Well I suppose you have a point... oh wait, no, no you have no point at all.
A TAX, cannot force an Average American CITIZEN to purchase a PRODUCT OR SERVICE he may or may not wish to purchase. Freedom, Liberty Trump any thing some worthless "progressive" legal group wants to claim. Obama's so far left he thinks this makes sense, and only those that far left with him would accept such nonsense a mere tax.
That's the failing of the entire affair. We are "Forced" to purchase a service, whether we WANT IT OR NOT, just to live in this country. That, is not acceptable, and will be struck down by the courts.
Sure he can. This entire argument of "taxation w/o representation" is inaccurate where health care reform legistlation is concerned. We've all been represented by virtue of having all those townhall meetings and debates in Congress by every Representative imaginable. So, that argument wouldn't hold water since the entire nation knew about them.
As to the insurance penalty/tax - whatever it's bound to be called - here's how I see it:
Conservatives/Republicans argue that too many of America's citizens are using emergency rooms as primary care. I won't touch the illegal immigrate issue because the only way to curb that is to either deport every illegal or convert them all into American citizens. Until either happens, we're just gonna have to suck it up because by law emergency rooms can't turn away anyone who walks through their doors who are deemed in need of care. Back to the point...
If the argument is too many Americans are going w/o health care, what are the solutions to getting them health care?
1. We enact universal health care. We'll we know how that worked out...
2. We enact a public option which is sort of a "50/50 mix" of those who can afford health care and those who otherwise cannot w/o goverment assistance. In its basic form, the public option would have allowed consumers to either obtain low-cost health insurance directly through a health insurance exchange* OR it would have provided government subsides to help offset the cost of health insurance offered by the government. Either way, consumers would have paid in whole or in part for their health care. That idea was scraped because Congressional opposition feared that citizens would leave employer-sponsored health insurance in droves for the cheaper, low-cost government sponsored health insurace. The counter argument which I agree with was that the health care plans offered by the government would be base plans that all health insurance providers would have to meet. Moreover, if the private sector could offer health insurance under broader plans that go beyond the minimum base requirement at a fair price, competition via the "free enterprise system" would still be present. Therefore, the argument that was being used w/the bailout of the banks and GM, towit, "let the free enterprise system work" doesn't hold water when this same argument was applied to the public option -vs- private sector health insurance. Unfortunately, we will never know if this concept would have worked as outlined since the public option was scrapped.
3. We raise the minimum wage to such a degree that people with low-income can afford health insurance on their own. Or we mandate that every employer must provide health care to their employees including part-time employees since it is these individuals, as well as those whose income is based mostly on tips, who are being shafted the most where health insurance or the lack thereof is concerned.
4. We force everyone to have health insurance and those who do not must pay a penalty that goes toward defraying the cost of health care received via emergency rooms on the public's nickle.
*
Note: Under Part II, Section 1311 of H.R. 3590, Health Insurance Exchanges can be established by the individual States. In doing so, they must meet guidelines as outlined in H.R. 3590; however, the States can opt-out of establishing same per Section 1333(b)(2).