RC>>> Why do you defend the Govt mandating that people have to purchase
 RC>>> something or else?

 RS>> Like car insurance?

 RC> One doesnt have to drive.

 Esp if one doesn't want to go anywhere.

 RC> Even so, they only have to have coverage to protect others
 RC> from the damage they do..

 And medical insurance protects the providers from your inability
 to pay for care. It sure doesn't protect you, now does it.
 Unless you are a medical care provider.

 RC> and licensing oneself to drive or licensing a vehicle is a
 RC> privilege, not a right.

 It is? Since when?

 Now driving on public roads *MIGHT* be called a priviledge.
 OTOH, I find it interesting that a so called conservative will
 say using public property is a priviledge, not a right.

 RC> The car insurance requirement is merely a stipulation to
 RC> get the vehicle licensed.

 Yeah... sure... and if you don't own a vehicle, why do you have
 to have auto insurance if you have a drivers license?

 RC> There is no sanction by the state if one chooses to not
 RC> operate an automobile.

 Well, at least we got that.

 RC> The Fed law will penalize people if they dont purchase
 RC> health insurance, just how will you pay for yours?

 You can guarantee you will not drive a car, can you guarantee
 you will not need medical care?

 And how you will pay for it is the point I have a problem with.
 How will you pay for yours?

 RC> Of course we are talking FEDS versus STATES, to bad that
 RC> you do not know the distinction.

 For the moral portion of this discussion, the distinction is
 without a difference.

 RC> Since you chose to divert with the Car insurance reference,
 RC> you do not drive nor own a car, exactly how does Wisconsin
 RC> sanction you for not purchasing car insurance?

 Possibly by not letting him have a drivers license.




BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Every time I get near the top, they move the top... Carlos's law.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]