It was a big day for news today ... AG Holder was held in contempt, Air Force "enlarged the sex probe" (don't tell me that was an innocent headline....) and the mandate to obtain health insurance was upheld.
It should come as no surprise that I feel this is unconstitutional despite the narrow ruling of our supreme court. In this post I will not argue about socialized medicine, nationalized healthcare, or looting from one group of society for the benefit of another. I am only going to address whether a tax for not doing something is valid.
Consider the following:
If you have a lawn, you must mow it. You can choose to not have a lawn by not having a house. That's fine.
If you drive on public roads you must have valid liability insurance. If you don't drive on public roads you are not required to purchase such insurance. In fact you are not required to drive, or to even own a car.
If you fly, you pay airport taxes. You can choose whether to fly.
If you have an income, you pay income taxes. Except for a brief period in Norway, if you have no income, you pay no income taxes.
If you own a house you must pay property insurance. It is your choice whether to own a house.
Imagine if you were taxed for not owning a home. Or not owning a car. Or for not flying. That is the essence of taxing someone for not purchasing health insurance. Crazy isn't it?
Imagine if the gov't wanted to encourage Americans to purchase more cars from GM, so that we can recoup the funds for bailing them out, or whatever. After this ruling, it is legal to tax you if you don't buy a car from GM.
It is now legal to tax you for not joining a gym and working out. For not taking the Amtrak. This is absurd.
A [liberal] I was speaking with today suggested that Justice Roberts [appointed by Bush Jr.] ruled this way only to establish that it is a TAX and not a PENALITY, so that when the first person pays the tax, they can sue the gov't for damages. This is also absurd, because Roberts could instead have easily sided with the remaining conservative justices, made it a 5-4 ruling to overturn the law.
I am inclined to now call him Justice "Floyd Ferris" Roberts, as he can turn logic upside-down.
