This just in...

I just read this:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/health-care-law-virginia-judge-rule-constitutionality-individual-mandate/story?id=12377565

I'm a little bit confused.

These arguments are, of course, not new. There were very similar arguments about Social Security, 401(k) provisions, IRAs, mandatory car insurance, etc. Yet, somehow, there are still retirement companies doing very well making money and ensuring the retirement plans of millions. Car insurance premiums are not so astronomical that they are uncontrolled or intolerable - in fact, the competition between car insurance companies ensures that they are able to control costs and pass savings along to consumers.

So when the judge says that this will lead "unbridled exercise of the federal police powers," it is unclear where the basis for his logic/reasoning stems from.

Perhaps this is the classic "slippery slope" logical fallacy. More on that can be read here:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

The long and short of that article is that action A, which MAY lead to action Z, does not necessarily mean that it MUST. A snowflake does not impend a blizzard, a rivulet does not portend a flood, and one action does not necessarily mean that any other will follow - no matter how likely...

The article further goes on to state that the judge notes:

"At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance, or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage, its about an individual's right to choose to participate."

This reminds me of the quote that patriotism is not the last recourse of the despot - it is the first. This judge has taken it upon himself to defend all of America and the sacred rights we hold dear. While that's very noble of him, it's not his job. That belongs to the duly elected representatives (the Congress) of the United States. Several questions come to mind, including where/why the judge presumes this responsibility, to whom is the judge responsible, and what does he think the end result of such an opinion will be. Ultimately, this will end up in front of the Supremes...

It is clear that the exercise of this police power in this instance is not only not without precedence, but is a valid exercise of this power. The economic argument is spurious as well - that there should always be a choice to "do nothing." If you drive a car, you are required to have valid insurance. Since everyone will ultimately use the hospital/medical profession for some reason - even preventative medicine - it should follow that all should have some kind of protection.

I have been paying for my own insurance on my car(s) for more than 13 years. In all of that time, I have never had a claim. I could not say the same thing about my medical insurance - from sick children to the birth of those children, my family has had its fair share of time in the hospital. I, personally, have not had to be a guest of the medical field (knock on wood!) but it is reassuring to know that it is there if I need it...

And I am concerned about those who do not have it. Those who work hard and cannot afford the premiums. Those with small children who fear those children getting sick because any medical encounter at all would wipe them out. Those who are elderly and face an ever-increasing tsunami of medical bills...

I feel it is the responsibility of the government to help promote the general welfare. It is clear to me that the health of our fellow-citizens is directly and intimately tied together with the general welfare. I also feel that the steps the government has taken are appropriate and proportional to the need.