That's to spread out the risk - - which is exactly the same principle underlying universal health care coverage and mandated policies (or the penalty fee assessed to those who dod not buy in).
What's the difference? I don't hear the far-right and Tea Partiers demanding the right to drive uninsured.
Why?
Because their policies may have coverage limits or exclusions, and they certainly don't want to be hit by an uninsured driver.
And don't want their own health care premiums and costs run up by people who run to the emergency room and obtain care without coverage.
This way, people either make a contribution into the health care system or obtain insurance.
If you live in the floodplain, the Federal Government mandates that you have flood insurance.
ReplyDeleteGreat comparison.
ReplyDeleteGood point.
ReplyDeleteAnd look at the regulated processions in Wisconsin, wherein the government mandates the hours of training, examinations and other standards that come with costs.
ReplyDeleteI was once a licensed private investigator and I had to buy either a liability bond or an insurance policy to operate my business in Wisconsin.
How is this a good comparison?
ReplyDeleteIts the individual STATES that mandate the purchase of automobile insurance, they were entitled to make that decision on their own.
However the health insurance is totally different because the feds are mandating the purchase.
This is like shooting fish in a bucket. The last time I checked, one DOES NOT HAVE TO DRIVE, therefore, they would not be forced to buy auto insurance would they? If you do not live in a flood plain then you do not have to buy flood insurance. In order to live in the US legally, one HAS to have insurance. Please tell me one other service or product the Federal Government is forcing someone to purchase and have no choice in the matter.
ReplyDeleteDriving is NOT a right.
ReplyDeleteOf course auto insurance is mandatory and it should be. It would benefit many people in case of any accident.
ReplyDeletePurchase of auto or any other insurance to address risk, must always be voluntry, to be properly reffered to as insurance. If mandated by force of government law, be it federal or state, it is socialism, and in conflict with a free society based on personal responsibility and accountability.
ReplyDeleteThere are other ways howeve, of protecting the broader public interest, without so severly infringing on people's right to be free, including how much risk to take - as was the stucture of previous driving laws, as ever more draconian methods are initiated to force prople, as such, by states, as a form of extortion under cover of law in desperate grabs for more revenue.
Additionally, it cannot be said driving is a privilege, rather than a right, since most of today's urban environments require the ability to get around freely and autonomously (drive) to simply get by with any degree of success.
But, a right that can and should be legally taken away, if repeatedly, delibertely abused by an individual - as were driving laws perevious to the, forced, insurance purchase "scam."
That said, even if forced purchase were to be as such, it should be the driver (one single premium) on whom insurance would be required, not each individual, dumb vehicle owned - thus imposing a relative, financial burden on eveyone, far gerater than would be the case if involved in an accident with an unisured person - unjust imposition on innocents, as is usually the case with many government regulations resorting to a, socialism type matrix.
I doube many have been able to see the correlation between the failing economy, and the rise in crime, home invasions, robberies, theft, etc. as related to passage of mandatory, auto insurance laws. (check and see the match in graph curves).
The reason is: It has been made impractical, unfeasable,and even financially impossible to own several vehicles "for most," and as so many would like, and which to some are a form of investment or savings - God forbid; personal pleasure - which, not incidentaly, leads to vastly increaced commerce in related fields (and tax revenue)- such as auto parts and service, aftrermarket accessories, and so many other, commercial interests to numerous to name...
And afterall, no one can drive or ride more than one, dumb vehicle - incapable of action on its own - at one time, while then, everyone driving, whatever, would have to carry insurance...
So, for just a moment, imagine what I say is true and valid, then picture the subsequent, commercial activity and increased pleasure and joy the pubic would be privileged to - as a result of insuring each driver, instead of each vehicle, while still structured in such a way public interests would be adequately protected... as oppossed to how it is now, where those selfish and inconsiderate of other's freedom and joy, garner all the personal gain as the insurance industry reaps massive profits at the cost of increased misery and social failure for eferyone else - due to being uable to afford driving, much less enjouying sefveral ownership os vehicles.
This can, and I beleive does lead to boredom, despertion, and crime as a response, while the economy is destoryed for everyone else other then the insurance industry amassing vast fortunes froma such unjust oppression and exploitation of the masses...
That'as how that brand of safety looks and prersonally feels to me... Say it isn't a true view...