// you’re reading...

Law

States To Challenge Mandated Auto Insurance?

By ⋅ March 23, 2010 ⋅ Print This Post Print This Post ⋅ Post a comment
Filed Under  , , , , , , ,

Infuriated over the passage of health care reform, a dozen states announced plans to file lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the new law on the grounds that it forces individuals to contract with private companies. I assume that these same attorneys general will also be seeking to strike down their own state laws that require drivers to have a minimum level of auto insurance since that too requires their residents to contract with private companies. Just asking.

Related Posts:

  1. United States Court Of Appeal Rules That Calfornia’s Proposition 8 Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Is Unconstitutional
  2. Same-Sex Couples Sue after Being Denied Insurance Coverage for Fertility Treatment
  3. Government Mandated Disclosure For Egg & Sperm Donation?
  4. We Get Mail
  5. Health Insurance Concerns For SurroGenesis Surrogates
  6. Republican Version Of Health Care Reform: Deny Insurance To Fertility Patients
  7. Health Insurance Concerns For SurroGenesis Clients
  8. “Your Baby Is Too Fat For Insurance”
  9. Insurance Alternative Available To SGUSA Victims
  10. An Argument Against Government Mandated Infertility Coverage

Discussion

3 comments for “States To Challenge Mandated Auto Insurance?”

  • I can understand why we have to have auto insurance in the event you may hurt someone else but making someone buy Individual Health Insurance is a bit un-constitutional, has any one who ever got cancer caused someone else to get cancer, I dont think so.

  • You raise a good point Matt. However, the contention by the Attorneys General is that it is unconstitutional to compel an individual to contract with a private company. So while mandated auto insurance protects innocent third parties, it nevertheless requires drivers to contract with private parties which, under the argument being advanced by these states, is unconstitutional. The nature of the constitutional challenge does not focus on the underlying benefit of the law, but the compulsion to enter into an agreement with a private party.

    • Joey K.

      There seems to be a couple more problems with this logic. One is the issue of self-insurance, which some states allow in leu of contracting with a private insurance company. The other, and possibly more relevant problem is that government mandated healthcare insurance applies to everyone, while government mandated automobile insurance only applies to automobile drivers. No one has the “right” to be one of these. You have the “right” to owwn a vehicle but no such right exists as far as operating one on a public roadway. This is referred to as a priveledge and withe this priveledge comes the responsibility of maintaining liability insurance. Don’t forget that the banks “force” you to carry additional coverage if you take out a loan against the vehicle, same thing … you don’t have a right to a loan, but if the priveledge is extended to you there are strings attached.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit Us On TwitterVisit Us On FacebookVisit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed