Is mandated car insurance a socialist program?

Question

Many states now mandate that any driver on their roads carry insurance. What is the difference between this and health insurance, in the current debate?

Answer 1

Sigh!
What everybody keeps overlooking in this debate is the fact that when car insurance wasn't mandatory only bad drivers and well off people had insurance. A large number of "safe" drivers opted out from buying a policy. This effected the cost of insurance. Insurance companies had to spread their losses over a smaller number of people, which caused the cost of insurance to be high. When all people had to buy insurance, a larger base allowed insurance companies to spread the losses further and bring the policy cost down.
Today, a number of healthy young people don't buy health insurance. Only people who need or expect health problems buy insurance. This limits the base over which the losses can be spread. If all people bought insurance, the cost would come down for all of us. This isn't a tax. This isn't paying for someone else's insurance. This doesn't even create a government agency.
The fact is, if a person gets hurt and doesn't have health insurance, we the tax payers end up paying the bill under the current system. I don't understand the resistence to this proposal. It eliminates taxpayers cost for covering the uninsured. It will bring down the cost of health insurance. It doesn't create a government agency. It doesn't take away the current system. It preserves the free market in health insurance.
No new tax and cheaper health insurance. What's the problem?

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

So what if mandated car insurance is a socialist program? I can't see how it would be, as no state funds are applied to privately advance the insured. It is simply a means to protect the responsible from the irresponsible. Mandated health insurance protects the idiot and his or her family from themselves. Actually, mandated health insurance is quite conservative--why should I have to pay for your ailments if you can't? Most of us are wise enough to carry health insurance. Mandated health insurance simply insures that care is available for everyone. NOTE: Yes, I do support subsidizing those who cannot afford health insurance. I am also in favor of forcing employers to pay just wages and benefits for just work. Why should they get rich while their employees must seek food stamps and public assistance to survive.

Answer 4

Not exactly.

Socialism teaches that the government is responsible for caring for the individual as the individual is less capable of caring for himself. Government mandated health care is the government stepping in and saying that you no longer have the right to decide how to care for yourself.

State mandated auto insurance is the government saying that you have to be responsible for damage you do to someone else. The states don't make you get "Comp & Collission" insurance to protect your car or your passengers. They make you get "Liability" insurance to repair any damage you do to other people's property.

So instead of saying "let me tell you how to care for yourself" they are saying, "If you break it you better be able to pay for it."

Answer 5

No, it's not socialism. Mandated auto insurance is a perfect example of fascism. Fascism is the merger of corporations (big business) and government. In the case of mandated auto insurance, the government requires you to buy insurance from their buddies in the private sector. If that's not fascism, what is? I think the problem could be solved by including insurance in the price of gas. With everyone paying into the kitty, it would make the rates lower overall, and if you don't want to pay the tax, you don't have to drive. Gas prices would go up a few cents, and insurance rates would disappear

Answer 6

The mandatory part of car insurance is to cover the cost of damage or harm you do to other people or their property. This is to protect other people from your negligence or carelessness. Part of a government's duty is to protect people from others. Mandating car insurance is one way to do that.

Health insurance is a group policy whereby you don't have to pay the full price of the medical services you use.

Significant difference.

Answer 7

There are states without mandated car insurance?I wasn't aware of that.Car insurance should be mandatory.A car is still a luxury,if you can't afford insurance,you can't afford a car.Period.Health insurance is another matter.I'm not familiar with the details of Hillarycare,but I think it subsidizes the cost for the poor.It is the least America can do,provide health care for all.I'm no fan of Hillary,nor a democrat,and the health care issue doesn't affect me really,but I DO think health care should be a "right" of any citizen.Car insurance isn't,nor should it be,a "right"

Answer 8

The Wiz forgot that the Lawyer lobby is the most powerful group in America, and the Democrats oppose any sort of Tort reform. Nice try, though.

By the way, Republicans want Health care reform. We own businesses, and are getting creamed. The problem with Hillary's vague plan is that we have a feeling that we will get creamed even further. I don't understand the Democrats. They want to nail anyone who tries to make it on their own and help supply the economy with JOBS. This is the same party that opposes any privatization of Social Security (My money), and not only wants to increase my self employment tax, but may even reduce my benefit (as if it's jack anyway). How could I possibly vote for them? They plan to crush me and hurt my employees (by forcing me to lay them off or reduce salaries to survive).

Answer 9

Whenever government forces one to send one's money against one's will, it has the effect of a tax. The insurance lobby loves mandatory insurance (wouldn't you love it if the government protected your business from competition and forced people to buy your product?), and the lawyers love it, too (because it's easier to collect money from a third party).

Politicians don't give a turd about us, or freedom, or the Consitution; they listen to money, and they live on power. Get used to it.

Answer 10

I believe it to be very socialist and unconstitutional. If I take the risk of not having insurance and have an accident, then I should be held accountable for my actions and if it is my fault then I pay damages. The same could be said about Health Insurance, if I am willing to take the risk of not being insured then who are you and anyone else to tell me that I "need" it. I am surprised that you don't see it that way. I also am against the seat belt law and the helmet law. When government tells you how to live they have exceeded their bounds. What next, the government is going to tell me what my daily menu is going to be? We need to stand together to keep the government out of our daily lives as much as possible and be held accountable for our own decisions. But I suspect, if that be the case, then the liberals won't feel victimized and won't have someone to blame for their lot in life.