I wanted to try and describe a topic while taking away some of the political stigma associated with it. It happens to be a topic of the current election. You may be able to tell what I am talking about before the article is finished, but bear with me please.
Assume that the United States has been afflicted with a zombie uprising for the past 30 years. It's not epidemic level, but they appear every week affecting a small fraction of the population. Many employers have provided sharp-shooter teams to assist their employee's 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 in the current environment.
President Reagan addressed the issue in the 1980's by helping pass a bill 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 he thought 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 going to be 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. They just required that a certain amount of guns be purchased each year to keep their production costs down. However, the government knew that it couldn't force a citizen to make a purchase, and it saw that it could influence the citizen's decision by imposing a tax if they decided not buy a gun. This tax also served to cover any costs of having to come out to kill the zombie. The tax was a fraction of the gun's price, but still significant. (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; whether this was a massive government intervention into the lives of the citizens; and whether this would cost the government more or less money in the long run.
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 epidemic level, but they appear every week affecting a small fraction of the population. Many employers have provided sharp-shooter teams to assist their employee's 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 in the current environment.
President Reagan addressed the issue in the 1980's by helping pass a bill 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 he thought 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 going to be 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. They just required that a certain amount of guns be purchased each year to keep their production costs down. However, the government knew that it couldn't force a citizen to make a purchase, and it saw that it could influence the citizen's decision by imposing a tax if they decided not buy a gun. This tax also served to cover any costs of having to come out to kill the zombie. The tax was a fraction of the gun's price, but still significant. (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; whether this was a massive government intervention into the lives of the citizens; and whether this would cost the government more or less money in the long run.
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, Illinois. To find out more about planning your estate in the event of a zombie attack, then visit Nick Wroblewski's website. To plan your estate for any other normal reason, contact him..
No comments:
Post a Comment