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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gamesmistress who wrote (36382)	5/2/2014 4:11:53 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

but as mandates you must pay for them whether you want it or not. I did not mean to suggest that I find car regulation benign when it comes to choice, only that there are several orders of magnitude of difference in degree between car regulation and PPACA regulation wrt choice as well as differences in kind.

To: gamesmistress who wrote (36382)	5/2/2014 4:25:59 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 42652

I think the rear-view cameras requirement is absurd. While the cost of those cameras will eventually be as low as the cost of mirrors, in the near term it will add a couple hundred dollars to the cost of a new car. There are also fuel efficiency considerations on replacing the outside mirrors with cameras and that will happen, too. But I just don't get the idea of government regulations requiring it. The claim is it will save lives but I really doubt whether there is evidence to support that claim. In the meantime, it just means some people who might have gotten a new car will buy a used car instead. Job killer lol.