Just when we didn’t think the state of Texas could get any more wacko on tech policy, this latest bill really suggests otherwise. House Bill 1181 is an age verification measure that is similar…
Porn sites must have government health warning in Texas from September 1st::Just when we didn’t think the state of Texas could get any more wacko on tech policy, this latest bill really suggests otherwise. House Bill 1181 is an age verification measure that is similar to what we’ve seen in the state legislatures across other red U.S. states. You have an age verification proposal that is similar…
I remember being VERY pissed about Obamacare requiring an individual having insurance by paying a for-profit company, else pay a penalty, because of the pro-corp “nanny state” implications, much like I despise legally-required auto insurance (without a government-funded baseline).
Yet here we are with “muh indivdulizm” republicans making the overreach far worse than Democrats ever would have.
This. I was too young for Obamacare to be something I knew a single thing about but as a car owner and leftist auto insurance has always rubbed me wrong.
It’s just another means to keep people from being hireable by denying them jobs due to shitty public transit and the inability to legally drive their cars.
The parts of auto insurance meant to help you are optional. It’s only the part that will help others in the event you cause damage or injury to them that is mandatory, which people who can’t afford to drive because of insurance certainly wouldn’t be able to afford.
Now change it to a system where there aren’t executives and shareholders looking to extract a lot of money from that necessity and I’m all for it. But I’m vehemently against just removing the requirement entirely.
IMO if you can afford it, it’s dumb to opt out of the optional ones, too, even with the profit going to the insurance execs and owners. Unless you have enough savings to easily replace your vehicle in the event you crash it or a tree falls on it that isn’t covered by someone’s homeowner’s insurance.
If they can barely afford the insurance and hit you their insurance isn’t paying.
I’ve been hit by red light runners thrice and while biking in a parking lot (ironically got more injured here) and only two times the drivers didn’t have insurance… not a single one paid out.
Insurance is a scam and defending it is akin to defending a Ponzi scheme imo.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
English
I remember being VERY pissed about Obamacare requiring an individual having insurance by paying a for-profit company, else pay a penalty, because of the pro-corp “nanny state” implications, much like I despise legally-required auto insurance (without a government-funded baseline).
Yet here we are with “muh indivdulizm” republicans making the overreach far worse than Democrats ever would have.
This. I was too young for Obamacare to be something I knew a single thing about but as a car owner and leftist auto insurance has always rubbed me wrong.
It’s just another means to keep people from being hireable by denying them jobs due to shitty public transit and the inability to legally drive their cars.
The parts of auto insurance meant to help you are optional. It’s only the part that will help others in the event you cause damage or injury to them that is mandatory, which people who can’t afford to drive because of insurance certainly wouldn’t be able to afford.
Now change it to a system where there aren’t executives and shareholders looking to extract a lot of money from that necessity and I’m all for it. But I’m vehemently against just removing the requirement entirely.
IMO if you can afford it, it’s dumb to opt out of the optional ones, too, even with the profit going to the insurance execs and owners. Unless you have enough savings to easily replace your vehicle in the event you crash it or a tree falls on it that isn’t covered by someone’s homeowner’s insurance.
No it’s a safeguard against someone destroying your fucking car and not having the means to pay for it.
If they can barely afford the insurance and hit you their insurance isn’t paying.
I’ve been hit by red light runners thrice and while biking in a parking lot (ironically got more injured here) and only two times the drivers didn’t have insurance… not a single one paid out.
Insurance is a scam and defending it is akin to defending a Ponzi scheme imo.
Are you suggesting state run insurance or no requirement for insurance?
I think there should be no requirement or a govt funded baseline
The government funded baselines for insurance is the high risk pool, or just not driving.