G
Guest
Guest
As we hear all about the government mandate and the debated arguments before the SCOTUS, it finally hit me, right between the eyes, yesterday. The liberals are right in how they're pursuing this. We conservatives just haven't embraced enough liberalism, yet. Stay with me here, I'm going to try not to lose everybody.
The liberals are arguing that in this case, because it's "special" that the government has the authority and the power to compel citizens to enter into a contract at a cost to the citizen. Now, let's just suppose for a minute that the SCOTUS decides that in this instance, the liberals are right. What does that really mean? Well, here's a scenario:
SCOTUS upholds Obamacare
Conservatives mobilize and take back the government
Dems block repeal of Obamacare through filibuster in the Senate
Conservatives think all is lost - but wait, here's a new idea...
Assuming all of the above, now we have a legal precedent for the federal government to mandate commerce in the public interest in special cases where it is warranted. So, first, we mandate that everyone buy a burial policy. The government is paying for a lot of destitute people to be buried at this time, and that's a budgetary crisis. So we mandate everyone carry a burial policy. Next, we mandate everyone who has children carry life insurance - since, after all, we're all going to die at some point. On what grounds? Well, so that if something happens, the kids don't become wards of the state. It's a budget crisis, as kids cost too much for the state to continue to care for. And, after all, we owe it to them. Let's do this, "for the children." Now, with those precedents in place, we see that retirement via social security is a major budget crisis, and thus also a special case. So we can now, by extension, mandate people to put 10% of their income into a retirement account. It's for the public good, and all people are going to become unable to work eventually. Oh, and since we know many folks will become unable to work before retirement age, we can then add the legal mandate that everyone purchase disability coverage - because disability is part of the social security budget crisis. Now, so far, all this works because it's the exact same premise as Obamacare - you must enter into a contract and pay for a service, and if you don't, we fine you. But it's not a tax, and the government isn't counting on the money to fund any programs. So far, we're golden. Now, with a little work, we can next craft a law requiring people who have children to buy food - not beer and smokes - for their kids. Or pay a fine. How? Well, kids have to eat, so it's the same principle as Obamacare - you're going to have to partake of the system at some point (usually thrice daily) so you have to do it how we the federal government prescribe.
Now, in about half a page of text, I've managed to solve several of the major crises looming over the federal budget process (the original justification for Obamacare, remember, was a budgetary crisis) without spending a penny of tax revenue. The long term benefit is that within about 10-15yrs, social security will cease to be required, and can be disbanded. School lunch programs will cease to be needed, and can be defunded. Many of the costs associated with population issues are now rendered moot. I'm sure, with a little more time, I can solve every other social ill by way of government fiat much like Obamacare.
What we can do is simply use their own methods, and by such, legislate personal responsibility. I see this as a tremendous win for Conservatism as a whole. We'll set up a society whereby the oppressive federal government will force people to care for themselves, at the point of a gun, and all in the name of caring for the children and elderly. I think it's sheer genius!
The liberals are arguing that in this case, because it's "special" that the government has the authority and the power to compel citizens to enter into a contract at a cost to the citizen. Now, let's just suppose for a minute that the SCOTUS decides that in this instance, the liberals are right. What does that really mean? Well, here's a scenario:
SCOTUS upholds Obamacare
Conservatives mobilize and take back the government
Dems block repeal of Obamacare through filibuster in the Senate
Conservatives think all is lost - but wait, here's a new idea...
Assuming all of the above, now we have a legal precedent for the federal government to mandate commerce in the public interest in special cases where it is warranted. So, first, we mandate that everyone buy a burial policy. The government is paying for a lot of destitute people to be buried at this time, and that's a budgetary crisis. So we mandate everyone carry a burial policy. Next, we mandate everyone who has children carry life insurance - since, after all, we're all going to die at some point. On what grounds? Well, so that if something happens, the kids don't become wards of the state. It's a budget crisis, as kids cost too much for the state to continue to care for. And, after all, we owe it to them. Let's do this, "for the children." Now, with those precedents in place, we see that retirement via social security is a major budget crisis, and thus also a special case. So we can now, by extension, mandate people to put 10% of their income into a retirement account. It's for the public good, and all people are going to become unable to work eventually. Oh, and since we know many folks will become unable to work before retirement age, we can then add the legal mandate that everyone purchase disability coverage - because disability is part of the social security budget crisis. Now, so far, all this works because it's the exact same premise as Obamacare - you must enter into a contract and pay for a service, and if you don't, we fine you. But it's not a tax, and the government isn't counting on the money to fund any programs. So far, we're golden. Now, with a little work, we can next craft a law requiring people who have children to buy food - not beer and smokes - for their kids. Or pay a fine. How? Well, kids have to eat, so it's the same principle as Obamacare - you're going to have to partake of the system at some point (usually thrice daily) so you have to do it how we the federal government prescribe.
Now, in about half a page of text, I've managed to solve several of the major crises looming over the federal budget process (the original justification for Obamacare, remember, was a budgetary crisis) without spending a penny of tax revenue. The long term benefit is that within about 10-15yrs, social security will cease to be required, and can be disbanded. School lunch programs will cease to be needed, and can be defunded. Many of the costs associated with population issues are now rendered moot. I'm sure, with a little more time, I can solve every other social ill by way of government fiat much like Obamacare.
What we can do is simply use their own methods, and by such, legislate personal responsibility. I see this as a tremendous win for Conservatism as a whole. We'll set up a society whereby the oppressive federal government will force people to care for themselves, at the point of a gun, and all in the name of caring for the children and elderly. I think it's sheer genius!
