One could probably argue that a tax is actually a form of mandate. It doesn’t seem to have been included in any dictionary or thesaurus as such, but following the synonym tree may eventually reach a branch that contains “mandate”. The reverse, however, has never been considered in the same way – until now.
The Supreme Court has redefined “mandate” as “tax” even after President Obama and his attorneys assured all that it wasn’t. The Supremes’ backs must surely be aching after bending so far to uphold the Obamacare “Mandate/Tax”. The decision is stunning in its “nuance”.
Will this now be considered a tax increase or will “mandate” continue to be substituted in reference to Obamacare? Will voters recognize that taxes have been increased (by the Supreme Court no less) and that a precedence has been set for further “mandates” from this administration – or any administration – concerning almost anything? Will we be paying a federal income tax or federal income mandate?
The path a slippery slope takes is always surprising. It should come as no surprise, however, when the health insurance many now obtain through the company they work for is no longer offered. Why should it be? It is included in your
taxes mandates and you’ll only get the coverage the government deems necessary. Obama’s promise of being able to keep the coverage you have was just a “nuanced” explanation.
Publishers of dictionaries and thesauruses are now scrambling to print new and improved versions, sure to also include Obama’s nuanced definition of “illegal” and “law”. Perhaps their stocks will rise as private insurance company’s stocks fall. It’s all so very
taxing mandating to think about.
David J. Hentosh