I'mmm going to have to go ahead and sort of..... disagree with you there? He's been real flakey lately, and I don't think he's the kind of person we want for upper management.....
Seriously, requiring people to disclose all their personal information before being allowed to ride would amount to prior restraint, not to mention the fact that government has no right to know. I don't want the government knowing any more than they have to about me, even if they know pretty much everything already anyway.
This is a touchy situation for conservatives. Liberals have no problem here. More laws, more regulations, less freedom, easy solution. Government has no place providing health care for anyone. But denying care to a dying person amounts to murder (although, given some of their other positions, i.e. abortion, even this wouldn't be much of a stretch for a liberal). I have two general feelings on the solution to the problem:
#1. The financial responsibility for providing the poor with health care should fall on those that would freely donate their resources to help. I think privately owned foundations could have a role in the collection and disbursement of funds to hospitals for the settlement of debts owed by the poor. Notice I didn't say "uninsured". I think it should simply be assumed that if and when the patient makes a full recovery, and is able to continue working, he/she will be expected to work off the debt that they owe. This is the price to pay for involving one's self in dangerous activites, such as riding the New York subway, without the benefit of insurance. Even if you make $75,000 a year, if you also owe a $400,000 hospital bill, you're poor. At least for a good long while.
#2: Doctors have chosen as their profession a line of work that is difficult, expensive to learn, and highly financially rewarding. It is also a basic need of humans that wish to prolong their lives and reduce suffering. This second consideration means that normal economic rules may not apply. Just as the Hippocratic Oath commands the doctor to "consider the benefit of my patients", the doctor must know that he has put himself in a position to help people that he knows cannot repay him. Every attempt can and must be made by the patient to settle the debt, but in some cases, the doctor (and hospital) must be prepared to incur the cost. It's either that, or let someone suffer or die.
On the flip side, if it can be proved that government had a hand in creating the unsafe environment, it should be possible to gain a monetary settlement from government. If I'm shot by some thug in the food court in the Megamall here in the suburbs of Minneapolis, I should be able to sue the city of Bloomington or Hennepin County for refusing to allow me to protect myself (carry a firearm).