There is nothing wrong with the public option. Hell, it doesn't even have to be government administered. We should be allowed to pool together into private insurance groups free from our employer based health care.
In all honesty, I do think that the mandate is unconstitutional. I think it's a huge over reach of the commerce clause. Who is to say that next the government says you have to buy a certain brand of toothpaste because it's the healthiest? That's the logical progression of the individual mandate.
Minimum coverage is to protect others from you, not to protect you. If something happens and you put them in the hospital for a year (they don't have health insurance, this is america, remember?) you will have their bills to pay, which could be in the tens of thousands or the millions.
If you can prove that you can financially meet the minimum state requirements for liability cost and everything that is required to be covered, then why should you be forced to purchase car insurance?
Maybe once we are all millionaires that will be the point~ thats not the case right now (or ever, for that matter.)
I agree that if you aren't financially able to cover the state minimum requirements for another person's medical bills and or property due to an accident, then you should be required to carry minimum insurance. That is only because you pose a threat to others. However, requiring everyone to purchase insurance despite the fact that they have the means to pay for someone else's care if they injure them is nothing more then a hand out to the insurance companies.
In regards to insurance premiums going up due to those without insurance, if we had a public option that made health insurance affordable for people, even lower income people, then we wouldn't see premiums rise like they do. Insurance premiums rise like they do because most insurance companies operate in a monopoly fashion. Sure rising health care costs play a part in it, but it's more due to the lack of competition and the people's inability to join group plans together across state lines. Competition between insurance companies is pretty much nonexistant.
I'm curious, how would one determine the amount that would be sufficient to 'cover damages' in an accident that hasn't happened yet? I like insurance in the sense that even if the payout is a billion dollars, I'm not responsible for paying that out, they are. I give them my money, they give theirs. Are the rates reasonable?... I don't think they are, since they have been making hundreds of millions of dollars of profit for years and years now. But in concept the idea is stead~ that is, unless we had a system where people were taken care of regardless of whether they could pay or not, thus eliminating the need for a significant part of insurance to begin with.
I think on health care we are close to the same page... I guess I'll have to watch the discussion more.
I love it! all I need is fifty thousand dollars that I won't need to tie it up in a cd, then I won't have to pay $150 dollars a month! unless, of course, I'm in an accident, in which case I will still have to pay for everything that damages my vehicle and anothers if I am at fault..
I guess I like the idea of airing on the side of caution when it comes to what little money I have, especially when shit is so expensive nowadays. being in the situation I am, I can't imagine wanting to put up a lump sum of cash so I don't have to pay a small fee per month, but hey, thats just me.