Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Government mandated purchases?
1) Has the government ever in the past mandated that its citizens purchase a private sector product? If so what and when?
2) Would the reaction of the public be different if the government mandated its citizen to purchase a firearm for the purpose of national defense?
3) Are such mandates in any way, shape, or form legal? If so what gives our government this power?
Save the hate mail, I would like real answers from both sides of the issue please.
I don't think auto insurance really works, because you could simply not drive a car to prevent having to purchase that item.
5 Answers
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
1) In the past the government has required Ad Valorem tax for good and services to pay for public use of things ranging from railroad unification in the 1800's to utility construction and more currently to road projects via property taxes, real and otherwise, to be paid out to private companies to carry out construction maintenence and upkeep. In the name of the public interest. One could see the reasoning behind this in each instance; for example: 5 Utility companies all vie for your power and gas service so you have 5 power lines and 5 gas lines coming to your house with 5 gas lines buried under every road, one from each company. Talk about overhead! Side note: cell phones should have been regulated and only one company designated to build cell towers so that 3-5 cell towers didnt occupy the same hill and coverage would have been greatly increased with less cost overall.
Im going to assume that this is in reference to health care as that is the hot topic of the year. We all act like doctors / hospitals etc get to turn away those who can not pay for services and this is accurate for cosmetic surgery and elective procedures. Let me set a story line and ask you a couple questions. You were in a car accident and are unconscious. Someone calls 911 and the ambulance arrives. You just lost your job and have no insurance. Should the ambulance search your wallet for the neccessary cash to take you to the hospital? Then once in the ER should the nurse search your wallet for an insurance card before treating you, and put you out on the curb if you do not have the cash? Once you regain consciousness should the doctor then ask for payment up front before fixing your broken leg / arm / pelvis / etc.? Or should the hospital just place you on the curb and say go earn enough money for us to treat you, goodbye? Or should the ambulance just leave you in the car since you did not have the cash for the known cost to treat you?
This scenario would apply for any health emergency not just a car accident so I am not implying that all of our inflated costs come simply from car accidents, this scenario just sets the stage for many other likely emergency care situations for those whom can not afford to pay for but ethically are treated anyway.
Some assume that hospitals have a choice! Reality is very different however as they are darned if they do darned if the do not. Real scenario: one with no insurance and no ability to pay gets into a bad car accident and is treated to the tune of $50,000; that gets added to everyone's medical bill who can pay via insurance or being rich and paying in cash. Real scenario: Someone is not treated at the ER, due to lack of payment for more then just the basic life saving procedures and does not have the ability to pay for the future treatments then turns around on a neglegence lawsuit and sues the hospital whom has to pay out either attorney fees or the judgement. This gets added to everyones insurance via inflated hospital bills.
Catch 22.
Futhermore Doctors took an oath to help anyone and everyone to the best of their ability and medicine in general has a serve everyone, or socialist, mentality. Dont like it well then let yourself die of cancer or refuse that ambulance when you get in a car accident and by golly dont go to the hospital when you have a heart attack. Save those services for those who can pay ahead of time, after all thats what your implying isn't it?
2) In times of war when a draft is instituted firearms are required to everyone that is drafted, and we all pay for that. It may not be the exact situation in your question but whats the difference in everyone paying for guns for 70% of the population and everyone paying for 100% of the population to have a gun, only the amount of money right? Firearms do not have a homogenious public service that they serve. Firearms are a product that anyone can chose to own or not, given they are not disallowed from owning one. Someone does not get a firearm when they get sick, or recieve a firearm when they need shelter, that would be one crazy looking house and would not be very practicle. When one gives birth to a child they need a doctor there to insure health of the mother and child, not a firearm. The firearm is not going to perform the procedure to save the baby or the mother. While firearms serve many purposes from home defense to national defense and to sport hunting, firearms are not a utility and are elective. People, even if forced to get a firearm could chose not to use it or simply store it in a gun safe. When you get into a car accident, unless it is your own negligence or carelessness, you do not chose to have a broken bone or traumatic injury. Medical care is not an option it is a default.
3)In the common interest or best interest of the people that any government serves the government may enact laws to do things in the best interest of the people. For each nation state that will be different as cultures believe
- ?Lv 51 decade ago
I can't think of anything on a nationwide scale that the government has forced to be purchased, but I know statewide, for many states, Car Insurance is mandated.
- ?Lv 61 decade ago
In the Commonwealth of MA, vehicle insurance must be purchased in order to obtain a license plate.
Also in the CoMA, everyone has to have health insurance, if you're full-time employee, you got covered by your employer, not bad, ehh. If you're un-employed or tagged as "poor", you got covered from other working people, nice ehh. If you're temporary/contract employee or self-employed, you must buy health insurance, which costs a lot, otherwise, you will be forced to pay penalty fine, which costs roughly $1K+ a year.
CoMA??? Would it be Communist of Massachusetts?
- 1 decade ago
I hate the lib defense of Auto Insurance. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BUY A CAR TO LIVE IN THE USA. If you do not want to buy auto insurance - don't buy the car!!
You now have to buy health insurance as a requirement of living in America. If you breath - you pay..
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
In many states, drivers are required to purchas automobile insurance, or make a mandatory payment (fine?) into a state-controlled fund.