Hearing Rep. Weiner on Countdown tonight, I was once again astounded at the oft-used comparison. Weiner defended his support of a health insurance mandate by saying it's like auto insurance. Oh really?
Following are five very important differences that we would all be well-served to remember the next time that we hear someone compare a health insurance mandate to the existing auto insurance mandate:
- People choose to not have a car for many reasons. You can't choose to not have a body. This bill literally capitalizes on that lack of freedom of choice, privatizing our very existence. If you really like the car analogy, try this out: by not including a public option, it is as if we were forced to have auto insurance, forced to have a car, and public transportation were abolished.
- Being afflicted with a physical condition rarely threatens the existence of anyone but the victim. One of the biggest reasons for the auto insurance mandate is to protect people from the negligence of others. People understand the justice in that, which is why you won't see many folks risk going to jail in order to defy the auto insurance mandate. As has already been made apparent, there are many people who will risk going to jail over the health insurance mandate, because it is not grounded in common sense justice.
Kossack Zachstar combines these points perfectly in his comment:
I do not drive and thus I do not have to get auto insurance. However if I were driving it would be my lawful and civic responsibility to have liability insurance.
However I also do not want health insurance. At least one that does anything other than perhaps a checkup or two. Something I plan to pay out of pocket for anyway. Why? Because I do not have a family to feed. I get seriously ill and perish it is not going to affect others that greatly. However with this I will end up having to pay anyway. And without a public option it is guaranteed to be a STIFF monthly payment.
Back to the list...
- A car can be "totaled", at which point the insurance company can cut its losses and pay for a new vehicle. This upper bound on payouts keeps the relationship between the vehicle owner and the insurance company more honest and direct in the worst case scenario. There is no upper bound with the health insurance companies, especially in the worst case scenarios, and the relationship with the
physical body owner human being customer captive could hardly be described as honest and direct.
- If for some reason the auto insurance company chooses not to cover something, it is an inconvenience. Perhaps a big one. But if a health insurance company chooses not to cover something, as they have a history of doing, it can be a matter of life and death.
- Businesses do not generally offer auto insurance. A health insurance mandate could put additional pressure on companies to offer plans that their employees may not really want, at a time (as in this bad economy) when the business cannot afford it. This is in danger of happening at my business, where for years we've been trying to offer a health plan, but with severely limited options in our rural county, and a very limited budget, we have not yet succeeded. The mandate will force the issue, which in better times would perhaps be a good thing, but right now, could further hurt the most important sector of our economy- small businesses.
UPDATE: Lots more big differences listed in comments, a few summarized here:
• Level of competition is vastly different in the two industries, especially on the regional level. The lack of competition in the American health insurance industry may be the biggest reason why the total health spending per capita is much higher in the U.S. than anywhere in the world (US: $7290, Switzerland is 2nd at $4417, average around the world is $2986, but is undoubtedly skewed by the gargantuan U.S. number)
• Can't choose the body you're in (and its genetics), while you can choose your car (and its history)
• As Leap Year says:
car accidents and car insurance claims are not things that people experience regularly. I am lucky - in 20 years of driving, I have never had to file a claim. But everyone uses healthcare.
• Pre-existing conditions (such as rust spots- thank you Uberbah for this and the next two) don't count against you with auto insurance
• Out of network tires?
• No co-pays with auto insurance
TimmyB points out:
You can't Sue Your Health Insurance Company. If your car insurance does not pay out, you can sue them for bad faith. Bad faith includes punitive damages.
You cannot sue your health insurance company, if your employer provides it. At most, you can only get your premiums back.
• Sil delicately reminds us: Auto insurance companies don't [have] a fucking antitrust exemption.
Finally, a note those who trot out the "E.R. Freeloader" argument: My wife and I have always paid for every trip we've made to the E.R. Many people like us feel that they cannot afford the monthly bill for something that doesn't take care us of the way we want, and we would rather deal with the fallout on things like E.R. trips when they happen. In my case, this is made possible by having family that has expressed a desire (and ability) to help me in such situations. I guess you could say I'm freeloading on them, except that it's always in the form of a loan, and I always pay it back. PLEASE STOP WITH THE FREELOADER GENERALIZATIONS!