Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (112133)	5/1/2005 3:06:09 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793970

Auto insurance is mandatory only for liability reasons, and where it is mandatory its a state mandate not a federal one. Furthermore, no one is required by law to drive a car.

To: TimF who wrote (112133)	5/1/2005 3:22:07 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793970

Auto insurance is mandatory only for liability reasons Auto insurance is not a suitable model for other reasons, too. Driving is a privilege for which we need a permit. Insurance is attached to that. Medical care is a purchase or goods and services, regarding which we have certain rights. Driving is something that has alternatives. There's always the bus and taxi where you leave the driving to someone else. You can offload your medical care. If folks are hot on regulating to make sure people pay for their medical care, a more flexible way might be to create medical service registration, a card you carry that indicates the method of payment to which you have formally committed. People who can't pay will have Medicaid cards and the rest of us will proffer some other mechanism be it insurance, cash, credit card, medical savings account, a third party or whatever. That way everyone is obliged to see to it that the bills are paid and the medical provider will know when service is given that it will be paid.