INSURANCE: Self is simpler

On April 21, 2016, the Coeur d’Alene Press published an article entitled, “Athol man sues ITD employee under the law of Moses.” There were a number of responses to this article from the readers; most of which were negative. I welcome the criticism and the opportunity to respond to them. Many of the complaints were in regard to traveling in my vehicle without my having liability insurance. Let me address that criticism.

Amendment No. 5 of the Constitution of the United States says that we are not to be deprived of life or liberty. Liberty includes our right to travel freely without restriction. And our right to property prohibits others from extorting money from us. The requirement of government for us to carry liability insurance is a violation of our rights. The legislation requiring drivers to have liability insurance is merely a more sophisticated form of extortion than the Mafia extorting protection money from business owners.

Why was this law, requiring liability insurance, enacted? It was a marketing scheme of the insurance companies to increase their enrollment. They submitted bills to the state legislatures for the enactment of this legislation and they insured the enactment of these bills by their contributions (bribes) paid to the legislatures. Then they use our tax supported law enforcement officers to enforce their invasion of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. What a deal!

Are uninsured motorists a threat? When I was a reckless teenager, I was involved in two automobile accidents; both of which were my fault. During the 50-plus years since, I have been involved in two accidents; neither of which were my fault. Careful drivers are much less of a threat to other drivers on the road than are those insured drivers who exceed the speed limits, drive while conversing on their cell phones and/or drive while intoxicated. If safety is an issue, why not withdraw the driving privileges for those ticketed for said offenses and impound their vehicles for a period of time. This would certainly make the roads much safer for travel.

There are better alternatives to the auto liability insurance than those currently available from large insurance corporations. I have not verified this, but it is my understanding that only about 14 percent of the auto insurance premium is used to cover claims. Where does the rest of the money go? A much better alternative would be for we the people to form self-insured groups. My purpose here is not to present a plan for forming such groups. But rather, to state that the premiums of such programs would be much less than the premiums currently charged by the insurance companies. There would be no need for expensive office buildings, attorneys, claims adjusters, campaign contributions, or marketing personnel and advertising expenses.

In conclusion, criticism may have some value. But of much greater value is presenting a constitutionally compliant alternative that does not violate our rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

All Rights Reserved,

PETER C. JENSEN

Athol