Closing insurance loopholes is a matter of life and death!

M. Simon's mention of drivers licenses reminded me of one of the most annoying features of the health care debate, and that is the false analogy the Democrats make between mandatory auto insurance and mandatory health insurance. Few things insult me more than to be lectured like a child by a lecturer who is demonstrably wrong, yet who has been given the substantial power of the mainstream media microphone.

For starters, driving is not like health, which is an aspect of life. We all live, but we do not all drive. But the most important distinction between Obamacare and mandatory auto insurance is a simple one which goes to the very nature of insurance. Insurance is based on risk, and risk allocation. Poor risks mean more expensive premiums. State governments may mandate auto insurance, but so far as I know, none of them have been so insane as to mandate that an insurance company cannot charge a bad driver more money, or a good driver less. And it would be laughable to imagine mandating that an auto insurance policy cover accidents which happened before the policy. That would bankrupt the industry, right?

Which is why I don't think it is fair to consider the monster that is Obamacare to be "insurance reform" at all. It is nothing less than insurance destruction.

By requiring subsidization of all people regardless of risk, and by requiring insurance companies to insure people regardless of pre-existing conditions, Obamacare turns the definition of insurance on its head and guarantees the bankruptcy of the industry. Might as well mandate that auto insurance companies issue policies which would cover any driver (even unlicensed drivers and drivers without the intention or ability to pay), even covering any previous accidents the driver already had!

A lot of commentators have observed that there is nothing to stop people from just waiting until a health catastrophe strikes, and only then buying insurance. And why not? Once people realize that the companies cannot turn them down, it will become in their interest to wait.

I guess the next step will be making it illegal for life insurance companies to refuse to issue life insurance to people who are on their deathbeds. But why stop there? Isn't it just as unfair to discriminate against people who already died? I mean, for them, death is a pre-existing condition, right?

It is high time we had life insurance for the already dead!

(Seriously, why should their next of kin have to suffer because they weren't lucky enough or rich enough to have life insurance? It is totally unfair! Life insurance is a human right -- and it should not be denied according to the actuarial whims of greedy corporations trying to make a buck.)

posted by Eric on 03.23.10 at 12:02 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/9498






Comments

guarantees the bankruptcy of the industry

Its bankruptcy and its bailout and/or installation as a permanent bureaucracy with no lawful competitors. That's what the industry has been buying for years with its political contributions and fake jobs for politicos and their friends and families. Their investment is maturing.

guy on internet   ·  March 23, 2010 01:20 PM

Mandatory auto insurance is, as far as I know everywhere, only for liability.

You're forced to purchase insurance because that's the only way to make sure that the risks you place on others will be made right if they come to pass. (Very much out of Nozick, in fact!)

(And you're also only required to have it to operate your car on public property.

A farm vehicle that never leaves the farm? No insurance needed.

Race cars driven only the track? No insurance mandate.)

The argument (which I've actually heard) that health insurance should be mandatory because the State will end up picking up the bill for treating you anyway is... circular at best.

Sigivald   ·  March 23, 2010 01:52 PM

I think you missed the key on the auto insurance comparison - many people live without a car, especially in the cities served with good subway systems. That is a choice...

Eddie   ·  March 23, 2010 04:35 PM

If the 'Rats want to make the analogy work, they have to mandate that everyone buy auto insurance, whether you drive or not.

Yeah, that sounds fair.

alanstorm   ·  March 25, 2010 10:37 AM

One possible analogy to health with a pre-existing condition is real estate with a pre-existing condition.

Joseph Hertzlinger   ·  March 26, 2010 02:11 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


March 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits