To the editor:
The issue before the Supreme Court concerning health care is primarily existential. One underlying view is "let the poor, sick and old die." Another is "Am I my brother's keeper?" If we are a society, it is our obligation to care for one another. That means, unless we totally lack any conscience, we do not let hundreds die every week for lack of health care. The health insurance premiums we now pay also cover the uninsured when the hospital treats them. If we are also the brothers of the uninsured, are they not also our keepers? In other words, aren't they responsible to pay their share? Under the Romney/Obamacare national health plan, everyone has to pay something and everyone gets health care. You don't opt out of society. Seems fair to me.
As for whether the government ever being able to force us to do anything, try evading the draft.
A way around the political conundrum of people's freedom not to be insured and to stick the insured with the bills of the uninsured is an alternative: a national health tax, similar to the Social Security tax. Almost everyone has to pay for Social Security which is kept in a separate fund. Why not a similar separate fund for national health?
HARLEY L. SACHS
The Daily Mining Gazette welcomes letters to the editor from readers.
Letters should be signed and include name, address and telephone number. Names will not be withheld and letters should be no longer than 400 words. No personal attacks. Writers are limited to one letter per month. The Gazette reserves the right to edit letters for length, as well as for spelling and punctuation.
Mail letters to: Letters to the Editor, The Daily Mining Gazette, P.O. Box 368, Houghton, MI 49931. Letters may also be e-mailed to email@example.com or submitted on the Gazette's Web site, mininggazette.com, by clicking on "Submit News."