> I hear what you're saying but Washington is so hyper partisan it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion about almost anything.

Yes! Yes! Yes! It's a horrible mess. Politicians --all sides and ideology-- are solely engaged in pandering to those who will vote for them. Reason be damned. They want to keep their jobs and continue to enjoy the ride. Almost nothing else matters to these people.

Sometimes I feel that it would be very wise to modify the system such that politics truly becomes serving the country rather than a life-long career. A senator would have to go back to work in the real world every so many years if he/she wants to have the right to come back to government. Equal time. Serve six years and then do six years in private life, or some variant thereof.

At some level these people (again, any side) are so polarized that even basic arithmetic escapes them. And, in the end, we are the ones that have to pay for their moronic decisions. From unnecessary wars and bases all over the world to down-right criminal pension systems and benefits for government workers. Examples abound with the current extremes being physically located at places like Iraq + Afganistan and Stockton and (soon to come to a boil) California.

> I for one, haven't heard anything about the health care ruling opening the door to tax people for not buying government approved healthy foods, not using mass transportation, etc. But, I imagine we get our media from different sources.

No, that part was my extrapolation of the Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

As for where I got the news, well, I took the time to read the Supreme Court decision here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/98542275/Scotus-opinion

It's an interesting read. I've never done this before. The first page gets down to the meat and potatoes of the matter:

<quote>
One key provision isthe individual mandate, which requires most Americans to maintain "minimum essential" health insurance coverage. 26 U. S. C. §5000A.For individuals who are not exempt, and who do not receive health insurance through an employer or government program, the means of satisfying the requirement is to purchase insurance from a private company. Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with themandate must make a "[s]hared responsibility payment" to the Federal Government. §5000A(b)(1). The Act provides that this "penalty" will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual's taxes, and "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner" as tax penalties.
</quote>

The simplification of this idea is what I was after: Buy this (or do this) or we will impose a tax penalty for failing to comply.

The Supreme Court just told all of us that this is perfectly legal and legitimate. And that might very well be absolutely true. Now, I am not a student of these things at all, but I am having trouble finding another example of the government penalizing citizens for not buying something through taxation. I can't point to one thing in my household that would result in a penalty tax if I did not fall-in and get it.

I argue --as an non-lawyer-- that this precedent opens the doors for a slippery slope where government can force you to do things through tax penalties as devised in the healthcare law. This is the part that I am concerned about.

And no, I am not right-wing or left. I am and independent thinker with a strong preference for non-creative arithmetic, individual freedom, free markets, low taxation, and the government staying the hell away from my life as much as possible.