No health coverage? Too bad...

Obama's Affordable Care Act gets another hiccup. Federal judges determined that this law would be 'unconstitutional' since it forces Americans to buy Health Insurance, which is a violation of the Commerce Clause.
Federal judges who are against the plan, including Judge Vinson from Florida, believe that scratching this plan is the only way to "not break the law". I smell something fishy here. Conservative judges ruling against a law that provides coverage for all? That's not surprising.
The reason for this act to not pass can be argued at length for various issues. Specifically one that comes to mind is car insurance. Yes, they might not force you to buy car insurance when you first go to driving school, but you definitely can't get a license without insurance, or a car for that matter. Now, an argument would be, well a car is not considered a 'necessity' to live, but honestly, can one really survive without a car in most of America?
You live in a buzzing metropolitan, fine. You don't need a car, but most Americans live in small towns and suburbs that do not have adequate public transportation to carry out daily functions. I am sure that not having a car can cause serious inconveniences. (I've had my license suspended, trust me I know the pain)
So, we can't provide health insurance to Americans who are unemployed, poor, or have a pre-existing condition because it forces everyone else who already has insurance or a few who don't want to spend on insurance to buy one. However, we can require all drivers to have car insurance if they want to own a car so they dont have to walk everywhere. Sounds pretty comparable to me.
These judges need to explain the difference in these two scenarios. If requiring every driver to have car insurance is not a violation of the Commerce Clause, then requiring every American to have health coverage isn't either. Living in a developed country like the United States and yet 10% of people can't go to the doctor unless they're about to die is ridiculous. Perhaps we need lobbyists, senators, representatives, and in some cases judges to think beyond the realm of fetching dollars from pharmaceutical companies and leap over to the basic necessities that should be provided to every American.
Hipocrisy and personal gains exist in third world countries for sure, but behind fancy doors, America still has its share of high level corruption to deal with.

Side Effects May Include...

It's been an intense last couple months in the political arena. It ended relatively well for the supporters of the bill in the recent health care reform craze that has swept and divided the country.
Given the current state of the economy and rate of bankruptcy due to health care expenses it had become quiet clear that a sea change was required. So thanks to Obama and his Washington friends, 32 million Americans previously having no health care coverage are now under some sort of a universal plan. Additionally, this bill has freed us all from the cranky insurance companies rejecting or dropping claimants due to preexisting health conditions or a sudden disease that pops up unexpectedly (can't believe this took so long!!) Granted there are a lot of unhappy Republicans who don't believe in the cause and effects of the plan in discussion, but in a democratic society we should all do our part in supporting the whole so the additional Medicare taxes will hurt less than help.
One issue that perhaps requires immediate attention is the free and deliberate use of prescription drugs among various facets of the population. Fulfilling the legal requirement of stating all disclaimers and side effects, drug companies have used amazing marketing and psychological techniques to convince the masses their need and dependence of various unnecessary and exaggerated pharmaceutical drugs. It is amazing to see how personalized and tailored certain commercials are on print and television, and how boldly they attempt to convince millions of people that their problem (whatever that might be) is indeed a disease and needs immediate chemical attention to cure.
Makers of psychological drugs, do this particularly well by spinning stress related from actual life happenings as a chemical imbalance and mental disease. Engulfed in their pool of confusion and depression, people buy into these theories and later end up buying the drugs that will eventually desentisize their emotions and create a "balance" in their brain to make their boo-boos go away. On a particularly stressful day, beware of the "you might be suffering from blah blah" gimmick. Everyone is not sick! Sounds like legal drug use to me, but ah, the beauties of free market I suppose. Buy at your own risk.
I believe that a tighter monitoring of the standards that doctors use to prescribe certain (actually all) medications is needed. If it is illegal for tobacco companies to advertise on television due to the addictive nature of cigarettes, isn't it time we regulate how pharmaceutical companies aim and direct their advertising since prescription drugs have addictive tendencies as well? I guess I'm more concerned about their strategy in attempting to convince a set group of people that they have some type of a brain related disorder (depression or biopolar tendencies or lack of sleep or XYZ), and a regular legal drug intake will solve their issues. Maybe the answer to people's depressed states is not a $20/pill-popping schedule, but better management of stress and resources. Side effects may include clarity of head, sober decision making, and decreased intake of chemicals (darn).