I have some points for us all to ponder to aid us in understanding why some people were against the health insurance mandate from the beginning and why relabeling it a “tax” doesn’t change the underlying issues people have with it.
If the government can tax us for not purchasing insurance to take care of our health, cannot it also tax us for not purchasing a firearm to take care of our safety? Republicans in South Dakota proposed a similar bill once. Cannot it tax you for not keeping our firearms on us in public at all times? What about while swimming?
I have heard of studies (disputed and inconclusive) that suggest that prayer helps one heal faster. If the government can tax us for not buying insurance, cannot it also tax us for not praying? For not praying to the “right” spirit(s)? For not hiring a priest? For not going to church?
I have heard that kiwi fruits are rich in vitamins. Can the government tax us for not buying kiwis? For not buying bananas? For not buying organic produce? Do any agricultural lobbyists read my blog?
If the government can tax us for not purchasing insurance to take care of our health, cannot it also tax us for not paying for college tuition to take care of our education? For not buying and reading newspapers? Could a tax like this be used as a way to bail out a suffering newspaper industry? After all, the government has bailed out other industries. For not subscribing to cable television to watch the news? Who decides what is propaganda and what is news? Is FOX really a “news organization”? Is MSNBC?
Some claim that a rapidly rising population brings down the standard of living. In the name of protecting our standard of living and helping the poor, might not the government institute a “baby tax”? What about a tax on not getting an abortion? What about a tax on not providing coverage for abortion services to one’s employees? Something similar is already in the works. What about a “one-child policy”? John Biden doesn’t seem to be too upset about China’s one-child policy. I’m not the type to assume that he is for it; he may simply have been trying to be nice, but since we can’t read his thoughts, shouldn’t we worry?
These are not straw man arguments. By declaring the Affordable Care Act constitutional, the Supreme Court has set a precedent that may be used to declare any future law of similar construction constitutional, taking away the protections the Supreme Court gives us by checking the other two branches, and leaving us only the ballot box as a means to secure our rights. No matter what one’s ideological bent, everyone agrees that doesn’t always work out well. If the House, Senate, and President were willing to pass the Affordable Care Act, might not a future House, Senate, and President be willing to pass these other laws? Finally, if the government can tax inactivity as well as activity, cannot they do anything they please?
Related Post: What’s Wrong With Obamacare?
Hi, I'm Dan. I like chocolate, hiking, and politics.