Friday, April 20, 2012 | 2:02 a.m.
This is not to discuss the pros and cons of the Affordable Care Act, but rather to point out an inaccuracy that Irwin Kaufman (and many other letter writers on the health care issue) made in comparing compulsory health care to automobile insurance.
While all 50 states require “financial responsibility” whenever your vehicle is operated on public roads, automobile insurance is not the only way to meet your financial obligations. Most states will allow you to post a bond or self-insure as another means of meeting your financial responsibility.
Therefore, should an individual believe that he or she operates his or her motor vehicle in an accident-free environment or has an aversion to contributing to the profits of an automobile insurance company and is financially able to meet the state’s minimum requirements, that individual does not have to purchase automobile insurance.
This is not the case with the Affordable Care Act. If an individual feels young and/or healthy enough to not need health insurance or does not want to contribute to the profits of health care companies and feels financially able to provide health care as needed, the Affordable Care Act still requires compulsory participation. Hence, you cannot compare compulsory health care with automobile insurance.