| Why is it Constitutional to Force People
to Buy Car Insurance But Not Health Insurance?
|
|
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Framed Questions
8 comments:
-
Anonymous said...
-
The STATES not the Fed Gvt require
auto insurance. -
12/19/10, 10:35 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
anon nailed it. The argument is that the Commrrce Clause. which permits the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, does not authorize imposition of this requirement. That argument does not apply to the states, so the geniuses in Sacramento and Annapolis will be able to impose when the dsetermination is made that the United States cannot.
Has anyone else noticed that Nina Tottenberg is a moron? -
12/19/10, 11:14 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
You can own all the cars you want(such as a collector) and not have insurance, also someone (such as a rancher) who only drives on his own property is not required to have insurance.
If you choose to drive on public roads you can purchase insurance for only time you need and then cancel.
Many states allow self-insurance. This is lower cost that purchasing thru an insurance company and involves posting a bond. Many businesses take advantage of this. -
12/19/10, 11:28 AM
-
RavingDave said...
-
It's my opinion that it is illegal for any government to compel people to by insurance. As far as i'm concerned, Forced insurance is a form of Prior Restraint. (Punishing someone for something they haven't done yet. i.e. have an accident.)
Use of the public roads is a basic and ancient right. Denying it because they "might" have an accident is no different from denying a gun because they "might" shoot someone. -
12/19/10, 12:47 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Just to fuel the fire, you're only required to have auto insurance if you're a citizen. Illegals drive for free.
-
12/19/10, 2:15 PM
-
Kristophr said...
-
I agree with RagingDave.
Allowing states to require insurance for ANYTHING was a big fucking mistake, and should be corrected immediately.
People in the US were assumed to have the right to haul anything they damned well pleased down a public road ... this was sorted out in medieval times, when local towns tried to demand only local haulers could use town streets.
Mandatory auto insurance laws are only obeyed by responsible people ... the sort of people who would buy the insurance anyway.
The few states that did not require insurance did just fine. -
12/19/10, 2:34 PM
-
DougM said...
-
State-mandated auto insurance is liability insurance that covers other people's cars and injuries. Mandated insurance does not include comprehensive (collision, fire, theft, etc.) of your own car.
Even comprehensive auto insurance does not cover visits to the shop for checkups, inspections, lubes, tire rotation, mechanical or electrical repairs, tire wear, rust, owner neglect, etc.
"Genetic" auto problems are covered by manufacturers' warranties or recalls (go ahead, sue God or Nature). -
12/19/10, 4:57 PM
-
CarlS said...
-
The article, and its' commenters, trotted out the old chestnut that damned near everything is comparable to auto insurance; that driving is a PRIVILEGE.
Wrong.
The supreme Court of the United States has ruled that:
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty.... It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which the city may permit or prohibit at will.
Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 1929 -
12/19/10, 6:48 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)