My Socialist Insurance Payments

[Aargh]

I have been driving for 50+ years. In that time I have caused exactly zero damage to other drivers or vehicles. And yet, I have probably paid somewhere between $15,000 and $20,000 in insurance premiums during that time.

Why do I have to spend my hard-earned money to pay for the crappy drivers who leech off of the insurance companies to pay for the damage they cause by their careless behavior? I should be able to keep my hard-earned money if I'm not causing any damage to others.

Vehicle insurance is Socialism - plain and simple.

[Shocker-maniac]

I think that your complaint is about the laws that require you to purchase insurance if you desire to operate a vehicle on public roads and highways. One could make a reasonable argument that these laws are a form of socialism. Independent of compulsory laws, insurance is a free market mechanism where individuals voluntarily agree to pool their money to protect against losses of property or finances. In and of itself insurance is a product of capitalism.

BTW, I have no connection to the auto insurance industry.

[Kung Wu]

Vehicle insurance is Socialism - plain and simple.

Not really. Vehicle ownership is optional and therefore auto insurance is voluntary. You could use public transportation for example, and rent a truck/car from time-to-time when you actually need one. In fact, that has been a trend lately among young Americans. But if you choose to put others at risk by operating a vehicle, then you are required to also possess the means to cover damages that you may cause. If you cannot afford the insurance, then you should choose not to own a vehicle.

On the other hand overpriced medical insurance is being forced down your throat come hell or high water, with no option out, and no reasonable option to mitigate the expense.

[SB Shock]

Why do I have to spend my hard-earned money to pay for ......
.

This question can be asked over a broad range of issues. It is the nature of our civilization right now. Everybody wants a free ride and so somebody has to pay. It really comes down down to is our nation lacks "personal responsibilty" and not only expects but demands somebody take care of them. And then when the government steps in and attaches strings we wonder why we are losing our freedom.

You can't have freedom with out personal responsibilty.

[WSU and Reds Fan]

This question can be asked over a broad range of issues. It is the nature of our civilization right now. Everybody wants a free ride and so somebody has to pay. It really comes down down to is our nation lacks "personal responsibilty" and not only expects but demands somebody take care of them. And then when the government steps in and attaches strings we wonder why we are losing our freedom.

You can't have freedom with out personal responsibilty.

This is a great discussion. That is a great quote about not having freedom without personal responsibility. Does this mean if you do not have health insurance and cannot pay your $250,000 medical bill. You should not be able to declare bankruptcy? How about if you can't make your house payment because you were born with a crippling disease. Does that mean you are no longer able to enjoy the other freedoms, since you cannot take on the personal responsibility to care for yourself? If you open a business and it fails, does that mean you need to be locked up and no longer free.

Does this mean that If you chose to not have insurance and use the ER I can come after you for why my ER visit cost was so high? Or if you choose not to get your child immunized I can come after you in the courts when my child contracts the disease that could be prevented?

Just some questions I have regarding this issue. To give some context I was never a fan of demanding liability insurance for auto's .

[Play Angry]

The transaction costs for uninsured accidents by insolvent drivers would be passed through to consumers and/or taxpayers by other means if insurance weren't the mandatory mechanism. At the macro level, it is pretty much zero sum. At the individual level, safe drivers would probably come out ahead by not paying for liability coverage despite increased costs or taxes elsewhere.

[ShockTalk]

I have been driving for 50+ years. In that time I have caused exactly zero damage to other drivers or vehicles. And yet, I have probably paid somewhere between $15,000 and $20,000 in insurance premiums during that time.

Accidents are not caused by just crappy drivers. Good/excellent drivers may also have an unfortunate situation where an accident is there fault. I hope that never happens to you. However, if sometime in the future it does and it is more than just a fender bender, I hope I'm not the one you hit if you do not have proper coverage. What it will most likely cost you will make your 50+ year of insurance premiums seem like peanuts and it will come from your assets/income and be life changing for you. If you have no assets, you will be no different from those uninsured crappy drivers in my book.

Why do I have to spend my hard-earned money to pay for the crappy drivers who leech off of the insurance companies to pay for the damage they cause by their careless behavior? I should be able to keep my hard-earned money if I'm not causing any damage to others.

The crappy drivers and uninsured drivers situation is out of control and needs a hard fix.

Vehicle insurance is Socialism - plain and simple.

No, plain and simple.

The transaction costs for uninsured accidents by insolvent drivers would be passed through to consumers and/or taxpayers by other means if insurance weren't the mandatory mechanism. At the macro level, it is pretty much zero sum. At the individual level, safe drivers would probably come out ahead by not paying for liability coverage despite increased costs or taxes elsewhere.

This example would be socialism.

Also, I'm not sure about your last sentence. Those without much, but safe drivers would pay little. Crappy drivers without much, would pay nothing as they probably have nothing to pay in.

[Play Angry]

This example would be socialism.

No, it is economics.

Also, I'm not sure about your last sentence. Those without much, but safe drivers would pay little. Crappy drivers without much, would pay nothing as they probably have nothing to pay in

Where do the costs imposed by insolvent drivers go then? They do not disappear. They are passed through by other means, whether by taxes, higher rates for those who do insure, or through other items impacted by the spike in risk.

[DUShock]

[Shocker-maniac]

On the other hand overpriced medical insurance is being forced down your throat come hell or high water, with no option out, and no reasonable option to mitigate the expense.

I am curious to see the data that you used to come to the conclusion that medical insurance is overpriced?

[Kung Wu]

I am curious to see the data that you used to come to the conclusion that medical insurance is overpriced?

There are mountains of it out there.

I have some data, but first let me ask you some questions:

Is there any price increase when comparing the pre-Medicare costs of healthcare or group insurance to today's costs that will convince you that implementing a social program replete with price controls has placed an enormous burden on the healthcare system causing prices to skyrocket? Price controls ALWAYS cause overuse and abuse. So the question is ... with CPI adjusted numbers, is there any increase that would convince you?

So that I am clear, let's say in 1958 the average household annual expenses on healthcare was $400 ... if you adjust that to 2005 numbers based on CPI you would get .. maybe ... $2700ish. Let's say in 2005 the actual expenses were $4000. That would be a whopping 1.5x over the cost of the trajectory it was on prior to Medicare. The point is, overshooting CPI by 1.5x is no joke. Something major has occurred to cause that to happen.

So I ask ... is there a factor that makes you go ... "well, dang, maybe Medicare --which has all the pitfalls of a price control system -- has caused this disaster"? Is 1.5x enough to raise your eyebrows? Probably not, you could argue we are living nearly 10% longer so you would expect an increase and it may not have anything to do with Medicare. Would 2x? 2.5x? Is there any factor?

What about with group insurance? Is there any factor where you would go ... "hmm, it appears that something extraordinarily bad has happened since 1958 to cause private group insurance costs to skyrocket"? 3x? 3.5x?

[Shocker-maniac]

There are mountains of it out there.

I have some data, but first let me ask you some questions:

Is there any price increase when comparing the pre-Medicare costs of healthcare or group insurance to today's costs that will convince you that implementing a social program replete with price controls has placed an enormous burden on the healthcare system causing prices to skyrocket? Price controls ALWAYS cause overuse and abuse. So the question is ... with CPI adjusted numbers, is there any increase that would convince you?

So that I am clear, let's say in 1958 the average household annual expenses on healthcare was $400 ... if you adjust that to 2005 numbers based on CPI you would get .. maybe ... $2700ish. Let's say in 2005 the actual expenses were $4000. That would be a whopping 1.5x over the cost of the trajectory it was on prior to Medicare. The point is, overshooting CPI by 1.5x is no joke. Something major has occurred to cause that to happen.

So I ask ... is there a factor that makes you go ... "well, dang, maybe Medicare --which has all the pitfalls of a price control system -- has caused this disaster"? Is 1.5x enough to raise your eyebrows? Probably not, you could argue we are living nearly 10% longer so you would expect an increase and it may not have anything to do with Medicare. Would 2x? 2.5x? Is there any factor?

What about with group insurance? Is there any factor where you would go ... "hmm, it appears that something extraordinarily bad has happened since 1958 to cause private group insurance costs to skyrocket"? 3x? 3.5x?

Let me ask you this. When you say "overpriced" are you stating that that it is priced for excessive profits? Or,are you stating that the cost is high but appropriate?

[Kung Wu]

Let me ask you this. When you say "overpriced" are you stating that that it is priced for excessive profits? Or,are you stating that the cost is high but appropriate?

Neither, really.

It's overpriced because the privately insured are being forced to subsidize medicare patients, which are overusing and abusing the system and putting severe pressure on the healthcare industry due to price controls (price ceilings). There are other problems (such as low supply) that the price ceilings cause, but currently the elephant in the room is overuse. An example of low supply, is that hospitals are dropping medicare patients left and right. They can't afford to treat them anymore.

Insurance has to charge high rates to offset extraordinary medical expenses. Medical expenses are extraordinary due to overuse and abuse. Overuse occurs every single time price ceilings are tried, and have been proven by great economists to be stupid and unworkable, yet governments continue to implement them. Obamacare has done nothing to stem the medicare stupidity and, in fact, has revved it up into turbo mode.

Our health insurance costs are overpriced because our government has implemented price controls.

[Shocker-maniac]

Excellent points. But let's not pick just on Medicare. The Medicaid program is probably as guilty if not more so in the cost shifting and subsidizing from private pay patients. But you really just can't blame the government. Much of the excessive costs of health care are directly due to fraud, abuse and waste in the health care system. Our health care system is very fragmented and results in a lot of waste due to duplicative and unnecessary procedures. Health care needs to take a more wholistic and patient-centered approach to health care. As technology continues to grow so does our health care costs. But let's not just blame government and the health care industry. Pharma also drives up costs. The new specialty drugs are very beneficial, but very costly. The cost for the 12-week course of treatment for the new hepatitis C drug, Sovaldi, is about $84,000 or $1000 per day. The consurmer advertisng by pharma also drives up costs and unnecessary treatment costs. But let's just not blame the government, health care industry and pharma. It is estimated that up to 70% of health care costs are directly related to lifestyle choices. Substance abuse, tobacco use, sedentary lifestyle, BMI, lack of proper nutrition (how many of us had two or more servings of fruits and vegetables today?) not only lead to poor health but drive up health care costs. So I guess we all need to take some of the blame on this one.

[wufan]

Alcohol and cigarettes are taxed at absurdly high rates. Why isn't that revenue used to fund the medical cost of such decisions? Same with gas. Shouldn't nearly all the gas taxes fund the roads? Fatty foods should likewise be taxed to pay for healthcare. It would seem that there is a simple solution for this in that these programs could be self funded by the choices of the citizens.