I was thinking today that the Individual Mandate and the laws in many or most states that require insurance if you own or drive a car or other vehicle are really almost the same thing because the insurance also includes hospitalization for yourself or any other victims of any potential accident.
However, the argument can be made that the individual Mandate of Obamacare is different because one can choose whether to drive a car or not. But, if you live in a state without good public transportation like California and most of the western states, if you don't have access to a motorized vehicle of some kind you aren't going anywhere unless you like to hitchike. So, if you live in one of these states not having insurance and not having access to some kind of motor vehicle is not optional, it's a necessity. So, how then is that different in requiring someone to have insurance for potential accidents from the individual mandate which requires all people have health insurance? All people if they don't drop dead right now or at some other point without going to the hospital will likely need medical care at various times in their lives. And to make sure the general public doesn't have to pick up the tab for all that maybe requiring everyone to have health insurance is a good idea. If people are required to have insurance to take care of any potential accident victim of any accident they are in why are they not required to have health insurance so the general public doesn't have to pay for their catastrophic or long term health care if and when that happens?
No comments:
Post a Comment