Who Doesn’t Want to Pay Twice as Much for Car Insurance?!

Here’s a gem from this year’s list of pre-filed bills for New Mexico’s 60-day kabuki show State Legislature —

HB 112 DOUBLE VEHICLE INSURANCE MINIMUM COVERAGE

Basically, Representative David M. Gallegos (R-61, Lea County) seems to be of the opinion that auto insurance policies simply don’t offer sufficient coverage. If the insurance companies won’t increase their minimum coverage on their own, then they simply must be made to do via the Iron Fist of the State. For example, the first part of HB 112 —

SECTION 1. Section 66-5-208 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1978, Chapter 35, Section 282, as amended) is amended to read:

“66-5-208. EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY – AMOUNTS AND CONDITIONS. – “Evidence of financial responsibility”, as used in the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act, means evidence of the ability to respond in damages for liability, on account of accidents occurring subsequent to the effective date of the evidence, arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a vehicle of a type subject to registration under the laws of New Mexico, in the following amounts:

1. [twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000)] fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident;
2. subject to this limit for one person, [fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)] one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident;
3. [ten thousand dollars ($10,000)] twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident; and
4. if evidence is in the form of a surety bond or a cash deposit, the total amount shall be [sixty thousand dollars ($60,000)] one hundred twenty thousand dollars ($120,000).”

Now I’m sure that the insurance companies will simply increase the minimum coverage limits to comply with HB 112 without raising premiums for the covered, right?

Of course they won’t — they will probably seek to double the premiums that they charge to the covered as soon as possible after HB 112 is added to NMSA 66-5-208.

It’s what businesses do when the regulatory state requires that they “put out” more — they pass on the cost increase(s) to their customers in the form of increased prices.

“The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.”
— Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Annals, Book III, 27

Of course, there’s what could be the flip side of this little bit of cronyist mercantilism.

This could be a put-up job by the insurance companies themselves. Simply put, they could be figuring that since most of the population needs motor vehicles to get around in New Mexico (try using Uber or Lyft outside the urban areas!), they have that population over a financial barrel.

Basically, we need their services to get by, so they can charge what they want and otherwise play games with We the Drivers.

How much did the insurance companies lobby against the “individual mandate” part of Obama’s copy-and-paste job from Massachusetts Romneycare?

[YES, I’m saying that “Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act” should be repealed in its entirety, as it disincentivizes the insurance companies from competing via pricing. I was T-boned by an uninsured driver in April, 2003 — my car was totalled, the other vehicle barely damaged, and all that the responding APD officer did was had the trainee who was riding shotgun with him remove the license plate from the other vehicle. “Tough cookies, Mr. Blessing.”]

Either way, we expect New Mexico Democrats to be advocates for and devotees to the ever-expansive State, enthusiastic about Big Government sticking its fingers, nose and other appendages into our wallets, homes, businesses, among other places.

We expect New Mexico Democrats to cheer on the further infringements of our lives, liberties, properties, and pursuits of happiness in the names of Collectivism and Lefty-Fascism.

We expect New Mexico Democrats to use such anti-Liberty schemes to feather their own nests and the nests of their families and friends, their beneficiaries and sponsors.

But Mr. Gallegos is a Republican.

Don’t Republicans campaign as wanting to get government out of our lives, businesses and properties?

Aren’t Republicans the ones who tell us, “Put us in public office if you want Constitutional government, free-market economics, and individual rights” ?

Don’t Republicans tell us that they’re the ones to root out the corruption in and around the public sector?

So WHY exactly is this particular Republican furthering the State’s intrusiveness into the private sector, and possibly expanding the corruption of New Mexico?

Representative David M. Gallegos – (R-61, Lea County)

District: 61
County: Lea
Service: Representative since 2013
Occupation: Sr. Superintendent
Address: PO Box 998
Eunice, NM 88231
Capitol Phone: 986-4454
Capitol Room: 203IN
Office Phone: (575) 394-0099
Home Phone:
Email: david.rsi@hotmail.com

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

1. HB 112 — HTML version, PDF version

NOTES

1. Published at The Libertarian Enterprise — Number 1003 – 13 January 2019
2. Reposted –
   1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Gab / Google Plus / Minds / Oneway / Twitter / VK
   2. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
   3. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
   4. New Mexico Dissent and Expose Facebook page
   5. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group