Saturday, November 14, 2009

Universal Auto Insurance

For the umteenth time I just heard someone say, "The government makes you buy auto insurance, why not health insurance?" You would think that common sense would answer that question but apparently not. Let me give it a whirl.

First, the government does not require that every man, woman and child have car insurance. Driving is a privilege (unless you are an illegal alien in Florida and then it is a right. By the way, that was "snark") and those who wish to have the privilege of driving are required to purchase insurance to protect those other people who are exercising the privilege to drive. My great aunt never drove and she never had car insurance. No law requires that my grandchildren to have car insurance and nobody is threatening to send them to jail because they don't have it. But that is not the biggest flaw in the car insurance/health insurance false analogy.

Can you imagine what it would cost if auto insurers were forced to cover all drivers regardless of their driving records? How about if auto insurers couldn't cancel a policy for any reason? Now, before someone blasts me for "comparing" a previous diagnosis of cancer to a previous record of speeding tickets that is not my point. On the other hand, if the analogy is good for the goose it is good for the gander-deal with it. Insurance is based on risk. The higher the risk, the more difficult it is to obtain a policy and the more it costs if you do obtain a policy.

There are plenty of problems with our health care system but politicizing the system will only make those problems worse. The Dems have laid waste to their claim of the moral high ground by refusing to pass tort reform. Yeah, they're compassionate just so long as their compassion doesn't negatively impact a major contributor like, oh, I don't know, trial lawyers. And remember those "golden" employer provided insurance policies? Well, Congress is upping the level on them because otherwise the taxes would fall on, drumroll...union members. Compassion my ass.

This is a power grab that has nothing to do with compassion. If it were, they would target the reform at the problems, donors be damned. And while I am on a rant, Obama ain't going to pay for this from "his stash." The government is broke. The government doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. That "stash" belongs to those of us who get our happy asses out of bed everyday and go to work whether we want to or not. I am tired of people who talk about about "fairness" who don't give a rat's ass about being "fair" to the taxpayers who are going to be forced to pay for all this.

Well, I started at one place and ended up somewhere else. Not unlike ObamaCare.

1 comment:

yukio ngaby said...

There's a lot of problems with the car insurance / health insurance comparison. One of the big ones for me though is that most state govts. (not the fed) require liabilty insurance, not accident insurance. They require you to be responisble for the damage you inflict on another, not damage inflicted upon you. It's a completely different idea and legal concept. This is of course in addition to the whole everybody MUST BE COVERED nonsense that ObamaCare requires.

In actuality the only real similarities in that comparison is that the word "insurance" is used. Legally and conceptually the ideas are completely different. The intent of the law is completely different. The regulation of the laws are completely different. The enforcement arm of the laws are completely different. And the origin of the law (fed compared to state and local) is completely different.

All of this, of course, does not take into account the obvious and numerous differences between the health insurance and auto insurance industries.

Obama's whole analogy is garbage. And he's probably smart enough to know it and certainly people in his admin. know better.