I read with interest Ms. Maria Acevedo’s letter to the MDJ (“Is Obamacare really that unpopular?” on Wednesday. The implication of her letter was that the new health care bill was not law but was in the process of being passed as legislation.
I may have misunderstood her point. Be that as it may be, part of the new health care overhaul, the individual mandate, will require every that American citizen purchase health care or be punished and I am sure the founding fathers knew the federal government should never be in the mode of forcing Americans to do anything even remotely like this.
What is to stop the current administration from requiring me to purchase Brussels sprouts, horrid by the way, or a Chevy because we own G.M., or conversely forbid me to buy certain books, to older folks like me a reminder of times past?
I wonder when I hear people talking about the health care catastrophe, I cannot help but wonder where Ms. Acevedo, and others who believe our government has the right to infringe on my rights, fully understand that the American taxpayer, all 48.6 percent of us, will have to bear the burden of the 51.4 percent.
Ms. Acevedo’s statement that “some people” in Washington are making defeat of the health system a personal vendetta against President Obama seems liberal at best and naive at the worst.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I am sure that our Constitution was not created for the purpose of the federal government to control my spending habits nor to punish me for inaction.
The Supreme Court of our country will decide.
John Kazmarek
Marietta
Follow us on Twitter!
It's a tax on behavior and it's well well founded in law.
what amazes me is you fail to mention other taxes you pay - by force - that are not being contested here. We all pay Social Security and Medicare taxes but don't use that system for much of our lives. There isn't even a choice - it's assumed you will use those systems and therefore pay that tax. Those taxes were contested and the court ruled they were constitutional.
At the end of the day, what should concern most people is - what are the alternatives if the mandate is struck down?
Because we all agree that the govt CAN regulate the insurance industry. So, new regulations around pre-existing conditions, coverage caps, etc cannot be funded without the mandate (it's why the insurance industry asked it be included in the bill). So, without it - what then?
The reality is, I think, you end up on a fast track to a single payer approach where age limits for medicare are essentially lifted and that tax is increased.
Careful what you wish for...
False, we do not all pay SS and Medicare.
Every state is in fact free to do so.
But no other state has, because government-run healthcare is broadly unpopular -- as Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat party found out in their crushing 2010 Congressional election defeat.
While there are reforms needed -- allowing more competition among insurers and limiting medical liability lawsuits, for starters -- Obama's preferred solution to healthcare remains unpopular in opinion surveys.