LETTER Is auto insurance unconstitutional?
On Tuesday morning, I was listening to U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey try to explain why it was a good idea to cut off the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as part of the tax “reform” bill the Republicans are trying to inflict on the nation.
He said that requiring people to have health insurance was “probably unconstitutional,” that they should be able to “choose” whether or not to have it.
I feel sure that Toomey understands the underlying principle of insurance, that it is a way to spread the cost of unexpected events across a pool of participants, and if all the insured people need to use it, it will not be financially sound. Just like with fire insurance, the cost of an actual fire is covered because of all the covered homes that do not have a fire.
In Pennsylvania, as a condition of having a vehicle licensed for use on public roads, one must carry liability insurance on it. This came about because of the losses caused by people who drove, but were financially unable to cover the losses of accidents.
Is that unconstitutional? It’s been this way for years. The issue of “choice” is moot. You license a vehicle, you have to have insurance, and PennDOT communicates with insurance companies to make sure it’s current.
If the mandate under the ACA is unconstitutional, surely the need to have auto insurance is, too. Toomey should have a little chat with PennDOT about it, or legislators in Harrisburg.
Carole McIntyre
Waynesburg