1. taxes, and unequal: So the first and the most despicable impact on our freedom is the selective impact on the freedom of convenient target classes: namely the so-called rich, who will get tagged with a variety of new taxes (health plan taxes, surcharges that everyone else does not have to pay. Their freedom to do as they please, to keep the fruits of their labor, to pursue their own interests and preferences, will be impacted. This is particularly notable when sweetheart carveouts e.g. for the union health plans. With the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and various other increases (including these) many of the so called rich will be vaulted over the 50% taxation level on income. Now you might not sympathize with or even like these people, but I can’t see how you can claim that no one’s freedom has been impacted.
2. more taxes: A 40% excise tax on certain health plans will make those more difficult for people to obtain. Any people who cannot afford the excise tax will have lost the freedom to purchase the health plan of their choice due only to the government interfering (unequally) with their health coverage via a large tax. If you think that “corporations” are going to soak up the excise tax without any impact to any employees, anywhere, then think again. The world doesn’t work that way. It can’t.
3. Mandate:
Individuals would be required to obtain health insurance. Those who fail to obtain coverage would face fines of up to 2.5 percent of income by 2016.
Now the government is forcing us to purchase a health plan. If we do not, the IRS may fine us. If we don’t pay the fine we can go to jail. Is this not a clear cut negative impact on our abilities to act as we please? Is this not an oppressive imposition by authority?
I am aware of few more clear cut impacts on our freedom that this one, at least since the days of FDR.
No impacts on our freedom? Even if you think unlimited and unequal taxation has no bearing on the freedom of individuals, I can’t imagine you can argue about #3.
For fun here’s a recent quote from esteemed Democrat Rep Dingell:
Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.
Must have been a freudian slip.
http://www.americanthinker.com…
And for all the closet marxists – those who espouse the philosophy of “From those according to their ability, to those according to their need” – the central tenet of marxism, here is a nice quote from esteemed Democrat senator Baucus:
“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind,” he said. “Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”
Then again, I guess he may have been drunk.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic…
This post is constrained only to how the health care bill harms the freedoms of individuals, and is not intended to contain any other reasons one might object to it.
Even so, this is not intended to be an exhaustive list. After all, I have not read the bill. Have you?
Don’t agree with all the premises, as in many ways I feel MORE free now to access necessary coverage, though many of us do recoil at the mandate. Taxes are a necessary evil, but so long as they are assessed by elected representatives I don’t complain about lack of freedom. Everything in life is a trade-off. We could go the libertarian route and sacrifice services and other benefits, or we can try to determine what course represents the greatest good for the greatest number, which is my preference. Interestingly some of what you cite such as the mandate and tax structure WILL find people objecting on our side as well. What I object to is the hyperbolic rhetoric that claims or suggests that such a regime is somehow tyrannical, especially when all comparable countries have managed to universalize health care while remaining free countries.
His base premise is
<
p>
<
p>coupled with his definition of freedom as
<
p>
<
p>instead of
<
p>
<
p>and you have yet another unsupported and condescending polemic.
<
p>By his definition, ANY law or tax restricts his freedom. Yes there are mandates to get insurance, but there are are also mandates to have a drivers license, wear a seat belt, not steal, …
<
p>and considered the pros and cons of actually taking on this statement, but I thought that, as one of the “cheerleaders” from the Rich thread, it wouldn’t be worth my while.
<
p>I am baffled that anyone living in a developed nation can possibly believe he or she is entitled to an ability to act as one pleases? We have rules, laws, restrictions, social and civic expectations, regulations, and past practices that curb our “abilities to act as we please” and have had these things in place since the founding of the nation. If the author believes that he is entitled to unrestricted behavior and living, then he needs to move himself to a desert island on which he is not dependent upon the cooperative endeavors of social interaction, economic development, and governmental services.
I would guess that your typical 3rd grader might regard freedom as relief from parental restriction. By contrast, we might imagine an adult notion of freedom consists in being free to sail the Pacific, tour Mongolia, start a business, criticize the government, or write a novel.
<
p>The latter are all enhanced by having one’s security taken care of. If one lacks ambitions more serious than getting out from under the control exerted by mommy and daddy, maybe health care coverage is not so attractive.
…I was looking at some information on this bill. Turns out there are several tax CREDITS in this bill anyway.