An honest question: health insurance vs. auto insurance...?

Laws regarding auto insurance are state laws, as they should be since this is a right reserved by the states under the 10th Amendment.

You can not be compelled to by auto insurance if you do not drive an auto.

The Federal government thinks it is not a violation of the 10th Amendment to require individuals and companies to buy health insurance, I think we will find out if they have that authority when the cases reach the Supreme Court.

Since drivers' licenses are state-issued, this is a state matter, although the Federal Government can influence the states by threatening to withhold Federal Highway Funds (the way they did to get every state to raise the drinking age to 21).

In short, there is a philosophical difference here. Driving is a priviledge granted by the State and when driving, one has a responsibility not only to himself, but to others on the road. Making auto insurance mandatory can be seen as a cost of enjoying this priviledge, part of a citizens obligations for th overall safety of others.

Health care is a personal issue. Requiring a person to purchase a product for his own personal use seems to many like requiring all citizens to buy auto insurance....whether they drive or not. Somewill argue that the requirement will bring down the costs associated with the uninsured getting care in emergency rooms and so on, but the same could be said for mandatory auto insurance. Imagine how premiums would go down if all non-drivers were forced to buy policies as well.

So again, there is a philosophical issue beyond the "will it bring down costs" question.

First, you do not have a right to drive. That is a privilege which can be removed by government for violations.

Also, with auto insurance, if you are a bad risk, your insurance rates are astronomical, and many insurance companies will not accept such a risk, and will either refuse to cover you or drop your insurance if you accumulate too many points or have too many accidents. Then your only option is a high risk pool insurance, with minimal coverages.

Also, unlike health insurance, you can determine the coverages you want, as long as you get the state minimum requirement for liabilities, you can select how much liability you want to cover, if you want comprehensive coverage or not, etc, etc. And if you decide you don't want to drive that car anymore, you can drop the insurance.

So, it really isn't a valid comparison.

It's a state law. The auto insurance requirement is only applicable if you choose to own a car. You do have the option of not owning one, and then not paying for auto insurance. Many people do this, in some places public transportation works better (like NYC).

The auto insurance laws are state laws, not federal.

Here are the differences:

One, the insurance required for cars is CONTINGENT on owning a car that you wish to operate on publicly owned roads, which is a PRIVILEGE, not a Right. If you don't own a car, it's not required.

Two, the insurance covers "the other guy" if you're at fault. It's not about covering yourself, which healthcare is, it's about being financially responsible if you harm another.

Three, without having read fifty state Constitutions, I presume they all allow this. The federal Constitution does not permit the federal government to direct individuals this way.

I have a problem with the health insurance because to own a car is a choice and if you don't want to pay insurance and stuff you don't have to have a car, but you have to pay for health insurance.

Also, the purpose of auto insurance is more to protect the victims of your car crash.

oNE MORE THOUGHT. aLTHOUGH, HEALTH INSURANCE IS FOR PERSONAL USE, HOSPITALS CANNOT DENY ANYONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE IT. tHEY DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE OUTSTANDING CARE BUT THEY DO HAVE TO "STABALIZE," AND IN LARGE NUMBERS, THIS CAN ADD UP. i THINK THAT IS THE REASONING BEHIND THE MANDATE. aLTHOUGH PEOPLE DON'T EVER HAVE TO DRIVE, AND THEREFORE DON'T EVER have TO BUY AUTO INSURANCE, CHANCES ARE THEY WILL END UP IN A HOSPITAL AT SOME POINT, EVEN IF THEY DON'T WANT IT. JUST A THOUGHT.

Oh sorry about the caps lock (didn't realize it)

its a State law such in Illinois, you can not get a sticker for your plate until you show valid proof.

The heatlth law is Federal some like some dont. If you dont vote Congress out in Nov since they are out of touch with the plp since they been there 30-50 years. Senator Byrd of W. Virginia has been a great Senator but he has been there 50 years now. Someone wheels him in when they need his vote then he is taken back out again, Its time for him to retire and he wont unless voted out like a lot of the rest that set on powerful Chairman committees that are holding the Country back.

1) Car insurance is a state law.

2) If you don't want insurance, you can opt to not drive.

They're not even close to being the same thing.

It's unlawful in (I believe) EVERY state to drive without insurance. It's state laws. Don't see a LOT of difference in the essential intent - insurance works when the risk is spread across lots of different people. Can't let healthy people out of the deal, leaving only sick people's premiums to cover the cost of it all.