Social Question

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Mandatory health insurance, car insurance... Why not mandatory life, home, renter insurance too?

Asked by RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30864points) April 16th, 2014

As asked.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

16 Answers

Dan_Lyons's avatar

In many cases home insurance is mandatory or they will not let you buy the home.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@Dan_Lyons – only if you have a mortgage. If you own your place outright, you are not obligated to have home insurance. It’s a good idea to do so for lots of reasons, but it is not required.

Life insurance is discretionary, in my opinion. There may be social pressures from family to have my life insured, so they will get rich if I croak. But there’s no societal or contractual benefit if I die. (Note some large corporations buy life insurance on their CEOs so that they are made somewhat whole if the CEO kicks off.)

janbb's avatar

You are required to have insurance where the risk impacts other people. Where an ill effect only impacts yourself, you can decide if you want to risk it. Liability insurance on your car is required, not comp and collision.

Judi's avatar

If your home burns down you don’t burden society you just lose your house.
If you die without life insurance your spouse has to live on their own income.
If you don’t have medical insurance and you go to the RE,you will be treated, and if you can’t pay the bill the coat of your treatment is absorbed by the rest of us responsible citizens.
If you get in an accident without auto insurance you can destroy another persons life with no way to recover.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I’m torn both ways on the idea of mandatory insurance. I have a hard time with the fact that the gov’t can mandate that you buy a product from a private company and enforce penalties for non compliance. I hate to imagine how crappy it would be to get hit and injured by a driver with no insurance and no money.

LuckyGuy's avatar

Life: Because if you die without life insurance you only shortchange your family – not society.
Home: Because if your house is destroyed you only shortchange yourself (and the Red Cross donor).
Renter: Because if your apartment is robbed, only you are out for the value of the items lost.

Health: Because if you get sick you are taken care of without question. If a bomb goes off and you happen to be standing in front of it, society will pay for your surgery and recovery for as long as it takes. If you are a junkie and OD you will be treated in the emergency room you will still be cared for. Society, i.e. the taxpayers – are forced to pay for you. That is why you need insurance.
If you expect other sto pay for you in times of emergency, you need to help pay for others.
IMO you should have the right to not pay into the system, but you must sign a waiver stating that you will refuse treatment if you are sick or injured or will accept treatment that costs only up to a set amount – typically the value of your liquid assets.
You agree to be kicked out of the hospital, fixed or not, when the money runs out so people who have paid into the system can take that bed. Deal?

Cruiser's avatar

In my state it is against the law to drive an uninsured motor vehicle. As a renter you would be foolish to not have renters insurance unless of course the contents of your apartment is without much value. The ones that kill me are the people in unincorporated areas that refuse to pay the local fire departments $75.00 annual fire protection fee and then are shocked to have the fire department just stand there to make sure the neighbors home don’t go up in flames with the house that didn’t pay the fee.

I would love to be able to go back to the days of catastrophic health insurance plans. There is no way my family medical fees even come close to the $15,000 a year my Obama compliant plan provides.

Judi's avatar

@Cruiser, but if you or someone you loved got cancer or some other life threatening disease you will be happy you have it.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

It makes complete sense to have insurance but legally mandatory?

Cruiser's avatar

@Judi I did say I would still want catastrophic insurance like I had in my twenties for that very reason and it was durt cheep compared to today!

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@Cruiser I could not agree more. Why do insurance companies need to be involved for the routine stuff? I think catastrophic care makes a lot of sense.

Cruiser's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me Full service health policies encourage people to go to the doctor which opens the door to lots of unnecessary tests and prescriptions and big profits for all involved. I am sure insurance companies, Big Pharma, Hospitals, and Doctor practices are firmly in bed with each other.

Judi's avatar

@Cruiser, that’s basically what the Bronze policy is. ALL insurance has gone up since we were in our twenties!
I got the bronze policy with an HSA. I control the HSA and can use it for things not covered by the insurance policy and it’s pre tax money.

Cruiser's avatar

@Judi That totally makes the most sense. I just wish I had employees as smart as you to convince them that is the way to go. The paper work involved for all is a stumbling block along with a couple others that are outside this conversation.

rojo's avatar

I think @janbb pretty much states the case. It is required where society has to cover your ass if you screw up. It is for the safety and security of society, not the individual./ The others you mention benefit particular, named individuals and not society as a whole.

Paradox25's avatar

The difference is that your vehicle can be a dangerous weapon, so you or the other drivers/passengers affected by an accident can be left in dire circumstances without insurance. However, this also means that insurance companies need to be regulated since it’s mandatory to purchase this type of insurance if one chooses to drive.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther