Your View: ‘Protection of health insurance’


The day after Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled in favor of Virginias Attorney General, Dick Durban appeared on CBS The Early Show, touting the protection of health insurance. My ears perked up. Based on an experience I had just had with a provider, I was not inclined to subscribe to that assertion.
At the outset, let me say that I believe a right to health is an extension of and/or included in a right to life, without which there can be no pursuit of liberty or happiness. Having been bedridden for quite some time at the disabling onset of a chronic illness informs my viewpoint, and has confirmed the old adage, If you have your health, you have everything.  
In addition, I do think when all is said and done the federal law will be upheld as being necessary to the compelling and legitimate interest of the welfare of our countrys citizens, and trump any constitutional challenge asserted, including a right to privacy, as its subject is not an absolutely and purely personal matter. That said, I am unsure as to whether requiring medical insurance is the way to go in the name of leveling the playing field. Belying its moniker, the Affordable Care Act may just perpetrate and create classifications, inviting equal protection scrutiny.
I see two major problems with its opponents contentions: (1.) the requirement is compulsory only on paper, as the penalty for non-compliance is far from onerous, and in most cases less that the cost of a monthly premium. And (2.) those who claim that an undue [financial] burden does not justify federal interference with an inconvenient pregnancy in abortion matters would be hard pressed to use that argument in this realm.     
When I was growing up, the only policy available to the masses was hospitalization for catastrophic events. Doctor visits were out of pocket, as were drugs, so most people took responsibility for and better care of their health themselves. Rather than require blanketing, expensive coverage because lets face it, none of these plans are cheap repeal, not reform, on the premise that less is more. Ones right to health, which is individual, does not require a loss of freedom of association with respect to the medical insurance industrial complex that has grown up around it. Dismantling that seems to be the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about, but should be discussed in the political battles and litigation in the upcoming years. 
In the meantime, I sure wish I had some of those taxpayers dollars Ken Cuccinelli and other attorney generals are tossing at their states lawsuits to pay my monthly premiums!