> That word [requirement] was in my original post, but you missed it

I didn't miss it. I said "just like car insurance there will be people who will evade the requirements" (meaning: not buy insurance). Maybe you missed that? :-)

Ha I did. But only because, your arguments only make sense if it's not really required, or if it's implemented so poorly as to be effectively not required.

I don't see the point of criticizing a policy idea with an argument like "it will be implemented badly so it will be bad". Like, obviously, yes, if you do it badly it will be bad. That applies to anything, including the status quo.