I wanted to try and describe a topic while taking away some of the political stigma associated with it. I also wanted to have some fun, and this seems like fun. 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 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-shooters out to aid people that were unexpectedly attacked and that did not have a gun on hand. The bill was passed because everyone believed it fell under their powers to spend for the "general welfare" of U.S. citizens, and these zombie attacks were a major problem.
The Federal costs of having to aid citizens in these zombie attacks amounts to a couple hundred dollars per visit, but can cost thousands for large zombie herds. A subsequent 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. This handgun was produced by all of the main gun manufacturers, and they offered it at a low price because the more they produced the cheaper it became to make them. They just required a certain amount of guns to 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; whether this should be state funded; and whether this would cost the government more or less money in the long run.
Now assume that the zombies are illnesses and that the guns are health insurance policies. Yes, this is the Affordable Healthcare Act in a zombie attack analogy. Your opinion may not change regardless, but maybe it helped to 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-shooters out to aid people that were unexpectedly attacked and that did not have a gun on hand. The bill was passed because everyone believed it fell under their powers to spend for the "general welfare" of U.S. citizens, and these zombie attacks were a major problem.
The Federal costs of having to aid citizens in these zombie attacks amounts to a couple hundred dollars per visit, but can cost thousands for large zombie herds. A subsequent 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. This handgun was produced by all of the main gun manufacturers, and they offered it at a low price because the more they produced the cheaper it became to make them. They just required a certain amount of guns to 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; whether this should be state funded; and whether this would cost the government more or less money in the long run.
Now assume that the zombies are illnesses and that the guns are health insurance policies. Yes, this is the Affordable Healthcare Act in a zombie attack analogy. Your opinion may not change regardless, but maybe it helped to 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