Is a Tax; Is not a Tax, Is a Tax...WHO CARES!

Is a Tax; Is not a Tax, Is a Tax...WHO CARES!

As expected, Republicans immediately denounced the Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) decision in favor of the Affordable Care Act and their spin machines were instantly at work.

There is the sour-grapes assertion “the truly important part of SCOTUS’s decision was the unanimous affirmation of the limits of Congressional power,” (ie, that Congress cannot mandate commerce). I only ask: Can anyone tell me what Congress has mandated that I purchase in my more than 64 years? There is the claim “the decision will bankrupt America,” and then there is “it’s an affront to liberty”(discussed below), to “Justice Roberts is a traitor.” 

Finally, my favorite is the conspiracy claim from conservative radio commentator Hugh Hewitt; Justice Roberts’ genius is to be compared with Justice Marshall in the Marbury v. Madison decision. The idea, according to Hewitt, is perhaps Roberts had the forethought to know and willingness to make a decision that would rally anti-Obama troops and turn a battle in favor of the President into a victory in the war against Democrats and for Republicans.

This last argument is a straw man: Regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election, Roberts’ canonization will, at best, have to wait for his private papers to be made public. Let’s give Roberts the benefit and believe that he thoroughly deliberated and made an intellectually honest decision based upon the merits.

There are philosophical grounds upon which some legal scholars have objected to the healthcare legislation. Cornell Law Professor William Jacobson commenting on his blog: 

To paraphrase Vice President Joe Biden, I have just four words for you:

“BIG — — DEAL

If this were some other more narrow law, if this was not a monumental takeover of the most private aspects of our lives, if this monstrosity would not cause such long term damage to our health care system, if this law was not Obamacare . . .  .

  I might be inclined to agree with you.

  But it is Obamacare, it is the takeover of a substantial portion of our economy which empowers the federal government to write tens of thousands of pages of regulations telling us how to live and how to die. . .

If we can get beyond the histrionics for a moment regarding the death of liberty and government controlling how we are to live and die, a positive right imposes; something must be provided in its name. Liberty is a negative right, which according to the Constitution, is bestowed upon humanity from our nature and by God. A negative right presupposes no obligation other than to act in manner that respects the freedom of others. 

By definition, every positive right (for our purposes bestowed by elected officials to which all members of society are entitled) imposes on liberty. In other words, Republicans, et al, argue for a minimum of positive rights because somebody has to be taxed in order to pay for what the Democrats believe a just society should afford its citizens. Mandatory healthcare, for example, is seen by Republicans as a violation of their Constitutional rights because imposing healthcare is an imposition on their natural and God-given right of liberty. 

We elect officials in part to balance rights and so elections have consequences; Obama and the Democratic party won!

The Administration has unfortunately tried to deny requiring people to buy healthcare is a tax; SCOTUS’s ruling makes it a tax and the Republicans are now attacking the President for some sinister conspiracy in which he knew it was really a tax, thereby breaking his promise not to impose new taxes on the middle class. It is time for Democrats to take ownership; some taxes are 'justly' necessary (see “The Power to Tax”).

Most Americans believe that access to healthcare is a basic human need and consequentially should be a positive right. The controversy is how to get there. Our aging population consumes the greatest portion of existing healthcare followed by the uninsured, for whom the system is paying. It is also true the least expensive part of the population to cover is the young. It seems to me that if the young—who are a large part of the uninsured population—choose to either pay the tax or buy health coverage, are incorporated into the mix, costs should come down for everyone. 

As to the ‘mandate’; the tax is a small amount and will not be imposed on any who show they can ill afford it.  If you don’t wish to purchase healthcare you do not have to; you will pay a small tax for not doing so. You will not be sent to jail for not buying healthcare; you may for not paying your taxes, but that has always been the case. 

Yesterday’s decision is a major political and historic victory for the Obama Administration’s vision for America. But it is also a practical victory for all Americans who have a right of access to healthcare. 

Even if some ideologues, like Jacobson, do not like the Affordable Care Act on any level, Americans of all political persuasions, even if they will not publically admit it, like many of the individual provisions of the Act, e.g., coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, coverage for children until 26; abolishment of financial caps on coverage; paid-for wellness care, to name a few.

I leave with one last point: Thomas Hobbes, a 17^th Century philosopher who has had an enormous influence on our thinking about moral psychology, believed that all human action is motivated from self-interest. We are not here to debate the existence of altruism, but I would suggest that people generally act in a manner that is consistent with their own interests and the interests of those to whom they are closest. 

I ask some of those conspiracy theorists out there; When the screen is closed in the voting booth and your neighbor is not looking over your shoulder: Are you going pull the lever in the name of ideology (no doubt for some is the self-interested point of view) or in the name of the interests of yourself and those closest to you?



Comments appreciated
Sfb