LABRADOR: Misses key differences

I am amazed that our Congressman, Raul Labrador, has such a fundamentally flawed understanding of “Obamacare” and the recent Supreme Court decision upholding its constitutionality. He stated: “The fundamental grievance that I have with this law, and in particular the individual mandate component, is that no government should ever be powerful enough to compel its citizens to purchase a product or a service under penalty of law. What is there now to prevent the federal government… from taxing us to compel the purchase of life insurance, a cell phone or any other product Washington deems is necessary for us all?”

Until Mr. Labrador understands the difference between buying a cell phone and purchasing health insurance, there will be no end to listening to his silly rhetoric.

Let me make it simple to understand: If Mr. Labrador enters my phone store and wishes to purchase a cell phone from me I have no ethical or legal obligation to give him the phone until he pays me. But if Mr. Labrador shows up in my medical office or the emergency room with an injury or serious illness, I DO have an ethical and legal obligation to treat him without regard to his ability to pay. If he can’t pay for the treatment then the taxpayers, (or insured patients, through cost shifting) pay for his care.

It is therefore completely reasonable that people who can afford health insurance, but refuse to buy it, should be penalized or — as Chief Justice Roberts put it — taxed, to offset the burden that our society bears to cover the cost of medical care for the uninsured.

JUSTIN STORMOGIPSON, M.D.

Coeur d’Alene