I keep hearing people that we have a problem in the USA that people do not have health insurance. Another problem we have is that people do not drive with adequate auto insurance or collision.
To me the government does not belong mandating healthcare coverage, however this train wreck is coming down the pike real soon. Since we are into the social programs, why don't we make auto insurance a government funded program as well. That way we all have equal coverage should we get into an accident.
Thoughts on this crazy idea?
2007-09-24 04:54:07 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Please don't give the left wing liberal loonies any ideas. If socialized medicine were enacted, there would be a part of it applicable to auto insurance. Most auto policies incldue medical payments coverage. That coverage would not be needed.
2007-09-24 05:00:18 · answer #1 · answered by regerugged 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I'm not sure whether your "crazy" idea is meant to be sarcastic.
However, there was a time when the law was based on concepts of right and wrong. Now it's based on the interests of lobbyists and the rich people they represent.
Making insurance mandatory, thereby punishing people who can't afford more than a third-hand wreck to use for commuting to work, is an example of the latter kind of law.
Yes, if we are to require poor people to have auto insurance, and require them to get to work, often in areas where we've failed to devise any public transportation whatsoever, then we should subsidize their insurance.
But that won't happen because people are greedy. They talk a big line about universal health insurance, but when anyone comes up with a plan, it becomes clear that it has to be paid for.
If we're that uninterested in the physical well-being of our fellow humans, we're even less interested in any else's liabilities or financial lives.
2007-09-24 05:04:09 · answer #2 · answered by Angelique 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you're being serious instead of sarcastic: it's VERY unfortunate that you're equating quality, affordable healthcare to a privilege. Because driving a vehicle is a PRIVILEGE. Receiving 'quality', low-cost health care shouldn't be an option. It shouldn't even be up for debate.
People are so quick to trivialize the significance of the healthcare crisis. There are millions of 'under' & 'uninsured' american families being forced to endure this reality.
And by no means am I saying, allow the government to control healthcare 'carte blanche'. But there is a DIRE need to overhaul the current system.
(*reform = regulating the insurance, healthcare & pharmacutical industries, etc...)
And just as an FYI.. did you know your elected officials receive FREE HEALTH CARE for life. That is in addition to the HEALTHY pensions they receive once they leave office. Where's the outrage in that? Millions of us go without - while they receive unlimited services. They were able to reach an agreement on their TAXPAYER funded healthcare coverage - but they CONTINUE to debate over coverage for the rest of the country.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/17/edwards-threatens-to-cut-off-health-insurance-for-congress/
2007-09-24 10:49:24 · answer #3 · answered by young, black & gifted 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Some provinces in Canada have both govt funded health care and auto insurance. For example British Columbia. is it a good idea? Who knows either way you pay.
2007-09-24 05:02:19 · answer #4 · answered by David 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, it is bad enough that they require drivers to purchase insurance (which harms both drivers and insurance companies, as drivers can't choose to only pay for the crashes they cause instead of subsidizing other people's accidents and the insurance companies can't refuse to insure unsafe drivers, which raises everybody else's rates).
How about we just repeal every "social program" that politicians have created over the last century or so? None of them are doing any good at all (unless you consider harming the economy to be good, as many people do).
2007-09-24 05:09:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gee, shouldn't the government be handing out "free" stuff to all of the citizens?
Isn't that how the founding fathers meant for it to be? An over-bloated, tax gobbling, inefficient nanny state.
Housing is very expensive too, it is everyones right to have a home, so let's make "the Government" pay for homes for all citizens who can't afford it.
Where will they get the money you ask?
Easy, just take more from the evil rich people and re-distribute it to everyone else, (the voters).
Yay Democrats!!
2007-09-24 05:11:07 · answer #6 · answered by heavysarcasm 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ok then, if you want to privatise everything then I hope you realise: All roads will be toll roads Emergency Services will be paid for either by subscription or as you use them The Military? No way, they'll only protect their employer's interests Airports? I hope youy're ready for one airline to take over them & charge you through the roof Legal System? what Legal System? Frankly you're paving the way for China or Russia or any other wealthy nation to buy controlling interests in USA Inc.
2016-05-17 09:51:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am sick to death of paying for auto insurance that I never use. And why do I have to pay for uninsured motorists if the law says you have to have insurance. I'm being punished because the authorities can't find the criminals?
2007-09-24 04:59:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Man, I wish they would fund auto insurance. I am 21 with 3 tickets. I pay 860 dollars every six months for car insurance.
2007-09-24 05:01:35 · answer #9 · answered by Liberal City 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Why not govt funded SCOTCH!!!!
At least if they were going to install gas ovens and hookups, I'd know to short Inergy.
2007-09-24 04:57:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋