In a recent conversation, I heard a non-insurance agent singing praises of the Affordable Care Act. A small business owner in Wallowa County, he said the new national health plan already is saving him $300 per month.

And hes a wise man because, even during our one-on-one conversation, he never used the oft-repeated slang word for the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, the default term among many vocal Wallowa County citizens who find the law distasteful.

Not surprisingly, the feds again have reneged on their latest deadline for compliance with that mandated edict, giving the recalcitrant an additional month before reaching outlaw status and becoming designated targets of the plans enforcer, the much-feared Internal Revenue Service.

When, if a final deadline is enacted into law and the IRS is loosed to punish those without health insurance, a conundrum at least to my feeble mind arises.

Obviously anyone without health insurance will be defined as outlaw, but who is the enemy?

Or more precisely, how will the IRS develop an accurate list of those who need to be penalized?

I beg your forgiveness, but this, in my mind, is a serious quandary that Id rather not rely on higher earthly authorities, whether Democrat or Republican, to figure out for me.

The IRS, Im sure, has readily accessible computer files from which to draw detailed information about any U.S. taxpayer, although probably no further back than 1776. Too, its quite likely the IRS has access to files of anyone participating in the Obamacare program. And yet, realistically, these arent the bad guys who need to be tracked and taken to the woodshed.

Subtracting the names of Obamacare participants from the overall list of legal taxpayers seems to be well beyond slightly off bubble status if outlaw accuracy is an issue.

For instance, people who already had health insurance prior to Obamacare and had no interest in exploring the possibility of securing less expensive health insurance by, in Oregon, enrolling in Cover Oregon surely wouldnt be in violation of the federal law, would they?

The overall purpose of the national edict, I would hope, is to ensure that all have health insurance coverage, and I wouldnt think having such coverage in advance would place persons in jeopardy of being in non-compliance with the federal law. And yet, once again, from what source will the IRS procure a reliable list of violators?

Like possibly 95 percent of Americans, I know not what words the letters HIPAA stand for without looking it up, but I have a good idea regarding the substantive meaning that acronym represents. Of course health and health insurance are separate issues, but Im conservative (liberal?) enough to feel uncomfortable thinking a gigantic federal agency as impersonal as the IRS is tapping into site-specific personal data such as my health insurance.

And even if they were able legally to take that path, what would be achieved?

Such would give the IRS a few more names of persons complying with the law, but add no one to the guilty list.

Working backwards to learn the identity of wrongdoers might work well in small numbers for the FBI, but not for me when it comes to drafting name lists for a federal tax assessor anxious to punish thousands, likely millions of unknowns lacking health insurance.

But we do live in a computerized world and Id guess the IRS, by whatever means, already is armed with authority and legal justification to pull a rabbit out of its hat and begin penalizing anyone without health insurance at the presidents command.

Fortunately, I watch West Wing re-runs and understand all this intrigue.

Jabberwock II columnist Rocky Wilson is a reporter for the Chieftain.