verslagen1 wrote on 10/29/19 at 09:03:44:He made the point that 1 in 8 drivers are uninsured.
Please- let's be absolutely clear: this is one long run away from the topic of the lead post. It's a fractal digression, as the need to distract from the last stupid utterance leads to the next. Witness this latest forking:
Eegore, our resident public healthcare policy expert, mentioned car insurance as a conceptual placeholder for the impact of requiring insurance for participation- no "opting out" if a member is of a particular demographic. Mangled Spring, instead of speaking to the substantive point, digressed into the details of how to register a car and then drive it illegally in some States. Eegore redirects back from automobiles to national health care by explaining that the ACA can not be gamed as the automobile licensing example.
Eegore then, after prompting, returned to characterizing the benefit of requiring participation in the insurance market, qualifying the comparison to auto insurance thusly:
"
Health insurance isn't exactly the same as in identical, extremely similar, precisely comparatively equal or otherwise similar to extreme degrees. The concept in application is what shares similarity, but not identical attributes."
In other words, 'ya, there are differences- but they aren't pertinent, because we aren't talking about replication'.
So, this entire spiral down into how some driving illegally transfer their liability onto legal drivers is totally and completely irrelevant. In point of fact, the very concept of transferred liability is one of the primary concerns mandatory participation aims to address in the first place.
Then, Michael/verslagen1, you do us all the disservice by chasing the laser pointer dot. It doesn't fuxing matter that there are some uninsured motorists on the road. Eegore was not 'shamelessly and blatantly lying', as Malignant Spring slurred, by limiting consideration in his analogy
explicitly to legal drivers as a conceptual aid. We've all come to anticipate Minimal-effort Spring's throwing crap at the fan, Michael- but at least I expect more from you.
Instead of exploring why a council member felt comfortable saying 'gun laws should be relaxed because a homosexual is running for the Presidency', we're trying to catch the spinning crap as it falls.