There seems to be a whole lot of lack of noticing what I actually said.
And yep, many people who have their *expletive deleted*it together are pretty great people. However, on the potential awesomeness of people who enjoy congratulating themselves on how much better they are than other people, well, my agreement on that point is somewhat more nonexistent.
Nope, Roo_ster, I'm not wrong. But from the bits you quoted, I suspect your understanding and my understanding of what I was saying are not identical. I lack the terminology to be completely clear; it's been a couple years since I worked on a specific close analogue of this issue.
The trouble I have with the whole "I didn't make this into class warfare" assertion is that, well, no, ya didn't. If one assumes that while all people are equal, middle-class people with spouses and property are substantially more equal than everyone else.
Brad pointed out how insurance is mandatory because people weren't taking responsibility for their actions. Ok, fine. But who? It hasn't historically been the case, for several reasons, but one could look at this as an assumption of risk issue just as easily as a negligence issue. It'd have to have involved some twisting stuff around some, but then, the development of various no-fault laws and cases involving car accidents have also twisted the law around to fit the circumstances. That's how it works. Perhaps it's irresponsible to drive around on a public road in a vehicle worth over say, $5000, without having taken into account the risks involved and insured against them? Of course, that doesn't address the medical expenses or wrongful death issues, but it's not a proposal, just a thought exercise: After all, I've never owned a car worth more than $4,000 or so. Don't see why anyone would. It's just irresponsible to take that kind of risk, and expect other people to pay for it, isn't it?
I mean, fine, so you want to drive your Mercedes, or two-year old Ford sub-compact, or similar luxury vehicle, knowing full well that driving is hazardous yadda yadda yadda...and you think it's ok for the gov't to mix in and force us to pay for your indiscretion and recklessness?!?! All those anti-Obamacare arguments apply, if you step out of your position for a minute and think about it. (Although with the above I was thinking of various rants on stuff like drinking, smoking, being fat, and socking it to medicare/aid for the consequences. Plenty of those arguments tie back to Obamacare.)
And there's no point in disdaining the idea of considering the position of poor people. I think it was Bill Cosby who talked about how all teenagers are broke and homeless. Everybody has to start somewhere. Perhaps it is unreasonable to require people who will not ever drive in a grossly negligent way to "ethically" ensure they can cover their liability if they are grossly negligent, which they won't be? Perhaps it would be more ethical of those people to spend that money on enough life insurance to take care of their children should some other jackass behave in a grossly negligent manner? Ethics are complicated, and come down to competing priorities. Some other dude's car, or your kid's medical expenses? The chance of some other dude getting hurt down the road, or not stiffing the doctor who treated your broken arm? Or life insurance? Or housing, food, etc?
Cue rant on how those nasty poor people all have color tv's and live on food stamps...
But note use of the term "gross negligence" above. You're only responsible for covering damage if you're negligent, and negligence involves violating a "reasonable person" standard of care to be taken in any given activity. Those filthy lawyers have ridden our society with ludicrous negligence cases, but what if we'd first killed all the lawyers? (Seriously, thought exercise only, plz.) What if we actually held people responsible for accidents that were caused by them actually not behaving in a reasonable manner? What if "reasonable manner" actually meant what it's supposed to mean--not really defined for ordinary injury/property damage cases, but in med-mal cases, it's supposed to be a level of care LESS than the average doctor in that situation. The rationale there is that docs have to meet an "average doctor" standard, half of 'em are committing malpractice just by walking into the room. That judge really should've been consulted by the people who drafted NCLB. But what then? What if it is actually reasonable to rear-end someone who brakes short in front of you? Below average level of skill sure, but not unreasonably reckless, not necessarily.
You can come up with all kinds of reasons why it's not like health care, but it only isn't like health care because legislatures say it isn't, and because your personal interests align with those laws. And sure, maybe you're right. Maybe this country is about the people who are doing ok, and protecting their interests. Or maybe not. The trouble is that when the government mixes too much, someone always gets shafted. And someone always gets a bit of an edge. And there's a whole lot of murkiness about who should get what and why. Which is why gov't shouldn't mix in much. Like by requiring people to buy insurance products regardless of any personal benefit. (Oh sure, it's about ethics...which are also not the government's business to impose.)
See, that whole small government really sucking for people who live on government handouts? Turns out, small government sucks for just about everyone, in various ways. It just sucks a bit less tyrannically. Human nature may be downright nasty, but government could avoid a whole lot of unintended consequences if it stopped intending for its actions to do something.
