Another way to interpret the health care law

Richard Rychtarik, Las Vegas

Monday, Feb. 14, 2011 | 2:02 a.m.

Recent rulings by federal judges are now in a dead heat over the constitutionality of the new health care law.

One of the central issues is the purported requirement for everyone to purchase health care. What requirement?

There isn’t a requirement to purchase health insurance, only a penalty of $750 annually for those who have the means yet don’t purchase (they opt out).

The federal personal income tax code works in much the same way, except the penalties can be much greater. I was surprised that this provision wasn’t incorporated into the tax code.

Unlike the health care law, there is no “opt out” provision available from the Internal Revenue Service. It’s also based upon the individual’s ability to pay. If you don’t pony up your allocated share of taxes, then you are fined and can be given jail time.

If you are one of the working poor then you get some relief — monetary credits, with the theory being that it’s better to have you working than on welfare or engaging in criminal activities.

The health care law does the same: If you can’t pay, you get relief.

Health insurance costs for everyone are about $1,000 higher each year because of the uninsured, who receive coverage from everyone else since federal law says they must receive treatment at the emergency room, etc.

The outrageous cost of private health insurance along with marginal health care results is yet another issue.

The world isn’t perfect but it could always be worse.