How can there not be a problem with "buy insurance or go to jail"???
I don't know Steve. Why don't you ask every state that requires car insurance?
Let's see...
If you want to drive a car on a public road you must have car insurance. (You do not need to insure a car that is owned but not driven on public roads.) If you want to live you have to have health insurance?
If I decide not to purchase health insurance I should have my right to life taken away?
The car insurance analogy is a very poor one to use in this situation.
How can there not be a problem with "buy insurance or go to jail"???
I don't know Steve. Why don't you ask every state that requires car insurance?
Let's see...
If you want to drive a car on a public road you must have car insurance. (You do not need to insure a car that is owned but not driven on public roads.) If you want to live you have to have health insurance?
If I decide not to purchase health insurance I should have my right to life taken away?
The car insurance analogy is a very poor one to use in this situation.
No, but if you refuse to use the public option and refuse to get regular health care, it makes sense that you would be fined since they (agreed, awful analogy) can not take away life. The fines are tie-ins with the public option that is going to be (hopefully) less expensive than private insurance when not offered through an employer.
Example: Currently I am temping. The agency offers insurance, but at a rate that is more than one of my weekly paychecks, so insurance through them is not viable. COBRA for me would also be over $600 a month for mediocre coverage with a cap of spending per year and moderate copays, also more than a week's pay. I also do not qualify for Medicare or any current government program for health insurance because (as ludicrous as it sounds)I make too much temping. Kate also works full time, but the job she is at would charge almost $1000 dollars a month for shamefully poor coverage and high copays and would be even more to cover both of us, mostly because the lawyers make enough money to cover themselves on private insurance, so why should they bother with employees? I want health insurance, but it is prohibitively expensive and the coverage offered is marginal at best. I would immediately sign up for a public option that was $200/month or less for coverage that had no yearly dollar limit and that I knew wouldn't find some 'pre-existing condition' to disqualify me during a crucial period, particularly if it simply came out of my yearly taxes.
How can there not be a problem with "buy insurance or go to jail"???
I don't know Steve. Why don't you ask every state that requires car insurance?
Let's see...
If you want to drive a car on a public road you must have car insurance. (You do not need to insure a car that is owned but not driven on public roads.) If you want to live you have to have health insurance?
If I decide not to purchase health insurance I should have my right to life taken away?
The car insurance analogy is a very poor one to use in this situation.
What use is a car if it's not driven on a public road? Also, that might be the rule in your state, but I believe that, in many if not most states, if you register your car and you want a license plate, you need to get insurance. So, your method of avoiding car insurance requires driving a car on private road with no registration and no license plates. Very useful. I'm sure that many people do just that.
If you want to actually use your car, you need to buy insurance. If you don't buy insurance, you will be fined, and possibly spend some time in jail. Your argument that "the car insurance analogy is a very poor one to use in this situation" fails.
The car insurance analogy is indeed a poor one Joe, even GTM agrees with me!
@GTM If the public option is going to be run the way health insurance companies are run (all costs must be covered by premiums) how can they possibly offer the level of care we want at a lower cost especially if they will be covering preexisting conditions?
The car insurance analogy is indeed a poor one Joe, even GTM agrees with me!
Is this true Mr. MacRoss?
Just look up.
No, but if you refuse to use the public option and refuse to get regular health care, it makes sense that you would be fined since they (agreed, awful analogy) can not take away life.
If the health insurance requirement requires a basic level of catastrophic coverage and nothing else, then the car insurance analogy might be appropriate. Some states mandate a certain minimum level of car insurance (liability) and leave the rest up to you. Others require specific types of coverage depending on their liability laws, such as no-fault states.
However, the fact is that you can still chose to live in a place you do not need a car (like NYC) and not have car insurance. You can't exactly chose to live in a place where you won't get sick. At that point the analogy breaks down. But as I told someone yesterday, by the very term analogy, you are saying that they are alike, not exactly the same. If they were exactly the same, then they wouldn't be analogous...they would be identical.
What of the homeless? If they can not pay even the bare minimum will they be sent to prison?
The article I linked to specifically points out that an earlier bipartisan bill included language to protect those who were not willfully choosing not to pay for coverage. The current Pelosi bill does not have this protection in it.
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
The car insurance analogy is indeed a poor one Joe, even GTM agrees with me!
Is this true Mr. MacRoss?
Just look up.
No, but if you refuse to use the public option and refuse to get regular health care, it makes sense that you would be fined since they (agreed, awful analogy) can not take away life.
Read again. It's pretty clear that the "awful analogy" is "taking away life", not the car insurance analogy. As Nuri says, the car insurance analogy is appropriate.
What of the homeless? If they can not pay even the bare minimum will they be sent to prison?
No, they'll get a government health plan like Medicare or Medicaid. The idea of mandatory coverage is that there is an option for everybody. People who don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid make enough to afford the bare minimum.
Yes, there are probably other requirements for Medicare. No, I don't know what they are. They might change under the new health plan, so it's really academic at this point anyway.
If GTM is not agreeing with me that the car insurance analogy is bad (the point of my post) what is he agreeing with?
Even Nuri's response is flawed:
However, the fact is that you can still chose to live in a place you do not need a car (like NYC) and not have car insurance. You can't exactly chose to live in a place where you won't get sick.
Choosing to not own a car would be analogous to choosing not to live. Getting sick is analogous to having a car accident.
What of the homeless? If they can not pay even the bare minimum will they be sent to prison?
No, they'll get a government health plan like Medicare or Medicaid. The idea of mandatory coverage is that there is an option for everybody. People who don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid make enough to afford the bare minimum.
Yes, there are probably other requirements for Medicare. No, I don't know what they are. They might change under the new health plan, so it's really academic at this point anyway.
Then why not just open up Medicare/Medicaid to everyone?
No Steve, choosing not to own a car is the same as being impervious to illness. If you were impervious to illness, the government would have no reason to require you to have health insurance.
The risk of illness is analogous to the risk of a car accident. That is what the insurance is to protect against. If you have zero risk, you don't need insurance. The government only requires insurance if you have risk > 0. The difference is the minimum level of risk. If you don't own a car, you have zero risk of causing that accident. You can chose not to own a car. However, you cannot choose to do something that eliminates your risk of illness.
Then why not just open up Medicare/Medicaid to everyone?
Because:
(a) Medicaid is very limited and terribly managed. Doctors don't like to deal with it and many of them don't take it. However, if you have no other option, it is better than nothing.
(b) Private insurance companies provide better coverage and are easier for doctors to deal with (although still pulling what amounts to fraud often) and are generally a preferable option if you can afford them. Subjecting them to laws that call them on their fraudulent bullshit should minimize that particular problem, allowing people to actually know what they are paying for.
(c) Not everyone needs government-subsidized health care. It would be silly to extend welfare payments to cover someone who makes 200k a year. Same with health care.
No Steve, choosing not to own a car is the same as being impervious to illness.
Respectfully, no. They are not the same at all.
As for your answers on Medicaid/Medicare... Why would a government run health insurance plan not suffer the same failings as Medicare/Medicaid? If these shortcomings can be avoided why not fix Medicare/Medicaid?
I meant they are analogous, not that they are the same.
1. The health plan would probably suffer the same failings, but if you already can't afford health insurance, then a plan that is a little helpful is better than no plan.
2. I don't know how much you know about Medicare/Medicaid, but the short answer is because the government doesn't have a stable long term budget and people in Congress can't agree on what benefits should be provided. Believe me, they are working on legislation to revise/reform those plans all the time.
3. Expecting the government to do anything efficiently is a little silly at this point. However, there are some things that it is better to do inefficiently than not at all. I'd love to see them pull a perfect universal health care plan out of their asses and have the money to fund it without having to raise our taxes to 50%, but given the number of different agendas and opinions represented in Congress, just getting them to agree on insurance reform is a herculean feat! Before you walk, you usually crawl.
Another reason why the car insurance to health insurance analogy does not work:
The only mandate on auto insurance is for liability coverage (damage to others). What Congress is discussing is mandatory coverage on damage to self (collision coverage).
Joe, you are the one saying it is a good analogy. Doesn't that put the burden of proof on you?
Actually, everyone but you thinks that it is a good analogy. Nuri was very careful to explain to you why it is a good analogy. I submit that, since you are in the minority position, you have the burden of proof.
I have already given several reasons why it is a bad analogy.
The "reasons" you have given are exactly what make me suspect that you do not understand what an analogy is.
What of the homeless? If they can not pay even the bare minimum will they be sent to prison?
Are the homeless regularly sent to prison for not paying income taxes?
The article I linked to specifically points out that an earlier bipartisan bill included language to protect those who were not willfully choosing not to pay for coverage. The current Pelosi bill does not have this protection in it.
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
Claims, not points out, considering that this:
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
is the only part of the bill the site actually cites regarding willfully choosing not to pay. The fact that the bill specifically mentions that penalties would apply to those who willfully choose not to pay would actually imply that those penalties wouldn't apply to those not willfully choosing not to pay, since, you know, why else even bother specifically mentioning the willfullness of the situation in the first place?
[seven-to-twelve-post argument about the nature of analogies in a thread about U.S. health care reform]
I don't like the analogy to car insurance, but don't make it sound like I agree with you on anything political in any way, ever, at all. Not liking an analogy doesn't mean your point was at all sensible, because it wasn't.
I don't like the analogy to car insurance, but don't make it sound like I agree with you on anything political in any way, ever, at all. Not liking an analogy doesn't mean your point was at all sensible, because it wasn't.
Ever.
Seriously.
I never said you agreed with me on anything other than it being a bad analogy.
Stevie, I'm going to try and help you. If you persist in misunderstanding, I'm washing my hands of it.
As Nuri correctly noted, an analogy does not require perfect correlation.
Very often people try to refute a correct analogy as a false analogy, often saying "Well, but that's different because", and refer to an existing property that the two things in the analogy indeed do not share. In cases like this, such a refutation is merely a "false charge of fallacy". But as analogies are comparing two different things there are always some properties that A and B do not share, so it is tempting to pull up one such difference to try to disqualify the analogy. For the purposes of the analogy, however, it is important to check if that difference is relevant for the analogy or not.
The analogy of mandatory car insurance to mandatory health insurance is a valid one. The two are not exactly alike in all respects. They are analogous, just as brains and computers are not exactly the same but may be considered analogous.
Comments
If you want to drive a car on a public road you must have car insurance. (You do not need to insure a car that is owned but not driven on public roads.)
If you want to live you have to have health insurance?
If I decide not to purchase health insurance I should have my right to life taken away?
The car insurance analogy is a very poor one to use in this situation.
Example: Currently I am temping. The agency offers insurance, but at a rate that is more than one of my weekly paychecks, so insurance through them is not viable. COBRA for me would also be over $600 a month for mediocre coverage with a cap of spending per year and moderate copays, also more than a week's pay. I also do not qualify for Medicare or any current government program for health insurance because (as ludicrous as it sounds)I make too much temping. Kate also works full time, but the job she is at would charge almost $1000 dollars a month for shamefully poor coverage and high copays and would be even more to cover both of us, mostly because the lawyers make enough money to cover themselves on private insurance, so why should they bother with employees? I want health insurance, but it is prohibitively expensive and the coverage offered is marginal at best. I would immediately sign up for a public option that was $200/month or less for coverage that had no yearly dollar limit and that I knew wouldn't find some 'pre-existing condition' to disqualify me during a crucial period, particularly if it simply came out of my yearly taxes.
If you want to actually use your car, you need to buy insurance. If you don't buy insurance, you will be fined, and possibly spend some time in jail. Your argument that "the car insurance analogy is a very poor one to use in this situation" fails.
@GTM If the public option is going to be run the way health insurance companies are run (all costs must be covered by premiums) how can they possibly offer the level of care we want at a lower cost especially if they will be covering preexisting conditions?
However, the fact is that you can still chose to live in a place you do not need a car (like NYC) and not have car insurance. You can't exactly chose to live in a place where you won't get sick. At that point the analogy breaks down. But as I told someone yesterday, by the very term analogy, you are saying that they are alike, not exactly the same. If they were exactly the same, then they wouldn't be analogous...they would be identical.
The article I linked to specifically points out that an earlier bipartisan bill included language to protect those who were not willfully choosing not to pay for coverage. The current Pelosi bill does not have this protection in it.
Yes, there are probably other requirements for Medicare. No, I don't know what they are. They might change under the new health plan, so it's really academic at this point anyway.
Even Nuri's response is flawed: Choosing to not own a car would be analogous to choosing not to live. Getting sick is analogous to having a car accident.
The risk of illness is analogous to the risk of a car accident. That is what the insurance is to protect against. If you have zero risk, you don't need insurance. The government only requires insurance if you have risk > 0. The difference is the minimum level of risk. If you don't own a car, you have zero risk of causing that accident. You can chose not to own a car. However, you cannot choose to do something that eliminates your risk of illness.
(a) Medicaid is very limited and terribly managed. Doctors don't like to deal with it and many of them don't take it. However, if you have no other option, it is better than nothing.
(b) Private insurance companies provide better coverage and are easier for doctors to deal with (although still pulling what amounts to fraud often) and are generally a preferable option if you can afford them. Subjecting them to laws that call them on their fraudulent bullshit should minimize that particular problem, allowing people to actually know what they are paying for.
(c) Not everyone needs government-subsidized health care. It would be silly to extend welfare payments to cover someone who makes 200k a year. Same with health care.
As for your answers on Medicaid/Medicare... Why would a government run health insurance plan not suffer the same failings as Medicare/Medicaid? If these shortcomings can be avoided why not fix Medicare/Medicaid?
1. The health plan would probably suffer the same failings, but if you already can't afford health insurance, then a plan that is a little helpful is better than no plan.
2. I don't know how much you know about Medicare/Medicaid, but the short answer is because the government doesn't have a stable long term budget and people in Congress can't agree on what benefits should be provided. Believe me, they are working on legislation to revise/reform those plans all the time.
3. Expecting the government to do anything efficiently is a little silly at this point. However, there are some things that it is better to do inefficiently than not at all. I'd love to see them pull a perfect universal health care plan out of their asses and have the money to fund it without having to raise our taxes to 50%, but given the number of different agendas and opinions represented in Congress, just getting them to agree on insurance reform is a herculean feat! Before you walk, you usually crawl.
The only mandate on auto insurance is for liability coverage (damage to others). What Congress is discussing is mandatory coverage on damage to self (collision coverage).
Yes Joe, I know what an analogy is.
I have already given several reasons why it is a bad analogy.
Claims, not points out, considering that this:is the only part of the bill the site actually cites regarding willfully choosing not to pay. The fact that the bill specifically mentions that penalties would apply to those who willfully choose not to pay would actually imply that those penalties wouldn't apply to those not willfully choosing not to pay, since, you know, why else even bother specifically mentioning the willfullness of the situation in the first place?
Seriously? Seriously.
Ever.
Seriously.
As Nuri correctly noted, an analogy does not require perfect correlation. Source.
The analogy of mandatory car insurance to mandatory health insurance is a valid one. The two are not exactly alike in all respects. They are analogous, just as brains and computers are not exactly the same but may be considered analogous.