As many of your know, the Supreme Court today upheld the part of the Obama Administrations health care law that requires people to have health care coverage or face a tax. After reading the Yahoo! article regarding the ruling, and the subsequent comments, my only question is, how is this a problem? We are required to have car insurance in order to drive our cars. In many cases, in order to be approved for a mortgage, we are required to have home-owners insurance. How is this any different? If you choose not to have car insurance (and yes, you still have a choice) you face the litany of penalties that go along with that. You can be ticketed, have your license suspended, and if you are in an accident, you can face fines and jail time. With all of the complaints recently about the sick, obese, and uninsured driving up the cost of health care for the rest of us – well, I’m sick and obese so I guess I mean the rest of you- why wouldn’t we want to make sure everyone is taken care of? As the article states, only 6% of the population would be affected by this legislation, because the rest of us are covered in some way. How is making so that insurance companies cannot deny anyone (including children) with pre-existing conditions bad? How is making it so that employers must offer their employees health coverage a bad thing? I know I’m damn near a socialist (which is the most evil word in the American vernacular these days) but even for those who aren’t, why are we so against affordable access to healthcare?