Mandates never work: The case of auto insurance

View Comments (9)

• I think what the author was driving at (and perhaps did not help his cause with his examples) is the attitude of politicians rather than whether any particular or laws in general are good or bad.

  Politicians are the quintessential example of the maxim, "To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Whatever the issue, politicians respond by passing a law which "fixes" it then go preen for the TV cameras crowing "Problem solved, vote for me!" and then go back to dishing out the graft and the patronage. The reality is they've fixed nothing.

  One law the author should have used as an example but didn't was Prohibition. Despite its seemingly well-meaning rationale (health, violence, etc, etc) Prohibitiion stopped few people from drinking and made a lot of other issues much worse, especially the entrenchment of organized crime.

  The failure of Prohibition and the example of other laws which are regularly flouted causes one to ask what makes a law successful or not. I think it is a function of whether the public at large agrees with it, how much resources and determination the authorities are prepared to use to enforce it and how severe the risk of non-compliance (punishment) will be. And once these are established, how determined and creative will the efforts to be to circumvent?

  Prohibition was a failure despite government's determination to enforce it (if the Untouchables was any evidence.) The public at large didn't agree with it so they not only didn't obey it, they frequently didn't aid in enforcement (by turning in bootleggers, speakeasys, etc.) The profit that resulted from illegal liquor enabled the bootleggers to bribe judges and cops (many of whom liked to drink themselves) and set up their own criminal armies, similar to today's drug lords. Prohibition was basically doomed from Day 1.

  Let's take the auto insurance laws he cites. Do those laws actually make drivers buy insurance? Well, most people are intelligent enough to understand the need for it and the costs in most places are not onerous. So probably a large number of those drivers would buy it if you simply pointed out that it's a sensible idea. The law is really aimed at those left, the ones who don't think it's a good idea, don't give a shit or don't buy for other reasons (like money.) I don't know how you would estimate how many of the latter group buy because the law requires it but it would seem the scofflaw rate is very high in a number of states. California with its 25% rate stands out. The reason? Probably undocumented Democrats living under the radar. The law can forbid one from getting a drivers license without insurance but that doesn't matter to someone who drives without a license. California's auto insurance law is being undercut by political factors having nothing to do with auto insurance itself.

  So when we get to the question of how successful the ObamaCare mandate or tax or whatever it is will be, I think the answer given the history is "not very."

  Judging by their actions and attitudes, pols seem to have gotten the idea that they can almost legislate rain into existence (yeah, their efforts to influence "climate change" is a big joke, even bigger than they are.) But the truth is that just because they pass a law, it doesn't mean the oceans are going to recede and the dead walk. They often make things much worse as ObamaCare is doing. "Legislators" would be well advised to consider not only whether what they are addressing is fixable via legislation (the problem is a hex-head screw rather than a nail) but whether the public in general really wants it done and what the costs and ancillary effects will be. But for many/most of them, especially in the US Congress, power has gone to their heads and reflection and deliberation are things they can't even spell, let alone do.

  • One very important point you made:

    Do those laws actually make drivers buy insurance? Well, most people are intelligent enough to understand the need for it and the costs in most places are not onerous.

    The cost of car insurance for one year in most cases is less than 2 months cost of Obamacare, and the deductible is about 15% of the Obamacare deductible. Therefore, it is no wonder people have very little complaint about car insurance but much complaint about Obamacare. Don't forget, car insurance includes personal injury protection, AKA accidental injury (health) insurance!

• The problem with this analogy is that with car insurance, you are paying to cover damage you might do to others, with health insurance, you are the only one at risk for physical consequences.
  Why are we being forced to pay for something that doesn't affect others?

  • Totally right. Additionally, health insurance the way we have it, is not health insurance, it is pre-paid health care since most over use it since basic things like check ups and other maintenance items are covered. I don't know about anyone else but my wiper blade replacements and oil changes are out of pocket items.

    • And with car insurance, you can opt out of coverage you no longer need, like opting out of full coverage when the car is so old it is no longer financially logical to continue to pay for full coverage.

      • Good point Rose! I can't believe we all missed that one!
        We don't have to carry full coverage because someone else needs it.

• I think most people are really unaware of how many people there are out there on the road without insurance - or even a drivers license. Since July I have had 4 cars end up in my front yard after spinning out of a curve. The first one had insurance. The second one did not, and the 3rd one was a hit and run situation where the driver was drinking, had no driver's license or insurance. I hope the one that really tore the place up Tuesday night has insurance. That would make a 50% insurance rate, and this is the worst damage of all 4 instances.

• I'll take issue with just a couple of remarks made at the article. The writer notes that he recently was in a taxi, and noted that every other vehicle on the road was exceeding the speed limit, and 1/3 of the drivers were illegally chatting on cell phones. His point -- that laws don't stop lawbreakers, something of a circular argument, but there you are. But perhaps with those specific laws in place, ONLY 1/3 of drivers were on the phone, rather than 3/4. Maybe cars were traveling ONLY 65 instead of 85 or 90. The laws at least reduce the risk out there, which is their purpose. No, no law is ever going to achieve 100% compliance, if it did, there would be no need for it. And the laws do become a tool for enforcement -- suppose a cop sees a car start to zig just a bit -- not enough to be called reckless but enough that he thinks there may be a problem -- if little Susy is chatting away on the phone, he has a reason to pull her over and hopefully pound a little sense into her before she kills herself or someone else.

  Ya know, we often gripe about overintrusive laws -and rightly so- but we also gripe about how stupid most people are, and repeat the refrain that common sense is the least common of all the senses. So yes, for something like this, people do need to be reminded that IT'S STUPID TO SPEED AND TALK ON THE PHONE AND TEXT WHILE YOU'RE DRIVING. Or to get drunk and go out for a cruise. The same proposition that laws don't stop crime are used to argue for legalizing dope, and I know there are mixed feelings around here on that. As for auto insurance --which I'm not sure is a valid analogy to medical insurance-- the same proposition applies. The question isn't How many scofflaws are there, but how many would have it if it wasn't required? Few enough that driving would be a lot scarier, or I miss my guess. But of course, this is all specifically about driving, a fairly hazardous pastime on the public roads, and as we are also fond of saying (in the comparison the healthcare), no-one requires you to drive a car. You CAN avoid all the rules & regs of the road by simply not owning a car; there is no unavoidable infringement on any right.

  </rant

  • No, there isn't really a good direct comparison between mandatory health insurance and mandatory auto insurance. In states where auto insurance is mandatory, it is only liability that is required. Therefore, it's more of a personal responsibility to others on the road kind of thing. You're not required to insure your own vehicle against damage.