Skip to comments.'Inside Washington' Host: Why is it Constitutional to Force People to Buy Car Insurance
Posted on 12/18/2010 8:03:56 PM PST by 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: Thats Ken Cuccinelli. Hes the attorney general of Virginia. He brought the challenge to ObamaCare. The federal court and judge Henry Hudson of Virginia ruled its 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?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Plus, with the exception of Massachusetts, no state requires their citizens to buy health insurance.
They may all have Ivy League degrees, but they can only hold bumpersticker thoughts.
You know, under the democommie understanding of this we should be able to mandated all gays and iv drug users to buy hiv infection insurance, as well as umbrella liability insurance, in case the infect partnersor other addicts. Wonder how the radical gay community would react if being gay forced and enhanced healthcare rider.
Yep that’s it exactly. No one has to drive.
I agree, but then what are the drivers side airbag and seat belt for?
I love it when I agree with the first answer on FR.
We have a choice of which method we want to travel by. Flying requires that you submit to molestation by the government homos. Cars require that you insure your driver. Walking and bicycling are the only unrestricted means of travel in the US today.
No I don’t think you are required to do so.
Just like I don’t have any insurance on a car stored in a garage.
No, nor do you have to buy yearly plates or smog it.
That's like saying no one has to walk down the street.
Actually, the argument for forced insurance is pretty week. I’ve driven 38 years with only a bumpr tap, why should I have paid out $50,000 to support the reckless and illegals?
Now, that said, if you are driving without insurance and cause a wreck and can’t pay for the damage, I don’t have a problem with hard jail time (this would also diminish the illegal problem).
Right now, insurance is a gift to insurance companies and illegals.
What a dumb question.
1)It’s not mandatory that I have a drivers license. No need for a car . No need for car insurance.
2)But if I wanted to buy a car and paid cash, I could have it deliver to my house and store it without buying car insurance or tags.
3)I could have it deliver to my house and if I owned a large enough property, I could dive it on my property without car insurance or tags and deduct the fuel (road) tax from my income tax.
And you don't have to pay road taxes on your fuel.
And if you live in a large city, you have little need of a private vehicle at all.
Errrr....ok. Who is forcing you to drive?
Who is forcing you to walk down the street?
I had to have insurance on my house but only while I was paying the mortgage. Now that its paid off I have insurance by choice.
The riding mower on the other hand doesn’t need plates or insurance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.