Having fun while describing a topic closely associated with the election is actually possible. You may be able to tell what I am talking about before the article is finished, but bear with me please. My attempt is to remove some of the ingrained partisanship from the issue.
Assume that the United States has been afflicted with a zombie uprising for the past 30 years. It's not widespread, but they appear every week in varies neighborhoods and towns. Many corporations and large employers have provided sharp-shooter teams to respond to their employee's location in the event of an attack to "take care of" the zombies. Some citizens have purchased guns on their own to protect themselves, but some people can't afford to buy a gun because guns have become very expensive.
President Reagan pushed Congress to pass a law in the 1980's that sent Federally funded sharp-shooter teams to aid people that were unexpectedly attacked and that did not have a gun to use to blow the attacking zombie's brains out. Reagan pressed Congress to pass the bill because everyone believed it fell under their powers to spend for the "general welfare" of U.S. citizens.
The Federal costs of having to aid citizens in these zombie attacks amounts to a couple hundred dollars per visit, but can cost much more depending on circumstances. Years later a President decided to pass a law that forced people to own a basic handgun to cut down on the government's trips to aid people in these zombie attacks. The cost to government had become too high and people were unable to afford the fancy guns currently on the market. The basic handgun that citizens were going to be forced to buy was produced by all of the main gun manufacturers. They offered it at a low price because the more they produced the cheaper it became to make them. The manufacturers just required that a certain amount of guns be purchased each year to keep their production costs down. The government knew that it couldn't force a citizen to make a purchase, but it saw that it could influence the citizen's decision by imposing a tax if they decided not buy a gun. This tax made it more likely that the citizen would buy the gun and also served to cover any costs of having to come out to kill the zombie if the citizen didn't purchase the gun. (You all know what we are talking about right?)
Pundits argued over whether this was a lawful use of taxpayer funds, and whether the government could force a citizen to buy a gun. After all, it was essentially forcing citizens to buy a product or to pay a tax. Do you support the forced gun purchase so that these people can defend themselves against zombies?
Now assume that the zombies are disease and that the basic gun is a basic health insurance policy. Yes, this is the Affordable Healthcare Act in a zombie attack analogy. Your opinion is probably unaffected, but maybe this helps take some of the politicized preconceptions out of the debate.
Assume that the United States has been afflicted with a zombie uprising for the past 30 years. It's not widespread, but they appear every week in varies neighborhoods and towns. Many corporations and large employers have provided sharp-shooter teams to respond to their employee's location in the event of an attack to "take care of" the zombies. Some citizens have purchased guns on their own to protect themselves, but some people can't afford to buy a gun because guns have become very expensive.
President Reagan pushed Congress to pass a law in the 1980's that sent Federally funded sharp-shooter teams to aid people that were unexpectedly attacked and that did not have a gun to use to blow the attacking zombie's brains out. Reagan pressed Congress to pass the bill because everyone believed it fell under their powers to spend for the "general welfare" of U.S. citizens.
The Federal costs of having to aid citizens in these zombie attacks amounts to a couple hundred dollars per visit, but can cost much more depending on circumstances. Years later a President decided to pass a law that forced people to own a basic handgun to cut down on the government's trips to aid people in these zombie attacks. The cost to government had become too high and people were unable to afford the fancy guns currently on the market. The basic handgun that citizens were going to be forced to buy was produced by all of the main gun manufacturers. They offered it at a low price because the more they produced the cheaper it became to make them. The manufacturers just required that a certain amount of guns be purchased each year to keep their production costs down. The government knew that it couldn't force a citizen to make a purchase, but it saw that it could influence the citizen's decision by imposing a tax if they decided not buy a gun. This tax made it more likely that the citizen would buy the gun and also served to cover any costs of having to come out to kill the zombie if the citizen didn't purchase the gun. (You all know what we are talking about right?)
Pundits argued over whether this was a lawful use of taxpayer funds, and whether the government could force a citizen to buy a gun. After all, it was essentially forcing citizens to buy a product or to pay a tax. Do you support the forced gun purchase so that these people can defend themselves against zombies?
Now assume that the zombies are disease and that the basic gun is a basic health insurance policy. Yes, this is the Affordable Healthcare Act in a zombie attack analogy. Your opinion is probably unaffected, but maybe this helps take some of the politicized preconceptions out of the debate.
About the Author:
Nick Wroblewski is an estate planning attorney in Chicago. To find out more about planning for your death in the event of a zombie apocalypse, then visit Nick Wroblewski's website. To plan your estate for any other normal reason, contact him as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment