Letters: 'Obamacare' law only the first step

The score is in: President Barack Obama, 1, Constitution, 0. Is it a tax, or a penalty? It’s neither; it is a crime. But it matters not; the “total state” has arrived. We can now be taxed on an inaction.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ convoluted decision regarding the president’s so-called Affordable Care Act has changed the landscape for liberty in America.

To say that forcing a citizen to purchase something is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause but then to say it’s OK to penalize (tax) that person if their response is a refusal to comply is a distinction without a difference. This opens wide a new Pandora’s box for the continual erosion of our liberty going forward and would immediately be recognized as tyrannical by our Founding generation.

When government can potentially control anything and everything, which is now the case, then everything becomes political. A government formed for the purpose of securing our liberties has morphed into a vehicle for institutionalized theft and wealth transfers, which views all of its subjects as so many milk cows.

Far from the vision of the Founders of government as an impartial referee in the background, this ruling means that those who are not active in the political process will be eaten alive by those who are. If government is now able to force a citizen to initiate an action, under threat of penalty, then there is no limit to where this can take us.

Once people realize that “free” medical care isn’t free, it will be too late to alter our course. There will be very little medicine and very little care. The connected elites will do well, and the very groups intended as the beneficiaries will fare the worst, as is the case with these schemes throughout the world, once the socialism has consumed the carcass of what’s left of the free market.

The evidence of the failure of this course is readily available to us. It is tragic that we continue to ignore it.

How ironic it is that as we observed July Fourth, which we celebrate for our independence and liberty, we are visited by the erosion of both by a paternalistic, unconstitutional government and its accomplices who sit on the highest court in the land.

Mike Thibodeaux

physician

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by phil - 11/07/2012

Let's tax poor people for NOT being rich or tax rich people for NOT being poor? Let's tax lazy people for not working? Let's tax people for not having dental insurance or insurance for vision and then lets tax people for not having long-term old-age insurance. Don't tax him, don't tax me, tax that man who does nothing or buys nothing behind that tree. See how easy it really is?

2) Comment by Whatchange - 10/07/2012

Apparently no one really listened to what the Supreme Court said. They said, "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices". As for the TAX, No, it is not only certain people will pay this "TAX", every tax payer will pay this tax. I have my pros and cons about Obamacare. In the long run, the only people who will have insurance are the people who have it now and dependents up to the age of 26. There is no real penalty for not having it, there is really nothing in the law that says you have to buy insurance, if you don't, they withhold your end of the year return, wow, really. Anyway I'm like most, I'm going enjoy all the conveniences that one who lives in a free country enjoys.

3) Comment by DMJ - 10/07/2012

This letter is hysterical and stupid. Someone's listened to too much Sean Hannity. Besides, the government has taxed "inaction" for decades. If a guy buys a new car or a new house or marries or has a child, he will get tax breaks that someone who doesn't do any of that stuff doesn't get. How is health insurance any different? Because of the semantics of it? Paaalleease. Enough with the hyperboles and grandiose nonsense about how we no longer have liberty. How many times does the boy (conservatives) need to cry wolf (tyranny) before people take their heads out of their butts and realize that the wolf's not coming?

4) Comment by RationalOne - 10/07/2012

Yeah, we all know that the government controls anything and everything. Now let me finish typing so I can enjoy the rest of my root beer, do my job at the place where I applied for employment, pick up my kids from the day care that I chose, drive the vehicle that I bought on my own to the house I bought on my own, and finish recovering from the spur-of-the-moment vacation I took at the beach last week with my family. Maybe I'll pop in a DVD that I chose from one of my favorite stores as I settle into my queen-size bed, which I'm considering giving up for a king-size bed.

5) Comment by spqr - 10/07/2012

Bighug...if you paid the cost of malpractice insurance that physicians pay you would not have sent that letter. They, too-believe it or not-are suffering.

6) Comment by warreni - 10/07/2012

"Once people realize that 'free' medical care isn’t free, it will be too late to alter our course. There will be very little medicine and very little care. The connected elites will do well, and the very groups intended as the beneficiaries will fare the worst, as is the case with these schemes throughout the world, once the socialism has consumed the carcass of what’s left of the free market." Wow, paranoid much? I guess that socialized medicine hasn't worked out so well for the rest of the developed world. I mean that's the only rational explanation for the uprisings all over the Western world demanding the institution of legal private primary health insurance providers and why the per-capita costs for health insurance are higher here than anywhere else. What other explanation could there be?

7) Comment by bourbon-soda - 10/07/2012

Government has been able to force people to cut their lawns, build to code, or serve in the military for decades and maybe centuries. Still, it is a peculiar inversion when "free riders" or "freeloaders" includes people who want to and are able to pay for medical services but not people whose premiums are paid for or subsidized by government.

8) Comment by lovemykids - 10/07/2012

"If government is now able to force a citizen to initiate an action, under threat of penalty, then there is no limit to where this can take us." Social Security, income/federal/state/local taxes, car insurance, driving at reasonable speeds, stopping at traffic lights, yielding to pedestrians, sending children to school, etc.

9) Comment by chem - 10/07/2012

Yea, it's a tax, but only if you don't have insurance. So the only people who will pay the penalty (tax) are the ones who want to freeload and have everyone else pay for their health care. With all of the exemptions for those that can't afford insurance and those that have health insurance either through their employer or paying for it individually, relatively few people will actually pay the penalty (tax). Government, even back in the days of our Founders, use laws to "coerce" certain behavior from people. States require car insurance if you drive a car. I don't hear anybody screaming about that. If anyone would take the time to actually look at what the law does, rather than parroting Fox News, it is actually a pretty good law. Requiring insurance companies to spend 80% on actual health care? That's just awful. Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions? That's just socialist. That's only two things of many that are in the bill. Is it perfect? No. But it is better than where we were by a long shot.

10) Comment by dday198 - 10/07/2012

Mr. Thibodeaux it is a tax, both sides are telling a lie. car insurance is mandatory. medicare that a person pays into their whole working life and may not see the personal benefit. "OBAMACARE" it is a tax but as i see it not the first time it's been done. i say medicare for all not just that magic number that we may or may not live to without proper medical care.

11) Comment by Bighug - 10/07/2012

I think I am psychic! As I was scrolling down and reading this letter, I wondered if the writer was a physician, and so he is. Perhaps we lower "people on the pavement" could afford health insurance if the laws were changed to require the insurance companies and doctors to adhere to the same trade laws as other businesses. Not allowing medicine salespeople to award doctors for presrcibing their products could also help reduce costs to patients, and also remove an incentive for the doctor to prescribe a medicine that may not be the best choice.