raymor |
06-28-2012 11:09 AM |
As a conservative, I'm kind of glad for this particular case, but sad that it sets a bad precedent. The reasoning, that the feds can do whatever they want if they call it a tax, is very bad. It's the final nail in the coffin for the constitutional limitation of federal powers - the enumerated powers clause.
With this precedent, the feds can't "force" you to learn chinese, but they can charge you a $10,000 "tax" if you don't learn it. They can put a thousand dollar tax on porn videos - they aren't banning porn, just "taxing" it. A closer analogue, I suppose, would be a $5,000 "tax" for not offering content for children in your site. That's the precedent of this ruling - even when it would be unconstitional to make you do something, it magically becomes okay if they call it a tax.
I suspect some liberals will see the problem only when a religious nut politician puts a huge tax on condoms, or when there is a $500 "tax" for failing to cut your hair to a "respectable" length. This ruling says that's constitutional because it's a tax, not a requirement.
I'm GLAD they didn't strike down only the individual mandate. Had they done so, the requirement that pre-existing conditions be covered would mean it's no longer insyrance, but simply a payment plan. Since noone would sign up until they wete sick, it would cost $34,000 per year and private healthcare would be bankrupt within months. That woulda have left government in charge of all healthcare, just like Pelosi and Obama wanted from the beginning. Since I don't want my healthcare run like FEMA and the TSA, I'm glad they didn't strikedown the mandate without striking the rest of the requirements.
|