Zorba
Lifer
- Oct 22, 1999
- 14,875
- 10,300
- 136
Sorry, but it's not. The whole concept of "sin taxes" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax ) is to increase the price of undesirable behaviors (smoking and alcohol being the most common examples) AND to make money from addictive behaviors. Don't want to pay the mark-up on cigarettes? Don't buy them. It is a tax based on a purchase.
If the individual mandate penalty is a tax, as you propose, then it is levied if you DON'T purchase something. Totally opposite of what a sin tax is and the "broccoli argument" pretty much illustrates how it is an overreach by the government. Yes, it is a slippery slope argument, but if the government can attempt to force us to buy health insurance through taxation for our own good, can they force us to buy a gym membership or get taxed? "Ah....you only checked in to your gym once last week and according to the logs, you only spent 20 minutes on the treadmill instead of the Cardiovascular Health Mandate required 45 minutes. That will be $25. It has automatically been deducted from your account." Where does it stop?
I can appreciate the motivation to try to help the uninsured and to improve the health of the less fortunate; it's a good cause. But, granting the federal government that much power over us isn't the way to do it. We were founded as a country based on freedom and I'm afraid the chipping away of those will lead to serious, serious consequences in the future [/tinfoil hat].
Either way, it is a tax. I don't really like the slippery slope ramifications either, but it is still a tax. I see it no different than a fine for not having car insurance.
The best way around this issues, though, would be single payer.