Re "Right feels scorned by Roberts," July 3
Chief JusticeJohn G. Roberts Jr.is a hero of our times. Rather than sticking dogmatically to what was perhaps his initial point of view in late March, according to this article, he re-reviewed the legal briefs, the oral arguments from both sides and the Constitution and rendered a thoughtful, considered opinion.
It's not an easy choice to disappoint one's typical base of support, but that is why he's a Supreme Court justice and not an elected politician. Roberts is a good example of a "profile in courage," as described by the lateJohn F. Kennedy.
Suzanne Wiener Fitzgerald
Manhattan Beach
How can Roberts classify the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate as a tax and not a fine? I can think of no other example where we are taxed for what we don't buy, own or earn.
The word "fine" has a negative connotation implying a penalty, whereas the word "tax" actually implies a government sanction. Therefore, the government taxes earnings, purchases and property owned; it imposes fines for past-due taxes, practicing medicine without a license and other unlawful activities. Logic follows that if the government demands that its citizens obtain insurance, it would fine noncompliance and not sanction it.
In this down economy, tax revenues have been greatly depreciated because people are earning and spending less. But now the IRS can tax people for not purchasing.
Dave Goldson
Valley Village
Re "Court conservatives hold sway despite healthcare ruling," Column, July 1
Michael Hiltzik criticizes Roberts for approving the healthcare law's penalty as a tax rather than justifying the mandatory purchase of insurance under the commerce clause.
Everyone will at some time need care for a medical condition. The issue is not the need but how to pay for it. I know people who don't have insurance and whose income is not low enough to qualify for Medi-Cal but who can't afford private insurance. They are considering their options if the act still stands in 2014. Either they buy insurance from an exchange, if they can afford it, or they remain uninsured and pay for doctor visits out of pocket while paying the penalty.
Hiltzik's approach would be a further extension of the commerce clause to cover just about every business transaction or nontransaction.
Jim Mentzer
Los Angeles
Re "Spin goes the ruling," Opinion, June 29
By focusing almost exclusively on the individual mandate, which ensures that those who choose to self-insure at least defray the costs they collectively shift to others, the healthcare law's opponents ignore the compelling improvement in financial security it provides to tens of millions of Americans.
True concern for liberty would entail weighing the entire spectrum of new choices, benefits and restrictions in the law against what we had before. "Give me financial insecurity or give me death" is an absurd rallying cry, but this is how it sounds to me when faux libertarians complain about the tyranny of "Obamacare."
Sometimes the government must step in when the infringement by the private sector of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" becomes too great.
Jon Thi ngvold
Murrieta
ALSO:
Letters: The mayor's love life
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar