English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

When you drive you are putting others at risk so I can see why they want mandatory car insurance. Who are you putting at risk, besides yourself, without having health insurance?

2007-09-19 05:21:13 · 9 answers · asked by civil_av8r 7 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

9 answers

Unfortunately laws about mandatory insurance are intended to benefit everyone but the person who pays for it. Auto insurance is intended to benefit the insurance company, automotive repair facilities, lawyers, chiropractors and lets not forget the uninsured motorist. Health Insurance is designed to benefit insurance companies and the health care industry, flood insurance is designed to benefit the insurance company, FEMA and those that don't buy flood insurance yet suffer a loss to flood, home owner's insurance (hazard insurance) is designed to benefit the insurance company and the mortgage company. Yes, having these instruments can lessen your financial loss personally, but they don't really offer protection from financial ruin. For example if your auto accident settlement exceeds the limits of your liability insurance, the "victim" can seek restitution from you and file suit to get a judgment and garnishment order. In today's outrageous civil suit judgments in the multi-million dollar ranges, your 50/200/50 liability coverage won't come close. Most health care policies have a "lifetime limit" (usually about $1,000,000) and again, if you suffer a catastrophic disease or trauma, this is easily exceeded by our outrageous health care expenses charged by the doctors and hospitals. Anyhow, notice that the "Insurance Companies" benefit in any case. Just look at the financial statements of Allstate, The Hartford, GEICO etc., and you'll see the fleecing of America.

2007-09-19 05:42:17 · answer #1 · answered by Jim 5 · 0 0

All insurance is based on spreading the cost of risk. So the people most affected are those who least use insurance. The benefit goes to the ones who need it most. The riskiest users of insurance should pay the highest premiums just like you do in life, home and auto insurance. And that's why insurance premiums go through the roof. If you live in a place that gets leveled by a hurricane or a flood year after year, you pay more. If you drive an expensive sports car, you pay more. The more benefits that Insurance companies pay out, the more they collect. Our problem is we like to live risky lifestyles yet are unwilling to pay for it. We like it when everyone else chips in for us.

2007-09-19 06:19:06 · answer #2 · answered by JohnFromNC 7 · 0 0

If you do not have health insurance you will still receive care. If you do not have the means to pay for that care and it can be very expensive, someone else will. The hospitals must try to recover their loses and the only way to do that is to increase the costs to the insurance companies. The insurance companies must recover their loses by raising their premiums. Those with no insurance who never need healt care don't make any difference but the ones who do have a huge negative impact on the system.

.

2007-09-19 05:29:14 · answer #3 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 2 2

it is going to likely be a regulation that announces each and every tax payer ought to pay a element of their wages with the intention to help the well being care difficulty. what's incorrect with that. Why no longer pay a sprint at a time and not take the possibility that as quickly as you get sick then you definitely've a extensive bill to pay and no money. think of approximately it. it extremely works in virtually the different civilized united states interior the international.. why no longer the U.S. you already know why.. because of the fact human beings stay on the desire they gained't get sick.. how stupid. and additionally, docs merely love the liberty to cost exorbitant costs to human beings.. they're very wealthy in this united states... No, it sort of feels that Hillary's way of the inhabitants paying a share and the government paying a share ought to get all human beings equivalent well being care. good Heavens it won't be ready to be worse than that's now. think of approximately it.,. we purchase, or ought to purchase abode coverage.. yet we are hoping we on no account lose our abode.. we purchase existence coverage and we helpful as hell are unlikely to income from it. Why are maximum of against the main severe of all scientific coverage.. because of the fact each and every and all human beings persons is going to choose it sometime.. i'm undecided why individuals are so ignorant in this!

2016-11-05 21:04:55 · answer #4 · answered by eaddie 4 · 0 0

If we don't have mandatory health care think of all the damage you will be doing to bureaucrats and politicians. Look at all the money they will not have to spend. Look at the the paper work that cannot be pushed when your insurance is verified. What a sad place it would be for all of them. That is why we need mandated health care.

2007-09-19 05:27:10 · answer #5 · answered by Jason 2 · 2 2

Everybody who has to pay insurance premiums.
Insurance isn't about risk or safety, it's about paying off your bills when bad stuff happens.
So if you get sick or hurt without health insuance your options are-
1. Die
2. Get medical attention that you can't pay for that will drive up the cost of insurance for everybody else.
Can you believe it that most people choose option 2? What a bunch of selfish buggers. Government available health care will make sure everybody is taken care of, and hopefully, will get preventative medicine so that they don't have to go to the emergency room when their illness gets so bad they are dying.
My 2 cents.

2007-09-19 05:37:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

Of course the stock answer is that "we all will have to pay for those without health care in the long run." It should be pointed out, however, that if we told life-long smokers and drinkers and drug-users and those engaged in high-risk sex that we WON'T pay for their health care, it would deter those activities and make people more responsible for their own actions...Government should play no role in social welfare, period.

2007-09-19 05:25:37 · answer #7 · answered by makrothumeo2 4 · 3 2

Just wait, pretty soon, they will be saying, the government should pay for auto insurance for poor people also.

2007-09-19 05:40:58 · answer #8 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 1 0

An uninsured person goes to the hospital having a heart attack, and has to have surgery to save him (by law, he cannot be denied treatment because he has no insurance). That surgery and the treatment after costs about $160,000. He can't pay it, so who does? WE DO. That is why doctor's visits, tests, surgeries, and other medical treatments cost so much. We are already paying for this man's medical costs. That's why we are at risk.

2007-09-19 05:25:54 · answer #9 · answered by Lisa M 5 · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers