Taxpayer-funded abortion. Dozens of poison-pill taxes. The precedent that the federal government can order you to buy something you don't want. If you think any of these points are why the implementation of Obamacare is such a threat to freedom and liberty, think again.
That's not to say that the aforementioned problems posed by Obamacare are not important, because they all are. The real long-term issue with Obamacare is that it further cements the ongoing cultural shift among the emerging generation of American adults. They have been pre-conditioned to accept secular statism by the liberals who control government schools.
Moreover, staunchly pro-life conservatives have been putting up with politicians advocating taxpayer-funded child-killing for decades. Sadly, in my home state of Iowa, the Republican governor and the Republican legislature are funding abortion with taxpayer dollars. As a whole, the American people are getting taxed in ways their Colonial forbears could only have fantasized about -- and this is regardless of which party is in power. If Obamacare's mandate was such a travesty, why did Republicans nominate for president the guy who gave the White House the idea in the first place?
The new and real danger Obamacare presents is that aside from food and shelter, the average person has no more basic physical need than his health. Obamacare moves the likely unconstitutional concept of a federally funded social safety net into the definitely anti-constitutional realm of relying on the federal government for our most basic necessities.
Public policy may be well-intentioned, but this does not make it constitutional. That means that though nothing in the Constitution explicitly provides for a measure's implementation, reasonable people can disagree on whether the Constitution implies its legality. When public policy becomes anti-constitutional, however, it is literally working against the intended scheme of the Constitution, which is to maximize the freedom of the individual by limiting the size, scope and jurisdiction of the government.
This was the point of many of the questions asked by several of the Supreme Court's more conservative judges during its hearings on Obamacare. For if the government can order you to buy a product you don't want, what can't the government do?
Unfortunately, that is a question most younger Americans aren't asking themselves. The vast majority of them have been educated in an environment that doesn't accept American exceptionalism, rewrites American history and is more secular than moral. They are looking for solutions to social problems and not values that protect freedom and liberty.
For instance, to all previous generations of Americans, the Second Amendment has been a vital component to freedom, allowing an armed citizenry to provide a check on the threat of government tyranny. Yet, to younger Americans not educated with those values, gun control is a solution to innocent children being killed in gang violence or home shooting accidents.
Many younger American adults do not consider Obamacare a threat to their freedom but rather a solution to the problem of the uninsured. Because their K-12 education was subsidized, their college degree was subsidized, their grandparents' retirement is subsidized, and many of the jobs held by their parents working in government or industries such as energy and agriculture are subsidized, why not provide health care for all while we're at it? Because government has been the solution to so many of our problems, they wonder, why not also solve the problem of the single mom working two part-time jobs that don't provide health care?
Unfortunately, Republicans have been just as culpable in perpetuating this anti-constitutional worldview in the emerging generation.
For decades, the leadership of the GOP has refused to confront the premise of the left's arguments. Instead, they have nibbled around the edges with milquetoast, consultant-tested pablum called talking points. For example, three years ago, the leadership of the GOP didn't oppose Obamacare on constitutional grounds but instead because "we can't afford it." When the economy is better, does that make Obamacare any more constitutional? Of course not.
Thankfully, those of us out here in the grass roots did make the constitutional argument in opposition to Obamacare, which was a key reason why several champions of liberty were elected in the Tea Party uprising of 2010. We're not "wackos, weirdos and witches," as GOP establishment mouthpiece Michael Barone said recently.
We're the patriots who have to pick up the pieces from a generation of Michael Barones and Karl Roves, who have cared much more about how to win elections than how to govern after you do. We're the ones who will pick up the tab for all the tax increases and growth of government the establishment's Beltway buddies signed off on in the name of political pragmatism, thus further conditioning younger Americans to believe government is what we live and breathe.
The good news is that the Tea Party patriots are going to win this argument against the ruling establishment because our country is going broke, and the grim reality of the actual math trumps all philosophical arguments and public-opinion polls.
Then again, for all those young Americans taught to see the government as the solution to their problems, that could be the bad news.
Steve Deace is a nationally syndicated radio host (stevedeace.com).