The Patient Protection and Afordable Care Act; Roots in China?

I noticed something the other day. I found it interesting that the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can tax as a social control method (not just for the purpose of revenue). I was wondering where I've seen this before; then I remembered, It's China's One-Child Policy!

The policy is enforced at the provincial level through fines that are imposed based on the income of the family and other factors.

Population and Family Planning Commissions exist at every level of government to raise awareness about the issue and carry out registration and inspection work. Despite this policy, there are still many citizens that continue to have more than one child.

China's One-Child Policy is enforced through fines? Remember the individual mandate was a fine/penalty not a tax; said Obama. The supreme court determined that the individual mandate is a tax. Either way, it's designed to steer individuals toward an outcome that will prop up a particular piece of social policy PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

What's the difference between the penalty found in the "One-Child Policy" and the "Individual Mandate?" If you can tax individuals for not purchasing something, you can tax individuals for anything else. If the US government can tax for purposes other than revenue, why not tax to ensure any particular social outcome? The Supreme Court's ruling on the PPACA is very disturbing, because it sets a very dangerous precedent. That's not to say that there will be a one child limit in the US, but the legal mechanism for such legislation is now in place. That should be enough to open people's eyes.

I thought The United States of America was supposed to be the land of the free; or are those days ever increasingly behind us? Limited economic freedom is limited freedom.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!