[
Dear JoeB: Obama took advantage of the hybrid/dual set up of this system, to sell it as both a tax and not a tax, depending on context and political convenience.
1. to pass it through Congress, it was pushed as YOU stated "not a tax" but reforms on health care
2. to pass it by the Supreme Court it WAS SOLD AS A TAX, this was the only reason the Court found it Constitutional, because it did NOT on the commerce clause.
So it was ruled constitutional as a tax, where the tax is imposed on all people and the EXEMPTIONS are for purchasing health insurance "that meets the requirements in the bill" and/or "religious exemptions" which equate to federal govt regulating on the basis of religion, deciding which views count or don't count.
And clearly there is discrimination here where people "who believe in other ways for paying for health care" DON'T COUNT as an exempted view, where "belief in the free market" does NOT COUNT as a legal way to pay to avoid the tax. So free choice how to pay for health care is punished with a tax, without any proof or due process to show this person had ill, criminal or fraudulent intent "not to pay."
Joe, if your argument were so, that it is ONLY A TAX ON PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATES, that is CLEARLY discrimination by religion/creed:
1. you are approving a tax only on people of a specific religious or political view, ie who believe in Constitutional or natural liberty to pay for health care without federal mandates forcing insurance as the only way to avoid the tax (or else be Amish or approved religions)
2. you are approving "taxation without representation" by imposing this tax on people who did not agree to the terms of the business contract with private insurance
so by your interpretation, this is clearly targeting a particular group to punish with a tax that isn't applied to people with other beliefs; despite the vocal and established protests and objections that prove the people being taxed did not consent and aren't represented.
Joe is this really what you believe in?
Imposing a tax on just the people who dissent because of conflicting beliefs,
ignoring the fact this is taxation without representation?
Would you support a prolife bill taxing people who believe in choosing abortion,
while prolife people who would never have abortions anyway aren't affected?
Really? Because many prolife people might like that idea, and not have to pay for any birth control, abortions or consequences of sex outside of marriage for the purpose of procreation.
Joe do you really want to support a trend of taxing people based on their religious beliefs
while exempting others? Because that's what this sounds like to me. Scary!
