Only two overturned pickups...

in the drive home yesterday. It was windy, with snow blowing and reduced visibility, but dry with good traction for the most part.

Sometimes I think the further you are up off the road, the less responsive you are to conditions on the ground, until it's too late. Eh?
---------------------
Added:
Chalk one up in the "Still Doesn't Get It..." compartment.
Believe it or not, not everyone eventually accesses medical care that they cannot pay for. Not everyone dies after necessarily incurring medical treatment and bills that exceed their means, thus necessating inclusion in the insurance game. :

I don't think, in the end, the Supreme Court will be at a loss to articulate a line that includes regulation of the entire enterprise of paying for health care, including health care for people who resist buying it, hoping for continued good health, enough savings to cover future expenses, or free care financed by the rest of us. Distinguish other kinds of inactivity, and it would preserve the idea that something must be outside of Congress's power.
...
He refutes uniqueness by coming up with additional examples of markets the individual can't choose to opt out of — housing and food. But housing and food aren't much like health care. They do depend on our all having bodies, but we always need housing and food.

Health care is the one thing that you're tempted to think you can get by without, but you might get hit with a huge expense that you can't possibly cover.

[Blogger note: Or... you might not. And you might end up for years subsidizing the care of unluckier, unhealthier others. Hence, the Free Will part: stand by your initial choice, the consequences of your own decisions. Tough, but it beats the "safe" life some are still free to opt in to.]

If you don't buy insurance, you're gaming the system, and some of the people who game the system will take advantage of the rest of us who participated. It really is different from housing and food. You've got constant pressure on you to provide for those things.

That's not freedom. Punishing all healthy non-consumers -- for the sake of the consuming, non-paying, uninsureds -- and forcing them to participate, to artifically protect the investments all those who opted in years ago to an unsustainable insurance system, where they apparently could not forsee the logical risk of what is happening now (more consumption than willing healthy participants).

Sorry, find another solution. And please, look again at that "system game", and which individuals are merely choosing to operate rationally as their own best interests dictate. It's simply unhealthy to mandate inclusion into an insurance system whereby private businessess game the market of free choice throughout the country.

No matter how much some of those amongst us believe that they know what is best for all individuals and families, throughout the country. Local control and decision-making -- it always has best encouraged personal responsibility, and accepting the consequences of your own decisions in a very complex system.

You have to preserve free choice, especially in areas as personal as health care, even when the easy answer is to roll over and allow the federal government's policymakers to dictate the best solution for all of us out here. "Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm".

It's the hard decisions, afterall, not the easy ones, where we rely on our traditions of free choice and principles of individuality to logically guide us. I have full confidence that the Supreme Court needn't surrender the rudder of responsibility to federal goverment bureacracy accompanied by private insurance businesses.

Afterall, this one really counts and Capt'n. Umpire Roberts surely understands the importance ahead of calling the coming seas correctly...

All we say to America is, "Be true to what you said on paper."

Now the other thing we'll have to do is this: Always anchor our external direct action with the power of economic withdrawal.