible either.

This sounds great until you are hit by an uninsured driver. Who's picking up the tab? The driver? You can't get blood from a stone. You? Even if you can afford it, that hardly seems fair. The state?

I'm not totally sure about health insurance, etc., but it seems like mandatory auto insurance is just fine. I also don't think it's designed to discourage people from driving at all.

Perhaps if people didn't have the failsafe that some consider insurance to be, some drivers would be more careful not to get into accidents. Not to say that they aren't careful now, but every factor is part of the formula.

I think we obviously have differing opinions on the matter, and while I respect you and your argument I simply disagree that a service should be required by law. Either choice has its negatives, its just that I prefer the one that gives the people a choice in the matter. I don't believe anything justifies taking away someones right to choose.

disco suicide wrote:Perhaps if people didn't have the failsafe that some consider insurance to be, some drivers would be more careful not to get into accidents. Not to say that they aren't careful now, but every factor is part of the formula.

I think we obviously have differing opinions on the matter, and while I respect you and your argument I simply disagree that a service should be required by law. Either choice has its negatives, its just that I prefer the one that gives the people a choice in the matter. I don't believe anything justifies taking away someones right to choose.

So that's your solution? "Hey everybody: Be sure not to crash!" Plus, I'm not sure there are tons of drivers who see insurance as a 'failsafe.' Getting in even a little fender bender is a hassle and a waste of the afternoon, so I don't think there are many drivers out there who cruise around saying "Fuck it, I'm insured!"

disco suicide wrote:

Again I don't know the statistics, but I am willing to bet one of my testicles that the mandatory insurance laws have more of a negative impact on minorities , which would explain why the Republican from Massachusetts is all for required health insurance, because only those who have the means to pay for it will receive it, anyone else will be further pushed down into the dregs of society. This in a sense is becoming more like a "financial or economical monarchy" where the peasants keep getting poorer and the rich get richer. Maybe the mandatory insurance law for cars is supposed to promote mass transit?

I don't think this seems plausible.

also don't think it is completely implausible either.

Okay, I'm going to use stronger language here. I think it is completely implausible that anyone is trying to keep people from driving based on race or income. In fact, I think it is completely implausible that almost anybody in power (particularly Republicans) is trying to keep people from driving, and anybody who is is probably motivated by environmental concerns or similar. Drivers buy gasoline, and pay taxes on it. They buy oil, they buy tires, they pay highway tolls, they pay parking tickets, they pay registration fees on their cars -- they spend and consume quite a bit! The government loves this. Republicans love this. A lot of these drivers are black, but their money is green enough.

This sounds great until you are hit by an uninsured driver. Who's picking up the tab? The driver? You can't get blood from a stone. You? Even if you can afford it, that hardly seems fair. The state?

I'm not totally sure about health insurance, etc., but it seems like mandatory auto insurance is just fine. I also don't think it's designed to discourage people from driving at all.

Perhaps if people didn't have the failsafe that some consider insurance to be, some drivers would be more careful not to get into accidents. Not to say that they aren't careful now, but every factor is part of the formula.

I don't think insurance is a "failsafe," and I don't think most people consider it to be. In addition to the hassle that RAoF rightly says a fender bender is, it can be quite costly, even if you have insurance. I have had one speeding ticket in my life, and it drove up my premiums significantly for something like two years. I can only imagine what I would have paid - and might still be paying - if I had actually ever hit somebody. Insurance is made mandatory not as a way of forcing drivers to protect themselves, but as a way of forcing drivers to protect their potential victims.

So that's your solution? "Hey everybody: Be sure not to crash!"

Isn't that what people do already??

Plus, I'm not sure there are tons of drivers who see insurance as a 'failsafe.' Getting in even a little fender bender is a hassle and a waste of the afternoon, so I don't think there are many drivers out there who cruise around saying "Fuck it, I'm insured!"

Heh. While I think that is funny, that is not quite what I mean either, I merely was saying that it is a psychological factor. Failsafe may have been too extreme a word to use. And also I didn't say 'tons' of people, but some. Kind of important there.

Okay, I'm going to use stronger language here. I think it is completely implausible that anyone is trying to keep people from driving based on race or income. In fact, I think it is completely implausible that almost anybody in power (particularly Republicans) is trying to keep people from driving, and anybody who is is probably motivated by environmental concerns or similar. Drivers buy gasoline, and pay taxes on it. They buy oil, they buy tires, they pay highway tolls, they pay parking tickets, they pay registration fees on their cars -- they spend and consume quite a bit! The government loves this. Republicans love this. A lot of these drivers are black, but their money is green enough.

I don't think the law was intentionally created in order to subdue minorities, but there has been no effort, I am aware of, by the government to standardize or regulate it, making it more affordable for those of lower incomes. I really don't think its purpose was to disable minorities from driving a car, but it is another perk. I guess in my warped view of politics it is more so the republicans and big business which want strengthen the upper class and bolster big business in order to help out their friends and themselves. The easiest way to do this is by pretty much taking it from the lower class who have no say or power to fight back.

My main point besides having the right to choose to purchase a service, is that the money you save from paying out to insurance in most cases is more money than you'll ever put into after-accident repairs without insurance. Why do you think the insurance companies do what they do? The system would only be just if the company broke even, which would mean that all of the money they received was equally distributed. But insurance companies for the most part are incredibly lucrative. My grandfather owned an insurance company before he died, and let me tell you he had some cash. If everyone paid out of their pocket for car accidents nothing would be lost accept for those who made the mistakes. I wouldn't be paying higher rates due to fraud, idiots, and bad drivers, whereas the system is now: In order to drive I am legally required to pay for a service in which the price is partially derived from other peoples mistakes and lies. This diminishes personal accountability and personal freedom through choice. If the rest of my argument seems at all tenuous, this is my main point.

disco suicide wrote:
I don't think the law was intentionally created in order to subdue minorities, but there has been no effort, I am aware of, by the government to standardize or regulate it, making it more affordable for those of lower incomes. I really don't think its purpose was to disable minorities from driving a car, but it is another perk. I guess in my warped view of politics it is more so the republicans and big business which want strengthen the upper class and bolster big business in order to help out their friends and themselves. The easiest way to do this is by pretty much taking it from the lower class who have no say or power to fight back.

The correct word in this paragraph is "warped." Republicans and big business benefit if everybody drives as much as possible. It is not paranoid to think that powerful people don't care about lost freedoms for the less fortunate, but it is paranoid to think that they'd promote a policy like that against their own best interests. So far I have not seen, or imagined, a scenario where The Man wants poor people off of the streets in their poor neighborhoods, staying home instead of going to work and shop.

One small point: the state government of New Jersey negotiated with car insurers a couple of years ago to reduce rates. I believe (but am not sure) that the effort was successful. Probably it was a good way to score some political points and get people driving more and paying more taxes.

Your main point (about the injustice of being forced to pay a private, profitable company for a service you may never use) is a valid one. But it's not true that an out-of-pocket, no-insurance system would penalize only those who make the mistakes. Unless you consider being hit by an indigent driver, or in a hit-and-run, to be a mistake.

sunlore wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:I don't understand the reasoning behind mandatory health insurance.

The reasoning is that some people are simple not apt to take care of their own business, for whatever reason. In these cases, the state (federal or not) should step up and take care of it, because that's what they're for.

Not crap.

That could be the reasoning behind some kind of safety net in health care. Forcing everyone to pay for private health insurance is not a case of the government stepping in to help. There may be some amount of state subsidy, which would bring the policy closer to what you're describing. In that case, it would be an indirect government health plan: one whose most distinctive point is that it preserves the profits of private insurance companies better than a Canadian or European system.

To me, none of the justifications for mandatory auto insurance apply for health insurance. Driving is regulated only when it happens on state-owned roads, it is at least theoretically avoidable, and it's pretty firmly established as something less than an absolute right (for example, you need a state license to do it). None of these applies to living.

By driving, people are putting themselves in a virtually unique position to cause great harm to life and property through negligence, malice, or just bad luck. It's the most dangerous activity most people do in a given year, especially in the danger to others. Mandatory insurance is one solution to this problem. Society often regulates particular activities with these characteristics (practicing medicine, owning a firearm, building a skyscraper). But applying the same standard to living itself?

I'm thinking CRAP.