Politico online news editor dumbstruck that mandatory auto insurance is constitutional

Jeff Poor Media Reporter
Font Size:

Russ Walker, online news editor for Politico, is confused why the government can mandate one type of insurance and not another

Leave it to one of the wizards of allegedly objective Politico to trot out this tired analogy.

Russ Walker, who describes himself as an editor and a Politico employee, declared his confusion why it was “constitutionally OK” to mandate auto insurance but not health insurance after a federal judge deemed the mandatory health insurance provision of ObamaCare unconstitutional.

“So, it’s constitutionally OK to mandate auto insurance … but not health care. Makes complete sense to me, really…,” Walker wrote sarcastically in a Twitter post on December 13.

Walker has quite the liberal pedigree – having served as the press secretary for former Kentucky Democratic Rep. Tom Barlow and also the executive editor for the eco-alarmist website Grist.org.

Walker later clarified his position, explaining he didn’t see a distinction between the two mandates.

“My snark about health care mandate does not imply support for Obamacare. I just don’t think this mandate is diff from other gov’t mandates,” Walker later wrote on his Twitter account.

The Heritage Foundation has explained the distinctions between the two mandates. A Dec. 9, 2009 paper written by Randy Barnett , Nathaniel Stewart and Todd Gaziano explained the differences in that 1) There is a distinction in the powers of the state and federal governments, 2) Automobile insurance requirements impose a condition on the voluntary activity of driving; a health insurance mandate imposes a condition on life itself, 3) State auto insurance requirements are limited to those who drive on public roads and 4) States require drivers to maintain auto insurance only to cover injuries to others, not themselves or their property.