Everything is different in some ways. Question is how relevant is the difference.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @DeanBradleySFF
I don't see the relevance of "dim views". If the insurance is required, it will in fact be provided.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @robinhanson @DeanBradleySFF
Yeah using private insurance companies as the instrument of policy has worked great for American healthcare
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bitemyapp @DeanBradleySFF
Do you advocate repealing the requirement for auto liability insurance?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @robinhanson @DeanBradleySFF
No, but it doesn't insure against intentional vehicular homicide. I cannot buy insurance against setting my own restaurant on fire. That's clearly irrational (how do you underwrite that??) and illegal.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bitemyapp @DeanBradleySFF
If it were legal, and required, you almost surely could buy it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @DeanBradleySFF @bitemyapp
If it were required for everyone, you and the robbers would all buy it.
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like
is that a joke? why would people willing to break the law against robbery not be willing to break the law against letting insurance lapse?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.