If there were no vehicle insurance it would immobilze society.
Health insurance is also liability insurance. The difference here is that when people access the emergency room or otherwise without insurance, it impacts a large pool of 'value' if you will. In other words, the doctor or hospital or 'care center' has some degree of value that cushions it from the loss of an occassional person unable to pay. Is that the way it should be? Is that moral? Is it moral from the standpoint of forcing those that are unable to obtain and keep health insurance to forego care?
No matter how one looks at it the morality of the Accordable Health Care for Americans Act is more moral to all parties than any other alternative. It is moral to the institutions, the practitioners, the patients and the people that are employed in the practice of health care.
It is not moral of a populous to expect a hospital to accommodate those that are unable to pay for services they do not have a choice in needing to absorb all those costs and 'write it off.' Writing it off by a non-profit institution is hideous. Many health care institutions are non-profit which means they should be practicing 'fairness' in their costs. To impose a social standard that requires health care institutions, no matter how one defines that, to absorg their losses is not only immoral but dooms vital institutions to failure in the long run.
No matter how one tries to analogize 'car insurance' with 'health care insurance' it doesn't apply. There are very different paradigms that exist in both instances.
If a society is going to say they value high quality health care, but, then qualifies it for a 'class' of citizen that can afford it, that is an egrigious standard. It 'sets up' certain classes of citizens to a predetermined outcome in their lives. That LACK of morality demands that citizens in lower socio-economic classes in the USA are disposable and are not necessary for a society to value. Basically, why demand health care for all if certain classes of people aren't worth the effort or the 'moral standard.'
The immorality of allowing people to exist in life without the ability to access quality care in the USA is a Plutocratic value that diminishes the importance of human life and places on a 'value added' scale.
The last two decades has proven the Repuglican 'Value System' that denies citizens access to quality health care is a slippery slope. It was stopped and now it needs to be appreciated. There is no valid argument to repeal the law. There is however a great deal of validity to realizing how ungainly the spending for military prowess is in a world that doesn't really need it anymore. Now, if someone wants to discuss moral content of a society and the value of peace to offering citizens quality of life, that would interesting.
