Except when a word is used in a legal context, in which case it has a very specific definition. The definition that you quoted is not the legal definition of "tax" in this context, and you'd have to be retarded to think or argue otherwise. Your statement above (and your argument based on the definition) is really a non-sequitor, and proves nothing except how blindingly stupid you are.
Here's the applicable definition: "a governmental assessment (charge) upon property value, transactions (transfers and sales), licenses granting a right, and/or income." Notice that nowhere in there does it state that a "tax" is applicable to the lack of possession.
a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
As a noun, there is no "legal" definition as prefaced in the verb definition. In any case, the two definitions say the same thing, except one is the government demanding money to support a service versus anyone else doing the same thing. There is no need for "lack of possession", it's support of a service.
Given the fact that the SCOTUS believes it's a tax and I doubt that you have more experience than them, I'll just stick with my gut on this one. But hey, maybe you can argue with SCOTUS on how they don't know how to use a dictionary.
I love paying for insurance, because it means that I won't be financially destroyed if something serious were to happen to me.
Then you don't love paying for insurance, you love being insured. There's a distinct difference that I made in my argument which you obviously overlooked. If you could be insured for free with no backlash to anyone, would you do it? Some people work because they love getting paid, some people actually love their work and would do it for free as a hobby.
Besides, that didn't answer my question. I didn't ask if you love paying for insurance, but paying for a deductible that's less than the amount of the money paid in insurance.
Bemoaning a deductible (which you can partially control via your elected premium) and increased rates after an accident (which is determined by statistical and actuarial prediction models) just proves even further how little you understand insurance.
That statement only proves your continuance of not knowing what the terminology "necessary evil" means. Just because I don't like it doesn't in any logical argument means that I don't understand it. As I said, insurance companies are businesses. Just like banks charge interests, insurance companies charge deductibles. It defers people from using the insurance money. People don't like paying interest on credit cards and/or loans, but that doesn't mean that they don't understand it or if the practice is beneficial.
All State seemed to have figured it out. Oh wait, I guess you know more than All State also.. hmmm. Aren't you the smart one?
As Joph might say, I won't even dignify this with a long string of "ha"s.
So as I said. I win in any case, Mr. "I know more than the SCOTUS". Carry on now while the rest of us rejoice on the fact that there aren't people out there uninsured. I know that must bother you.