No US laws. There are other countries outside the US though. There are indeed laws in my jurisdiction that mandate insurance and If you can’t afford to live in the city, there are no jobs without a car.
I don’t doubt the US is that way, but the US has a very unique system when it comes to healthcare and insurance generally.
Also the first result in Google suggests there are indeed jurisdictions in the US that penalize a lack of insurance. You should have clicked your own link lol.
there are indeed jurisdictions in the US that penalize a lack of insurance
This isn’t how one would define “illegal to not have.” See, making it a penalty for not having, doesn’t default to being illegal for not having- which means it’s not mandatory. Which means-
You should have tried to understand what it was I was saying lol.
Same “logic” as saying that “no one is forcing you to eat”.
In reality those who do have an option to not drive are in certain professional occupations (basically office jobs with remote working) and/or live in certain places (such as city centers were housing costs are much higher).
The forcing to drive isn’t done via a clear explicitly written law that sets penalities for people who don’t drive (clearly the only level of extremely painfuly obvious limitation that certain people need to identify it as an imposed choice), it’s done by removing choices from people or artifically making other choices be very negative, for example by giving so much room to cars and such weak penalties for running over cyclists that cycling becomes very dangerous, by outside city centers not having proper pedestrian walkways or by how Land Property laws inflated the price of housing - a life essential - to such level that many people can’t afford to live near work and have to commute to it, which they can’t do with public transportation because no such thing is provided or is laughably inadequate.
The “forcing” isn’t don’t in a “so painfully obvious that even a simpletion gets it” way, it’s done via removing of making unviable choices at multiple levels and isn’t equal for everybody - generally the less well of you are the worse it gets (for example people whose bank of mommy and daddy paid for their higher education so that generally they earn enough to have access to the kind of housing and/or be in a profession were, unlike the others, they do have a real choice not to drive).
(I actually don’t drive, and I’ve chosen not to drive because I can and I do think more people who do have a choice not to drive should do it like I do and walk or cycle to work, or even work from home, but I also hail from a poor working class background and don’t run around with well-off middle class delusions that my somewhat priviledged situation is typical rather than atypical)
Then don’t drive a car. No one is forcing you to.
And health insurance isn’t mandatory. Sorry this flies in the face of manufactured outrage, but there’s no law that dictates you must have insurance.
It’s an option.
No US laws. There are other countries outside the US though. There are indeed laws in my jurisdiction that mandate insurance and If you can’t afford to live in the city, there are no jobs without a car.
I don’t doubt the US is that way, but the US has a very unique system when it comes to healthcare and insurance generally.
Also the first result in Google suggests there are indeed jurisdictions in the US that penalize a lack of insurance. You should have clicked your own link lol.
This isn’t how one would define “illegal to not have.” See, making it a penalty for not having, doesn’t default to being illegal for not having- which means it’s not mandatory. Which means-
You should have tried to understand what it was I was saying lol.
If you need To drive you need to have insurance It’s not an option to not drive in many places
No one is forcing you to drive anywhere.
Same “logic” as saying that “no one is forcing you to eat”.
In reality those who do have an option to not drive are in certain professional occupations (basically office jobs with remote working) and/or live in certain places (such as city centers were housing costs are much higher).
The forcing to drive isn’t done via a clear explicitly written law that sets penalities for people who don’t drive (clearly the only level of extremely painfuly obvious limitation that certain people need to identify it as an imposed choice), it’s done by removing choices from people or artifically making other choices be very negative, for example by giving so much room to cars and such weak penalties for running over cyclists that cycling becomes very dangerous, by outside city centers not having proper pedestrian walkways or by how Land Property laws inflated the price of housing - a life essential - to such level that many people can’t afford to live near work and have to commute to it, which they can’t do with public transportation because no such thing is provided or is laughably inadequate.
The “forcing” isn’t don’t in a “so painfully obvious that even a simpletion gets it” way, it’s done via removing of making unviable choices at multiple levels and isn’t equal for everybody - generally the less well of you are the worse it gets (for example people whose bank of mommy and daddy paid for their higher education so that generally they earn enough to have access to the kind of housing and/or be in a profession were, unlike the others, they do have a real choice not to drive).
(I actually don’t drive, and I’ve chosen not to drive because I can and I do think more people who do have a choice not to drive should do it like I do and walk or cycle to work, or even work from home, but I also hail from a poor working class background and don’t run around with well-off middle class delusions that my somewhat priviledged situation is typical rather than atypical)
Bus
Taxi
Uber
Bike
No excuses.