'Inside Washington' Host: Why is it Constitutional to Force People to Buy Car Insurance

Newsbusters ^ | 12/18/10 | Noel Sheppard

[Nachum]

Gordon Peterson on Friday asked either a staggeringly ignorant or intentionally provocative question.

On the most recent installment of PBS's "Inside Washington," the host queried his guests, "Why is it constitutional to require Americans to buy automobile insurance but un-Constitutional to force them to buy health insurance?" (video follows with transcript and commentary): ---

GORDON PETERSON, HOST: That’s Ken Cuccinelli. He’s the attorney general of Virginia. He brought the challenge to ObamaCare. The federal court and judge Henry Hudson of Virginia ruled it’s un-Constitutional to force Americans to buy health insurance, as the law mandates. Why is it constitutional to require Americans to buy automobile insurance but un-Constitutional to force them to buy health insurance?

[VanDeKoik]

Not without a state-approved license, having car insurance, and after taking tests and paying a license plate fee.

Go without those, and see how much of a “right” you have.

[bvw]

Travel is a right. Travel on public ways is a right.

You have a right to have sex, but in saner times and places than today you needed a license to do so. It was nonetheless still a right.

[MsLady]

Without car insurance? So what happens if you get into an accident? Pay out of pocket?

[BOBTHENAILER]

the feral govermint

more and more, everyday

We need to eliminate THE FERAL GOVERMINT

[SierraWasp]

Maybe we could return it to “the sterile govermint!!!” (grin)

[CharlesWayneCT]

Well, that’s a whole different thing. They are your kids, and you own a car, so they assume the kids are going to drive your car.

If my daughter ever decides to get her driver’s license, I’m going to find out if it’s actually cheaper to buy her a $200 clunker that doesn’t run just to assign her as primary.... :-)

[onona]

That’s what I did. It does help, but you’re still on the hook if they’re living at home.

I use Geico, and they do have a “phase out” program, which they did notify me about regarding my son, now that he’s 22.

But, it’s still a “phase out”.

Whatever, I guess.

Good luck with your situation.

[CharlesWayneCT]

So far, I’ve been fortunate, in that my daughter has no interest in driving. We’ve been pushing her to get her learner’s permit so at least when she NEEDs to get a license she’ll already have driven around a lot.

The insurance apparently won’t take a hit with a learner’s permit.

[meyer]

You don't have to buy car insurance. But you do have to have the required financial responsibility in order to legally operate a motor vehicle on a public road. In most cases, the least expensive, and easiest way to do so is to buy car insurance, but you can use other means of ensuring that you can cover reasonable liabilities.

If you don't drive, you do not need to insure.

[myprecious]

My 21 year old daughter was in a head on collision on her way home for Thanksgiving. She had only minor injuries but the other driver was killed instantly. The other driver crossed over into my girl’s lane - no brakes applied.

The other driver’s car was insured and therefor legal. However, the estranged husband had signed forms to omit coverage for any one other than himself. She was not an authorized driver so no insurance.
Luckily I had my girl in a 1996 Buick Riviera with Uninsured motorists coverage. That big heavy front end was crushed to 18 inches from the windshield. Choose carefully when you send your kids out in the road.

[Navy Patriot]

Add to that all the private property situations where vehicles of all types are operated by the owner, family, or designates, insurance optional.

The premise analogy of the argument is false from the start.