Somehow, the debate over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has become a dispute about broccoli. During arguments before the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia asked semi-rhetorically whether a broad interpretation of the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause, which Obamacare supporters rely on to defend Congress’s right to impose an individual mandate to purchase health insurance, could also be used to support legislation requiring all Americans to eat broccoli. Scalia’s reductio ad absurdum point is that, if Congress can require individuals to purchase health insurance, then in effect it could require virtually anything, including the individual consumption of broccoli.
Well, actually, Justice Scalia, I think the answer is, “Yes.” Yes, Congress COULD mandate the consumption--or, at least, the purchase--of broccoli. And what’s your point?
Look, I’m no lawyer, and I’m sure that a law stating explicitly that all Americans must purchase X number of pounds of broccoli per year would probably face all manner of scrutiny. It would probably be declared unconstitutional. But that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done.
Suppose, for example, instead of the aforementioned mandate, Congress passed a tax measure--one that, say, offered people a tax credit for purchasing broccoli. People would simply hold on to their grocery store receipts and turn those in along with their tax returns. Similarly, Congress could impose a tax penalty for broccoli evasion. The tax code has always been used to influence behavior--note the ubiquity of taxes on tobacco products. In effect, people would have a free choice: Buy broccoli or incur a penalty; if people deemed the penalty less onerous than the purchase of broccoli, they would be free to pay the tax and be done with it. This, by the way, is essentially the choice that the Affordable Care Act offers.
Still, you might say that this is unfair. Why should people be forced either to purchase a product they don’t want (broccoli, health insurance) or to pay a penalty to support those who do want the product?
Well, that’s what a society IS.
People who don’t have children pay taxes to support public education for those who do. People who own cars pay taxes to support public transportation for those who don’t. And, yes, people who can afford health insurance on their own--or who feel they have no need for health insurance--pay taxes to support those who can’t. In this latter case, indeed, universal taxation makes even more sense: As much as someone feels he needs no government-supported healthcare, he cannot be sure. Someday, we ALL will need to see a doctor, and there’s no telling what our financial situation will be when this day comes: A government-supported system allows everyone a modicum of, ahem, insurance for a time of need.
Frankly, if people want to talk about unfair government mandates, let’s discuss the mandate that all Americans must buy homes. In case you’re unfamiliar with this mandate, it’s the part of the tax code that rewards homeowners with mortgage-interest deductions. As a lifelong renter, I’ve always considered that to be a tax penalty for not owning or being able to afford to buy a home. So how come nobody is up in arms about the unfair tax burden placed on me and others like me--a tax burden by which I subsidize homeowners (who are, as a group, probably financially better off than I am)? And unlike healthcare, I receive NO benefits from this subsidy I provide.
Do I digress? Maybe. On the whole, though, given the choices brought up in this essay, I’d rather see either Obamacare upheld or the mortgage interest deduction repealed--hell, if it’ll help, I’ll even buy broccoli.
No comments:
Post a Comment