Fair Analogy? ACA opposition on principle: explained to LIBERALS (not conservatives)

[emilynghiem]

Hi. I am able to communicate with conservatives easily on understanding the opposition to ACA based on constitutional grounds.

Where I have trouble is explaining this opposition to liberals who have full faith in govt and in the ACA to provide better coverage through insurance mandates.

Citing statistics does not work, because these people believe problems will work out in the longterm, reducing costs and providing more coverage.

What do you think of this analogy -- is this fair?

============

Eating meat vs. vegetarian policy

Let's assume that if more of the American population's diet were based on eating fruits and vegetables rather than relying on meat consumption, there would be (a) more food to feed everyone (b) lower rates of heart disease and costs of treatment related (c) even a chance to feed all the starving people so no one would suffer or die. We don't know if that's possible yet, but neither do we know ACA will lead to universal coverage for all people.

so even if this isn't perfect, let's just assume it is for this example,
just like assuming the ACA will lead to saving more lives and serving more
people by requiring everyone to buy insurance as the magical fix

let's assume if everyone went vegetarian, we could fix health and economic problems
and save an equally substantial amount on health care and feeding the hungry

Even if the numbers in one example don't compare to the difference made in the other, I'm looking for equivalent "principle" not perfectly alike examples which these aren't of course.

Question: Would you approve of passing a bill requiring that
"everyone buy vegetarian products only" in order to lower health costs,
save lives and feed more families

and if not, if you chose to buy meat products then you would
pay a fine/penalty to pay govt for increased health care costs involved,
and/or pay to cover the true costs of producing those meat products
at the expense of feeding more families with the same resources, etc.

based on principle would you approve of such a bill

if the ACA worked perfectly and the only issue was the "principle" of
forcing people to buy insurance or pay a fine/penalty if they "wanted other choices"

and if this vegetarian bill worked and the only issue
was the "principle" of forcing people to buy vegetarian
and/or pay a fine/penalty if they "wanted other choices"

based on "principle" alone, would you object ?
to govt regulation of choices ?

is this a fair analogy?

 

[jwoodie]

Interesting points, but SCOTUS has upheld the individual mandate as a "tax." As a result, it is merely another revenue source for the government to finance its health care "safety net." CJ Robert's gambit to sway the last election failed, and we will have to live with the result.

 

[emilynghiem]

Interesting points, but SCOTUS has upheld the individual mandate as a "tax." As a result, it is merely another revenue source for the government to finance its health care "safety net." CJ Robert's gambit to sway the last election failed, and we will have to live with the result.

OK so to tie it in with the given analogy

are you saying that if SCOTUS approved a "tax" on people who want the choice
of buying meat products as opposed to only buying vegetarian as the only
choice to qualify for exemption from this tax

that you would agree to such a tax?
Would you?

Or would you argue that some fringe group who happens to believe in vegetarianism
is pushing some agenda, and it was wrongful of SCOTUS to rule such a tax as
constitutional just because it was passed through Congress; that it should have been
discounted because of the contents

Also on that note which is off topic
Do you agree with the argument that if the ACA is a "tax"
then it should have originated in the Senate as a revenue bill
in order to be constitutional?

These are two totally different questions.

The first is regardless if the bill is a tax or an act of reform,
would you agree to the policy?

The second is about if it is a tax do you agree that it starting in the House
instead of the Senate makes it unconstitutional as a tax, regardless of the policy/content?

Can you answer both questions? Thanks!