Many liberals (at least those willing to be honest about all of this) will tell you that Congress has the unrestricted right to create taxes. Okay. Let's go with that for a moment. 1) According the Obama and the Democrats, the mandate was not a tax. You might remember this bit from our Commander in Chief, when it was feared the mandate was really a rouse for an extreme middle class tax hike: Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax. 2) If this is a tax, it would be the greatest tax increase, ever. This forced consumption or face a fine style of controlling the populous would place Obama as the owner of the largest tax in U.S. History.
Forgetting that for a moment, let's go back to the Constitutionality of taxation. It is true the Constitution is far too vague on the powers of Congress in taxing. However, couldn't we agree that it would be unconstitutional to tax someone for being black? Or for being overweight? Or for being Jewish? If we can agree that these taxes would be unconstitutional, then we can agree that Congress doesn't inherently have the right to tax anything and everything. Much like the 'Right to Privacy' touted in Row V. Wade, some Constitutional rights are implied or understood. These rights can override the powers of the Federal government. In the case of Obamacare, one has to ask, is it right to tax someone for not buying a product? For instance, could the Federal government tax a person for not belonging to a gym? Not buying life jackets if they own a boat? I don't think so, apparently the current Court disagrees.
You see, if we hand over complete power to the Congress to tax whatever they please, they will use it. They have already proven they cannot be trusted to keep themselves in check or out of our pockets. No issue is too personal for the Big Government loving faction of our Congress to regulate. Should Michelle Obama have her way, we'd all eat Broccoli and exercise an hour a day under threat of death. Well, maybe that's not fair. But if she could tax us into it, I have a feeling she would.
The next argument they will undoubtedly give you on the left is that "everyone uses Healthcare". That might be true. Although, I believe there are some people who don't. For religious, cultural, or personal reasons there ARE people who do not use our healthcare system. Further, just because one uses healthcare does not mean the necessarily need Health Insurance. If one had enough money or needed little use of the healthcare system, one could pay out of pocket. That being the case, not everyone uses or needs Health Insurance. Furthermore, a young, healthy person has the right not to buy if he or she wishes. Should something happen, it would be up to him or her to pay the costs. That's life. You take the gamble, you pay the consequences. This is not for the government to decide.
Undoubtedly the next line of argument will be about the burden to the taxpayer for the uninsured. This is a problem, one that could be dealt with outside of Draconian mandates. First of all, the burden does not usually come from the middle class for whom this mandate is intended. Poor and low income people are the bulk of the tax burden and they would need government healthcare regardless of Obamacare. Getting poor people covered is not made simpler by Obamacare. In fact, in some ways it is more complicated. The rift between the federal and state governments has never been wider.
Things that COULD have helped cut costs of healthcare and Insurance (like interstate competition, tort reform, see more of the Republican plan) were summarily dismissed in an attempt to take full credit for a "100 year accomplishment" in passing a Healthcare Overhaul. Congrats, Dems. You get all the credit for this one - this extremely unpopular, unintelligible, and unworkable bill that costs most than it saves. The taxes are just a tip of the iceberg. Tax breakdown.
But back to the original point. If this is a tax, why is Obama avoiding calling it that? As he high fives his Democratic friends on their "victory" he ardently REFUSES to refer to the mandate as a tax. It's only constitutional if it IS a tax, but he won't admit that it is one. Hmmm. He's avoiding it because he knows it's political suicide. While I'm upset at the precedent the SCOTUS opinion sets, the fact of the matter is, Obamacare is wildly unpopular, and by leaving it alone, the Supreme Court has boosted Republicans ability to bring people to the polls. I don't think the vast majority of Americans like "punishment" taxes. It is abrasive against our desires for liberty and freedom.
Do we need to fix problems in Healthcare? Absolutely. The most important issue needing dealt with, in my opinion, is lowering costs for people with pre-existing conditions. But Obamacare is NOT the answer. The people who support it have not even read it. Are there parts of it worth keeping? Absolutely. I think many of the preventative measures in the bill are worth keeping. But that does not mean all 2000+ pages are worth keeping around because a few dozen pages are good.
Of course, none of this has to do with the Supreme Court. The Court's job is not to decide is a law is "good" or not, but rather if it is constitutional. To me, punishment taxes are not Constitutional. Even as the Congress has the right to make Tax Law, punishment taxes speak to a higher issue of civil liberties. I have the right to live my life the way I choose, and the government does not have the right to modify my behavior with penalty taxes. If that right were in Congress' hands, they could impose taxes for any manner of "offenses".
But if this is a tax, found constitutional by the SCOTUS, then the solution is simple. Repeal it. Get rid of this disgusting overreach by Congress and work to make something useful, intelligent, and worthwhile on the issue of Healthcare. And to start, how about we don't let it exceed 100 pages, yeah?
