- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,481
- Reaction score
- 68,200
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Besides being wrong, you are still missing the point
1. They are not the same. You are required to have liability which is to cover damages you cause. Not injury to yourself as healthcare coverage does.
They simply are not the same thing.
2. You are also wrong as you can drive a motor vehicle without insurance on your own property.
It's not wrong. Car insurance is a form of insurance mandated by government. To use your vehicle on the public roads, you must have it, regardless of whether it is something you own or not.
The main difference between car insurance and health insurance is the overall cost of the system. Car insurance is easier to handle on the private side because the costs of fixing/replacing cars is far lower than that of healthcare. We already aggregate car insurance over everyone, this is done via government mandate. So a less complex and less expensive insurance system is already under mandate from government.
With nationalized health insurance, you can aggregate risk and costs over all the People, thus lowering costs and increasing accessibility of healthcare. Nobody exists in a vacuum, people being sick or dying can affect us all through costs and insurance premiums. Increasing the population we're able to aggregate over helps not only to offset the costs by having more people to pool from, but also with greater access comes reduction in costs as well. It's easier and cheaper to treat cancer when it's caught early.
We already have forms of nationalized healthcare. We have medicade and medicare systems for specific groups of folk, but also we have the ER. The ER cannot turn down anyone, regardless of ability to pay. Those who can't pay...the taxpayer eats the cost. So we're already doing it. It's just that using the ER is insanely expensive and stupid. If you can treat people before they need to go to the ER, you can save money and lives.