The administration has gone TOO far

[Beeeej]

[quote Robb][quote KeithK]Life isn't fair, but trying to pin your misfortune on others isn't fair either.[/quote]

Couldn't have said it better - absolutely right.  The thief is responsible; if he can't pay, then the chain ends there.[/quote]

That's a valid opinion, I guess.  But why is it fairer than the system already in place?  "Life isn't fair" doesn't answer that question, and it's the only one ugarte and I really asked.

Someone who owns a car has bought insurance to cover himself; someone who is hit by a car may not have any insurance at all for anything, even medical expenses.  You may say, and would even be right, that it isn't "fair" for the car owner's insurance company to be forced to pay for the victim's damages if the thief cannot pay them - but why is it "fairer" to force the victim to pay for them?

The legislatures and courts had a choice to make, and as ugarte said, they chose to place the burden on corporations that had already chosen calculated risk as a business model.  Perhaps we all pay slightly higher premiums as a result, but if the victim were forced to pay and had no insurance and no money, we'd be helping pay for his expenses through higher medical costs (and/or higher taxes, in the "government should write the checks" model) anyway.  Even if he had insurance, we'd be paying higher premiums as a result.

You can dislike the current system all you want, but unless the one you propose is fairer...

[Rosey]

[quote Beeeej]You can dislike the current system all you want, but unless the one you propose is fairer...[/quote]
I don't think this is necessary: I think it's perfectly okay to draw a firm line based on some principle (whatever that is) and saying that anyone beyond that line is simply not liable.

In this case, a line to draw is between the thief and the owner, because the thief (by definition) did not obtain permission to use the car and require the owner to employ judgment about whether or not to allow that person to borrow the car.

Furthermore, I don't think what you ask is possible: "fair" is unfortunately not well-defined.  Any two people may order two solutions differently in terms of "fairness," so what are we left with?

This is where I say "let the market deal with it," because the market will come up with multiple optimal solutions based on community metrics, where those metrics will vary from place to place.  That's perfectly fine by me.  Why do we need one grand unified solution that everyone must agree to?  This will inevitably lead to conflict and is entirely unnecessary.

Cheers,
Kyle

[Beeeej]

[quote krose][quote Beeeej]You can dislike the current system all you want, but unless the one you propose is fairer...[/quote]
I don't think this is necessary: I think it's perfectly okay to draw a firm line based on some principle (whatever that is) and saying that anyone beyond that line is simply not liable.[/quote]

As I said, it may be a perfectly valid opinion and it may be the system you prefer.  But most of the objections to the current state of affairs as ugarte described it were how unfair it is to the car owner.  So I'm interested in knowing how alternative systems are fairer.  That's all.  It's the conversation I chose.

You can talk about principle and the marketplace (which, by the way, inherently includes the dispute resolution system the market has chosen to use, a.k.a. the courts) if you like, but I'll be over here waiting for someone who objects to the current system on the basis of its unfairness to propose a fairer system.

[DeltaOne81]

I think there has to be a level of personal responsibility here (I know, I now, that buzz word). That being the responsibility of the victim in this case to have purchased adequate insurance in the first place (un/underinsured motorist). If they refused to, why should that be on the plate of a person (insurer) who had absolutely nothing to do with the accident.

Insurance is not only to protect us from our own mistakes, but those of others.


As far as government intervention goes, they could require one of two things. First, they could require insurance to pay in the case of someone stealing your car, etc. Second, they could simply make un/underinsured motorist insurance compulsory to some level. The second is already done in many places (my uninsured in compulsory here in Mass, although under- isn't - of course I upped the level significantly).

In either case, everyone pays increased premiums. The difference is probably pretty small. As an alternative, we all pay through the medical system for unpaid claims.

I have no issue with making modest levels of important things compulsory, but if its not, the victim still made the conscious choice not to protect themselves from such an instance.


Which reminds me vaguely of the gulf coast situation with people who didn't buy flood insurance (which is already substantially subsidized).  I feel bad, I really do... but if you chose not to cover yourself, there's only so much that can be done after the fact.

[Beeeej]

[quote DeltaOne81]I think there has to be a level of personal responsibility here (I know, I now, that buzz word). That being the responsibility of the victim in this case to have purchased adequate insurance in the first place (un/underinsured motorist). If they refused to, why should that be on the plate of a person (insurer) who had absolutely nothing to do with the accident.[/quote]

Once again, picture a victim who was a pedestrian, not the driver of another car.

And if it helps, picture a victim who has very little money.  How much of a "conscious choice" is he making not to purchase health insurance?  (And unrelated, but you brought it up - how many people on the Gulf Coast really had a "choice" to purchase flood insurance - or to move elsewhere if they couldn't afford flood insurance?)

[Rosey]

[quote Beeeej]Once again, picture a victim who was a pedestrian, not the driver of another car.

And if it helps, picture a victim who has very little money.  How much of a "conscious choice" is he making not to purchase health insurance? [/quote]
Let's make things a little clearer by assigning names:

Alice = thief
Bob = victim
Carl = car owner

How does Bob's irresponsibility in not having health insurance/disability suddenly make Carl responsible for Alice's theft and subsequent accident?  I.e., why should Carl be less responsible for the accident when Alice can pay than when she cannot?

If the answer is that Carl should be less responsible in that circumstance, then I'd ask you why.

If the answer is that Carl should NOT be less responsible in that circumstance, then I'd ask you why Carl should be at all responsible for the independent action of Bob not to have health insurance.

It seems pretty clear to me that damages and responsible parties should be the same whether Bob has health insurance or not: if he has health insurance, he collects from them, and his insurance co. then turns around and attempts to collect from the responsible parties, whoever they may be; if he lacks health insurance, he attempts to collect directly from the responsible parties, whoever they may be.  In either case, the responsible parties are THE SAME.

Kyle

[nyc94]

[quote Beeeej][quote DeltaOne81]I think there has to be a level of personal responsibility here (I know, I now, that buzz word). That being the responsibility of the victim in this case to have purchased adequate insurance in the first place (un/underinsured motorist). If they refused to, why should that be on the plate of a person (insurer) who had absolutely nothing to do with the accident.[/quote]

Once again, picture a victim who was a pedestrian, not the driver of another car.

And if it helps, picture a victim who has very little money.  How much of a "conscious choice" is he making not to purchase health insurance?  (And unrelated, but you brought it up - how many people on the Gulf Coast really had a "choice" to purchase flood insurance - or to move elsewhere if they couldn't afford flood insurance?)[/quote]

There is Medicaid for the poor.  Sure it's not a great system and could be improved.  But it makes a hell of a lot more sense than put the responsibility on the insurance company.

[Beeeej]

[quote krose]Bob's irresponsibility in not having health insurance/disability...[/quote]

...makes me tune out from anything else you might have to say in probably about the same measure as Ben Rocky mocking you made you tune him out.

Not to say you might not have valid points, but why bother?

[ugarte]

[quote krose]
It seems pretty clear to me that damages and responsible parties should be the same whether Bob has health insurance or not:[/quote]This more or less comes down to setting policy about sharing risk before the fact because a set of hard rules about liability leads to less litigation than allocation of blame in individual cases.


I think doing so is a good idea and a net social plus. I assume that you think it is nanny-statist and the result of giving the government too much power. That is where the real dispute lies, not over who we think is most or least blameless in the particular a-b-c example you gave.

[Rosey]

[quote Beeeej][quote krose]Bob's irresponsibility in not having health insurance/disability...[/quote]

...makes me tune out from anything else you might have to say in probably about the same measure as Ben Rocky mocking you made you tune him out.

Not to say you might not have valid points, but why bother?[/quote]
Not sure what the issue here is: if a person doesn't look after him/herself, and no one else is explicitly responsible for doing so, who is responsible?  I assure you that I am not, whether the government says I am or not.

There's no difference between food, water, shelter, and health care in my opinion: they are all needs that someone must either provide for him/herself or arrange to have provided for him or her.  Health care exists primarily to provide for those "oh, shit!" scenarios when either something unexpected happens or another party responsible for some health-impacting action is unable to pick up the tab.  That's why it's irresponsible not to have it unless you are filthy rich or are simply willing to accept the consequences.

Cheers,
Kyle

[Tom Lento]

[quote krose]There's no difference between food, water, shelter, and health care in my opinion: they are all needs that someone must either provide for him/herself or arrange to have provided for him or her.  Health care exists primarily to provide for those "oh, shit!" scenarios when either something unexpected happens or another party responsible for some health-impacting action is unable to pick up the tab.  That's why it's irresponsible not to have it unless you are filthy rich or are simply willing to accept the consequences.[/quote]

I am a graduate student at Cornell. If I graduate and fail to find a job immediately, I will not be able to afford health insurance. I am not willing to accept the consequences, nor am I filthy rich. This makes me irresponsible? You can bet your life I'll be doing everything I can to find a job, but if I don't get a job with benefits pretty much right out of the gate next August, how am I "irresponsible" for not having health insurance?  I'm fortunate - I have a family to fall back on, but not everyone is in my position. In what way are they irresponsible?

The point is, in this country, decent health insurance is a *luxury* that only the affluent can reasonably afford. There are a lot of people who can only afford health insurance because their companies pay for it. They get laid off and suddenly they've got 6 months of incredibly expensive COBRA coverage - which is still cheaper than standard insurance plans - followed by a whole lot of nothing. If they do not find employment which includes benefits (or a substantial increase in pay) within that 6 month window, many of these responsible, hard-working Americans will not be able to maintain decent health coverage.

I assume this is what Beeeej was referring to with his comment above.

So, um, why isn't this in the John Spencer forum yet?  

[Rosey]

[quote Tom Lento]I am a graduate student at Cornell. If I graduate and fail to find a job immediately, I will not be able to afford health insurance. I am not willing to accept the consequences, nor am I filthy rich. This makes me irresponsible?[/quote]
Okay, so in addition to those three categories, there's another category of "really want insurance but are not able to afford due to life as a perpetual student."

I guess I see life choices that reduce income that would otherwise be available for health care---having children, buying expensive cars, or choosing a profession with intermittent/sparse employment opportunities---as part of "irresponsibility," though maybe that word is a bit too strong.  You acknowledge the problem that you may have a hard time getting insurance after your student insurance runs out... and yet it sounds like you'd rather live without insurance than get a job you don't want that offers health care benefits, probably because you know you can fall back on the government (i.e., the rest of us) to pay for it.

Despite all the above analysis, however, I'm sure there do exist plenty of people who made all the right life choices with respect to health insurance and still did not have any at the least opportune time.  This is unfortunate, not irresponsible, so my original statement was clearly incomplete.

But the inability or unwillingness to pay is only one of the two key issues here.  The other half is that theft is always wrong.  And taxation is morally equivalent to theft (among other things).  Just because you need something doesn't mean that I am morally obligated to pay for it, and yet I am forced to because the government has threatened to throw me in jail if I don't.

Someone being in unfortunate circumstances does not justify theft.  Plain and simple, nothing justifies theft.  Of course someone with a starving family may resort to theft to feed them, but he or she must accept the consequences of that action if he or she is caught.  Legalizing theft removes this disincentive to immoral action.  Add this to the list of reasons why government sucks.

The proper answer to people who are unable to pay for their own needs is charity.  Charity's voluntary nature is precisely what distinguishes charity from taxation.

Cheers,
Kyle

[KeithK]

[quote Tom Lento]So, um, why isn't this in the John Spencer forum yet?  [/quote]Because the administration has gone TOO far!!!!!!

[ftyuv]

double post, sorry

[Rosey]

[quote KeithK][quote Tom Lento]So, um, why isn't this in the John Spencer forum yet?  [/quote]Because the administration has gone TOO far!!!!!![/quote]
LOL.

Yeah, we should probably either kill this, or move it over there...

Kyle