Michigan had unlimited lifetime coverage from 1978 to 2019. That it was no fault doesn't really matter all that much, there's enough people driving and enough collisions that it reflected the cost of doing it, even if there's disagreement about whether the placement of that cost was fair.
Then in 2019 they made unlimited coverage opt in. Now ~Medicaid is gonna cover those injuries. A victory for the supposedly libertarian leaning Michigan House Republicans, moving Michigan from a user-fee type of system to the dole.
You basically get internal faults and cable faults with HV stuff. A box reporting that the AC compressor motor winding isn't shorted isn't going to make the compressor work with a shorted winding. ECU probably wouldn't disengage the powertrain for that though.
And then things like battery temperature warnings will quickly turn into real failures.
And then the next generation or 2 of stuff is going to at least attempt to implement cybersecurity features that greatly complicate tampering at the message level.
The exhaust from a well functioning modern ICE is likely enough to have less pollutants than the air. Of course it still has carbon dioxide, but less other pollutants.
>> EV have far more tire wear because they are heavier
Is this true?
If an EV were 30% heavier than an ICE, would it produce 30% more tyre wear emissions? Or would it produce more or less than 30%? Is the primary factor in tyre wear weight and is the relationship linear?
The types of tyres appear to be quite different, the EVs seem to have smaller contact patches (narrower wheels) and they're made of different "less grippy" compounds that drag less. Does this change the equation at all?
Make it illegal to enable any commercial transactions within the state supporting federal agents. No food sales, no fuel sales, no hotel stays, no medical care, no rental cars. Make them drag their supply chain in like the Middle East.
In state economic deplatforming.
You're gonna prosecute Minnesotans for accepting cash?
Some guy comes into your restaurant and eats a meal. Pays cash. Leaves. He was a sanctioned Russian. You're now subject to charges from the state of Minnesota?
Yeah you aren't getting the point. I'm not saying that the proprietor would be at risk for unfair prosecution, I'm saying the policy would be useless because it is easy to avoid if you don't take it to an absurd extreme.
I guess I should have spelled it out in the initial comment.
There's already a law against helping a criminal flee a crime scene, but the criminal may still buy a train ticket and the train company isn't liable unless he told them he was a criminal, but anyone who knew he was a criminal and helped him anyway goes to jail. This is nothing new.
No, I mean that it wouldn't hamper ICE all that much unless you took it to an extreme. An onerous policy inflicted on the people of Minnesota that accomplished little in the way of disrupting federal operations.
I think it would. They crashed out over a single cancelled hotel reservation. These aren't hardened troops that can set up a bivouac in a random clearing, they're accustomed to all the niceties of modern life. If all hotels refused to serve them, if they couldn't buy groceries because their cards were declined, if the state blockaded their detention centers, they'd find their job much harder.
Was the customer wearing a mask of the style the violent invaders use to hide their faces from legal accountability? If so, then yes it sounds like the restaurant owner should have suspected they were one of the gang and not served them.
If they removed their mask before getting to the restaurant, and the restaurant owner had no other reason to suspect them, then the restaurant owner is in the clear. But hopefully someone took a picture of their face so they can be on the early admission list for Nuremberg 2.
> You're gonna prosecute Minnesotans for accepting cash?
If supporting domestic terrorism for economic gains, yes. How you provide the support is irrelevant. State charges cannot be pardoned. Based on the general strike this week, good luck finding a favorable jury for aiding and abetting.
"You can just do things." If the federal government files suit, ignore them and keep going while you tie it up in court and run out the clock on this administration. It is easy to forget that supporters of this admin and these actions are in a minority.
Sure, whatever it takes. You somehow think it’s incredulous when Pornhub was deplatformed from credit card rails easily, and is still age gated in 23 states through statute. This is far worse, and laws can be made to do whatever the target outcome is.
I get it, your mental model differs, and that’s fine. The tools exist and can be used. They could start by blacklisting the BIN of any federal government payment card, and tighten further iteratively based on continuous monitoring and ground truth acquisition. If aggressors have to start carrying large quantities of cash around to operate, sounds like that’s going to be an operational risk.
Federal supremacy is based on respect of their authority and providing them material support in state through economic exchange. Revoke both and they are powerless on the ground, and are at the mercy of the locals.
You are proposing that every customer identify themself for every transaction, and that every store verifies that identity against a state maintained list.
"Stop their payment cards" just makes things a little inconvenient for the bad guys. What you are proposing makes everything very inconvenient for everyone. Mental models differ indeed.
Blue states fund red states, they are the economic engines of the country. California has the forth largest economy in the world. The federal government has more to lose. Red states are poor. Blue states can simply withhold federal support, keep federal tax revenue in state and let the federal government try to sue for it.
Even in the absolute best case scenario where this just works, the bare minimum retaliation is withholding of federal funds, and I guarantee you any state or state populace in that scenario will blink first.
Blue states fund red states, they are the economic engines of the country. California has the forth largest economy in the world. The federal government has more to lose. Red states are poor. Blue states can simply withhold federal support, keep federal tax revenue in state and let the federal government try to sue for it.
I encourage the federal government to try to support itself off of red states.
I understand that, but you're assuming they also stop paying federal tax altogether? Your initial point was to just not allow federal employees to transact, but now we're quickly entering secession territory. The red states mostly grow the food, anyway. Is Manhattan prepared to starve? Feds may block imports to such a rogue state.
If your point is that states should essentially secede to prevent federal agents from doing anything within, that's possible, but I don't think most citizens of even the bluest state want to secede.
> The major power lever that could be used in soft secession is if a state normally giving more in taxes to the federal government than it receives back would cease to send tax revenue to the federal government. These states, which generally are blue states governed by a Democratic Party majority, could leverage finances to exert influence over the federal administration, i.e. a Republican administration seen as hostile to their interests.
Interestingly, if done strategically, you could cause the US government to default on treasuries through a loss of federal revenue (a component of which is used to service US debt), forcing a debt spiral. This would enable the states with economic power to "wag the dog" in partnership with the bond market, because the federal government cannot operate if they lose the power of funding via issuing debt while also losing revenue from these states. Net contributor states could issue muni debt directly into the bond market, avoiding the need for federal dollars.
Blue states can force the federal government into default, if they have the will.
You're being downvoted, I think unfairly, because this is a completely valid rebuttal.
Without going into a diatribe about how governments necessitate coercion and violence, enforcing such a "law" would indeed be counterproductive and hard to enforce, like you're indicating.
That said, mutual agreement by businesses and citizenry to make efforts to identify federal agents, then refuse to conduct business seems like it should already be entering discussions (if it isn't). Additional coercion by the local government doesn't need to enter the equation of civil disobedience.
The more local one is medium sized and I've been shopping there for years, so I don't really have to find anything.
I should go to the butcher that's a few blocks away more often though.
reply