Those who argue that people should be forced to buy private health insurance point to the fact that many states already require drivers to purchase private auto insurance. One needs to take responsibility for costs, which if not paid by you, would be forced on the general public. That’s a seemingly reasonable proposition.
However, if this argument prompted you to take a second look at your auto insurance bill, you might have come to an interesting conclusion.
I notice, for example, that about 38 percent of my auto insurance bill is for "bodily liability insurance." That covers the medical costs of anyone I might injure in an auto accident for which I am responsible. It also covers legal costs I may incur.
If we had a single-payer system in which the government, not my auto insurance company, paid for the accident-related medical costs, it would seem that all or nearly all of that "bodily insurance" cost would disappear from my auto insurance bill. I would save, over the years, thousands of dollars on my car insurance.
I noticed a similar provision for "medical payments to others" in my home insurance policy, which covers injury to persons on my property. Again, a single-payer system would greatly reduce or eliminate that cost.
Certainly, I can’t be the first person to notice this. If these observations are valid, why haven’t health care reform advocates publicized these savings? Or am I missing something?