Liability insurance for automobiles is required by law and is very different from a legal requirement to purchase health insurance (you could probably make some argument for liability insurance for contagious diseases, but that's not really part of the health care policy debate).
Health insurance isn't so different. If you have a sudden health crisis, you'll get treatment. If you're unable to pay for that treatment then the rest of us have to pay for it, and requiring you to carry insurance avoids that.
The alternative (barring socialized medicine) would be to refrain from treating people unless they can proved their ability to pay, which sets you up for dying unnecessarily just because you forgot your wallet or something. And I'd really rather not have it be like that.
Of course, our current insurance mandate requires a lot more coverage than is necessary just for that, but at least a big chunk of it resembles the auto insurance requirement.
I do have liability insurance for my car, since it is required by law. I would be prepared to live without one if it became unaffordable. For most of human history, the vast majority of us got around on foot. (In fact, that may still be true, I don't know.) Buses and trains still work, if that's not palatable for some reason. Whole startup companies have been built around getting people from point A to point B in larger cities.
I do not have health insurance. I recently had major surgery that others have helped me to pay for, but I was in fact completely prepared to die, as odd as that may sound to most.
Our lives on this earth are finite. Most people don't deal with that reality in any meaningful way, even when they acknowledge that it is true intellectually.
You strike me as awfully hypocritical. You go on about how terrible insurance is, how lives are finite anyway, how you were prepared to die, and yet you didn't just die, nor did you pay for your own treatment.
The only difference between you and me in this area is that I can admit that I'd rather not die now, and my relationship with the people who would pay for my major surgery is a little more formal.
This business about how health insurance is a terrible idea and you're prepared to die from a lack of it would be a lot more convincing if you were paying for your own care and foregoing major interventions.
It doesn't indicate a preference for dying but it does indicate that they don't have much preference for living either, when it's the "but" clause after "I recently had major surgery."
I understand the whole thing to be saying, I accept mortality and it wouldn't have been so bad to forego the surgery and die. Which makes me wonder why he went ahead with the surgery and foisted the resulting high cost onto their mysterious benefactors.
I could understand (if not agree with) "I was prepared to die, and it wasn't worth the cost, so I'm dying now." I could understand "I was prepared to die, but preferred to live, even though it came at a high cost." But I can't understand "I was prepared to die, but preferred to live using other people's money, but by the way insurance is terrible and I only buy the minimum required by law."
I understand the objections. Frankly, I was not consulted about the surgery, so the choice was not in my hands. And I have committed all my available funds to paying the bills. And they are not completely paid at this point, but neither do I expect that others will pay them. Rather, others graciously provided funds to help in paying the bills, unsolicited. There was no "Go Fund Me" or similar internet plea for assistance, not even any request by email or phone or in person.
And frankly, I would have preferred to leave here, but it was not my choice. In fact, I have not dealt with it well at times, and even got drunk a little over a week ago. Shameful to admit, but true.
"So, second, to me, buying insurance is an act of unbelief."
Well, that's not the direction I was expecting for this. Probably not much point in arguing, since you're not coming at it from a rational perspective to begin with.
Still, I can't resist trying one thing. Do you look for cars before you cross the street? Assuming yes, how is that any less of an act of unbelief than buying insurance?
Of course I look for cars before crossing the street. It is not a question of wandering through life like some errant child doing whatever I please; to the contrary, it requires the full engagement of my human faculties and abilities.
At the same time, I am not so arrogant as to think that I have control over the larger circumstances in which I find myself. The economy could collapse, my family members could fall ill, war and famine could break out, society could become degraded and violent, the government could oppress me and those I love because of our beliefs. To me, it is far less rational to think that insurance or any of the other social structures available today will be of any assistance in those circumstances.
And it is completely irrational to believe that man has created all of the universe, or that somehow order was imposed on chaos without some divine intelligence directing things. On a more practical note, it is also irrational to assume that the very favorable (at least for a majority of the people) circumstances that have prevailed in the U.S. for the last couple of centuries will continue indefinitely. History demonstrates that the opposite of that is more likely in the long run.
But you're right, there's probably not much point in arguing, since you're not coming at it from a rational perspective to begin with. ;p
I did not solicit their help in any way. Their decisions are theirs. Why would I deny them the ability to participate and to do what their consciences apparently led them to do? It's not as if it is a dishonest debt, such as a gambling debt; if it were, then yes, I would return their money. (Though I certainly believe that in the totality of the debt, there is some dishonesty on the part of the providers.)
