Travels With Susan

In the current debate we often hear the argument that states compel people to buy auto insurance, why not health insurance.  After all you are more important than your car, right?  Wrong.  I don't know about other states, but in California, the only insurance you  are required to buy is called "liability" insurance.  You are NOT required to buy insurance that will reimburse you for damage or destruction to   your own car.  Look up California Vehicle Code  §16020 and 16021, 16054.2 and 16056 And Insurance Code §11580.1b.  Officially, the State of California doesn't care if you have insurance to repair your car when you wreck it.  The following states also don't care if you can afford to fix YOUR car if you wreck it:  Nevada, Washington, New York, and Illinois.  Massachusetts is the only state that requires you to buy insurance that benefits you as opposed to people you run into. In that state your insurance policy is required to pay for your medical injuries because it is a no-fault state.  For a survey of state laws, look here.

This is a huge difference between required auto insurance and the idea of required health insurance.  If you want the privilege of driving a car you must prove that you will be financially responsible for damage you might cause to other people.  This is fair and right.  An auto can be a lethal weapon.  

Not so with health insurance.  It is proposed that  you be required to take care of you.  The theory is that if you get sick, you will get medical treatment anyway and you won't pay for it.  So we will make you pay in advance.  Let me suggest that instead of talking about health insurance we talk about no cost or low cost medical care. And Lets require that you either pay for your own care or avail yourself of the free or low cost medical care available.