- Moderator
- #41
In terms of health insurance, I agree with you. When it comes to auto insurance, however, I do not.
The reason auto insurance in mandated is to make sure you are able to pay for any damages your actions cause someone else. If somebody hits my car and totals it, I want them to be able to pay for it. Not everybody has assets that you can sue for through court. Sure, if they can't pay for my damages and have nothing of theirs I can seize through legal means they'll end up in jail and be punished, but that doesn't help me buy and pay for a new car that I may not be in a position to do.
It's the same rationale for mandatory health insurance. If you get sick and can't pay your hospital bill, other's will be stuck with the tab. The only difference is that you can at least choose not to drive a car, whereas the health insurance mandate is aimed at every living person for their entire life. That is a significant differences, and it does make it much worse in my opinion. But they are still based on the same idea of pre-punishing someone for something they haven't done yet, something they may never do.
It is not the same rationale. If I cause damage to someone else's vehicle and can't pay for it I am directly harming that individual. If I can't pay my medical bills, it's possible they may raise costs on the care of others to make up for it, but that's a choice they make, not me. Indirectly, I may have caused that to happen, but it was ultimately the hospital that made the choice to reimburse themselves by that method as opposed to others.
Last edited: