I recently fell a bit behind on my daily newspaper reading, so I only just now caught this letter from the March 28 Pioneer Press, which perfectly expresses the stupidity of some Supreme Court members' deliberate ignorance about the federal government's well-established ability to require things of its citizens:
Making it mandatory
I find it incredible that everyone, including the Supreme Court, doesn't realize or remember that anyone over 65, who isn't covered by an employer health plan, must carry Medicare and pay the month;y fee (currently $99.90) and must have a "creditable" prescription drug plan. If not, those who choose not to pay for Medicare Part D will pay a fine of 1 percent per month, of the average of prescription drug plans across the nation, when and if they require a plan. This monthly fee will be charged for life.
It seems to me that both of those examples are requiring fines for not having health care and making it mandatory to carry health care.
Why should the new health care law be considered different than Medicare Part B and D.
Marlene Hockbein, St. Paul
Thank you, Marlene.
Not to mention that tiny requirement the government can enact telling young men they must risk their lives in military service. Conscription is not a contract, but it's a much more extreme example of what the government can do for the "greater good."
Update: Here's another example of a contract compelled by Congress: the requirement that hospitals treat everyone, regardless of ability to pay. Including a stunning 2005 quote from Newt Gingrich supporting mandating insurance to people with the means to pay.
1 comment:
A friend of mine was recently blind-sided by this regulation. She had been paying her Dr out-of-pocket and getting her meds free through a program at the pharmaceutical company since she was on SSI. When her Dr retired, she had to scramble to find health insurance and filed for Medicare Part D. Now she's stuck paying the penalty in addition to the premiums and Part D costs! WTF!
Post a Comment