Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikejholly | Hacker News Reader

This argument seems like grasping me to. How would one function in society at all without an ID? Opening a bank account, cashing a check, driving a car, visiting a doctor, taking a train or plane, going to court. These are all activities which require ID. Sure, there is a tiny fraction of people who can't engage in those activities. But how likely is it that those folks are going to be voting, anyhow?

I found this video pretty funny while searching around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrBxZGWCdgs

View on HN

7% of US households don't have a bank account.[1] Many people live in walkable areas, carpool, or rely on transit. Visiting a doctor doesn't require ID. Taking a train or plane (or a bus) is easier with ID but possible without.

[1] https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/

That's surprisingly high! Although I'd assume the total number of people have IDs is greater than the count of those who have bank accounts since there are multiple activities which require IDs (only one being opening a bank account).

You can even open a bank account without government-issued photo ID. It's just harder.

Visiting a doctor does take ID if you have insurance. Also, by federal law, picking up any prescriptions that a doctor writes requires ID, certainly at least for narcotic prescriptions.

Doctors' offices generally make some effort to verify the identity of anyone not paying up front. Some insist on scanning a government-issued photo ID. Others are more flexible.

Regulations for dispensing controlled substances vary from state to state. As of 2013, only 24 states required pharmacists to verify identity.[1] Many of those regulations apply only in certain circumstances, don't specifically require government-issued photo ID, have fallback procedures, or allow the pharmacist to dispense the medication without ID if withholding it would harm the patient. Florida recently passed a law that says it's good enough if the pharmacist recognizes the patient.[2]

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/menu-pdil.pdf

[2] https://www.healthlawrx.com/2018/07/florida-imposes-new-id-r...

An ID certainly makes those things easier, but a government issued photo ID is not actually required for any of them. Like I said in my original comment, the only things that absolutely require an ID are international travel and driving. If you do neither of those, then you might not have an ID.

Based on ICE hassling poor people on buses, they'd like to check everyone's id on a bus.

Employers are legally required to check ID. Not sure about landlords or hotels but nearly all of them seem to.

Employers are required to verify documents which shows legal status, some of which are IDs. However there combinations of documents on form I-9 which are not IDs.

That's an amusing video. Well framed.

But as to your idea about life without an ID... I routinely refuse to show my ID to bank tellers, doctor offices, trains, planes, etc. I avoid most activities the require ID. There is one obvious exception--I drive every day.

I carry my ID with me at all times. But I refuse to show to somebody who is not writing me a traffic ticket. That refusal has not impeded my ability to conduct a normal life.

FWIW, I am not opposed to voter ID. I am opposed to universal ID. My voter ID should not be required to open a bank account, or rent an apartment. It should be for one purpose. I recently tried to open a bank account. They asked for my SSN. I gave it to them so they could report taxable income to the IRS. They asked for my drivers license. I refused. They asked for my employment history. I refused. If they asked for my shoe size, I would refuse.

Over-collection of personal data is a big problem right now. Most people facilitate it. I try to resist it.

So far, it hasn't prevented me from voting.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...

So, the premise is that all Liberals think this way, right?

It seems odd that Fox News keep returning to college campuses over and over and over to get quotes that are intended to represent the views of Liberals writ large.

I mean, they're in New York City, wouldn't it be simpler to go outside their office and interview some adults with jobs?

Trying to wrack my brain to figure out why they would keep talking to 18 year olds over and over again, hmm...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com