Imagine a health care reform bill introduced by a Republican Congress. Imagine that a section of the bill allowed the federal government to impose a tax on anyone who receives an elective abortion. Imagine the outrage from the Democratic Party and the pro-choice movement.
I imagine this would not only offend the pro-choice movement, but also constitutional conservatives who generally disagree with the federal government imposing any new taxes whatsoever. Needless to say, this bill, at least this hypothetical portion of it, would never pass.
Nevertheless, the current health care reform bill, authored by a Democratic Congress, has a similar tax in it, yet no one is showing outrage toward it. Instead, opponents are concentrating on the long-term costs to the federal government, the increased deficit this bill brings, and the eventual elimination of the private sector insurers. Occasionally, one will hear anecdotal arguments about a decreased quality of care under a government program and its inevitable inefficiencies; but no one seems to be talking about the constitutionality of this bill or its violation of fundamental human rights.
Section 401 of bill H.R. 3200, the currently proposed legislation, states that any individual who fails to obtain acceptable health care coverage is subject to a tax proportionate to their gross adjusted income, not to exceed the national average premium. What is the national average premium? Barack Obama stated in the final presidential campaign debate, “the average policy costs about $12,000.”
Assuming this number is accurate (he obtained this figure from the Kaiser Family Foundation, according to FactCheck.org), American citizens would be subject to a direct taxation of up to $12,000 for simply failing to participate in this new government program. The bill tries to mask this tax as an “excise” tax; however, in order for Congress to impose an excise tax, goods or services must be realized by the consumer. When did the Federal Government obtain the authority to tax individuals for not receiving a service or commodity?
The 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax income “from whatever source derived,” but it does not allow them to impose what are, in effect, punitive fines or fees for not participating in their agenda. It would be similar to imposing an additional 2.5% surtax on individuals who will not purchase a car or refuse to use the Interstate Highway System. Ludicrous.
It may be an acceptable logic that if an individual fails to purchase “acceptable health care coverage,” but still receives treatment in the emergency room at no expense to him, he could be subject to taxation on that service. But the bill makes no such provision. It is nondiscriminatory in its demands other than a “religious conscience exemption.” (The “religious conscience exemption,” in turn, must be approved by the IRS. It is defined in section 1402(g)(1) of the tax code, which was inserted for the Old Order Amish objectors who refused to pay Social Security taxes. In other words, one must be Amish to not participate in this program—a First Amendment debate that may be worth exploring, as well.) It does not allow for the millions of Americans who prefer to pay for medical expenses out of pocket because annual checkups and setting broken bones cost less than an insurance premium.
Every individual’s most fundamental and basic natural right is to preserve his or her own existence. It is also everyone’s right to choose how they do this and to choose how much they must sacrifice in order to exercise this right. This is why the Rules of Engagement in combat never preclude an individual from protecting his or her own life. This is why there are laws and protections for justifiable homicide. By forcing Americans to participate in “acceptable health care coverage,” the federal government is infringing on these rights by imposing punitive fees on people who don’t buy insurance and may never need to use a hospital. Needless to say, if one refuses to pay these fines, he will be put in prison for tax evasion (where he will receive health care coverage anyway!). In short, an individual determined to pay personal medical costs without the aid of insurance may be deprived of life, liberty, and property simply for not purchasing an unwanted commodity.
Supporters of this tax and the bill in which it is contained argue that it is to offset costs the uninsured incur on society as a whole. Abortions incur costs to society as a whole as well, both morally and fiscally, yet abortion advocates maintain their right to privacy and exclusivity in their own decisions. The pro-choice argument, “It’s my body, I have a right to exercise authority over it,” is even more applicable in the argument over the current health care reform bill before Congress. By taxing (punishing) individuals simply for exercising their choice to sacrifice as little as they can to preserve their own existence, the federal government is not only infringing on basic human rights, but is also doing so illegally and without constitutional authority. At least if they proposed an abortion tax, the consumer will have received a service in the end…
