Home > Personal Finance > The Surprising Way the Election Could Affect Your Car Insurance

Comments 0 Comments

Health insurance and car insurance. The two entities are ostensibly part of the same subsection of our lives — protecting our assets, protecting our selves. But throughout the 2012 Election one got infinitely more air time, while auto insurance was muted entirely. There’s good reason for this; President Obama used the political capital from his first election to pass the extremely controversial Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the most significant change to the U.S. health care system since the 1960s. But while supporters of the President and his health care overhaul cheered the Supreme Court’s already-famous decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius to uphold the major provisions of what is more commonly known as Obamacare, the case yields interesting effects on the car insurance market as well. And now that the President has won a second term, Obamacare is set to become the law of the land along with its collateral effects on auto insurance.

Chief Justice Robert’s surprising move in his landmark Sebelius opinion was much less of a fudge than it was a succinct compartmentalization. He concluded that Obamacare couldn’t survive under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, but could, however, be regulated as a tax. Meaning those who go without health insurance could be charged a penalty tax, with some exceptions. The tax is intended to cost less than the price of insurance, and is not considered a criminal fine.

Generally speaking, the Commerce Clause gives the federal government power to regulate interstate commerce. A good example is the Patriot Act, which is dependent on the Department of Homeland Security’s ability to monitor suspected bad guys as they cross state lines; the government has broad powers to surveil and arrest suspected terrorists — pretty much agnostic of which state serves as their base of operations at any given time.

And while the new Obamacare tax is getting all the headlines, the language Roberts used to uphold the Commerce Clause might someday be even more historically noteworthy.

The Chief Justice clearly established that the Commerce Clause could not monitor “inaction.” In other words, the federal government can’t punish someone for not doing something. Selling weapons without a license is clearly an “action,” and therefore covered under the Clause, but neglecting to purchase health insurance is merely an inaction, and therefore not covered by it, according to the Roberts decision.

Meanwhile, the framework can be shifted to the auto insurance market. Contrary to what’s generally believed, car insurance is not actually mandated by the federal government. And now, based on the precedent set in Sebelius, it can’t be. The Justice Department can of course investigate insurance fraud cases crossing state lines, but Washington cannot force someone to enter the auto insurance market — just as it can’t force Americans to purchase broccoli even though we all agree it’s healthy for us.

Some worried that the decision would usher in a period marked by “government takeovers” of other large industries such as auto coverage. Yet the takeaway from the Obamacare care decision shows that this cannot be the case. At worst, from the perspective of free marketeers, the government can tax people and employers for not adequately insuring their vehicle. Car insurance will remain a state-by-state affair, indefinitely. Each state will continue to set its own limits, prices, regulations and taxes.

Image: Tom Wolf | Photography, via Flickr

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team