Neal Boortz had this on his site - could not resist putting it here. Enjoy!
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Health Care Reform and the Constitution
by Kerby Anderson
While most of the current debate about health care reform has focused on its cost, some members of Congress are talking about whether these bills would be constitutional. Senator Orrin Hatch raises a number of important questions in a recent editorial.
He notes that for the first time, "the federal government would be ordering Americans to buy a particular product or service they had not chosen to purchase." He is talking about the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that this is an unprecedented constitutional issue.
Another constitutional problem with this mandate is that the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance is not a tax but a penalty. The Senate Finance Committee bill says it is an excise tax, but it is really a fine assessed against those who do not buy insurance.
Senator Hatch says this matters "because the Constitution requires that a direct tax be apportioned among the states based on population." An analysis published in the BNA Tax Report confirms that the penalty imposed on people "who don't buy health insurance would be an unapportioned direct tax in violation of the Constitution."
And another provision in the Senate Finance bill would impose an excise tax on the sale of high-premium insurance plans and provide relief from that tax for insurers in certain states. Once again, this appears to be in violation of the Constitution since it requires that excise taxes be "uniform throughout the United States." This tax cannot be uniform if it varies from state to state and gives preference to those states that are fortunate to have senators who serve on the committee and can write exemptions for those states.
Senator Hatch concludes by pointing out that it is "tempting to brush the Constitution aside to pursue political objectives, to let the ends justify the means. But if politics trumps the Constitution, the Constitution cannot limit government and, therefore, cannot protect liberty."
The senator is raising important constitutional issues. Congress should listen. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.
While most of the current debate about health care reform has focused on its cost, some members of Congress are talking about whether these bills would be constitutional. Senator Orrin Hatch raises a number of important questions in a recent editorial.
He notes that for the first time, "the federal government would be ordering Americans to buy a particular product or service they had not chosen to purchase." He is talking about the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that this is an unprecedented constitutional issue.
Another constitutional problem with this mandate is that the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance is not a tax but a penalty. The Senate Finance Committee bill says it is an excise tax, but it is really a fine assessed against those who do not buy insurance.
Senator Hatch says this matters "because the Constitution requires that a direct tax be apportioned among the states based on population." An analysis published in the BNA Tax Report confirms that the penalty imposed on people "who don't buy health insurance would be an unapportioned direct tax in violation of the Constitution."
And another provision in the Senate Finance bill would impose an excise tax on the sale of high-premium insurance plans and provide relief from that tax for insurers in certain states. Once again, this appears to be in violation of the Constitution since it requires that excise taxes be "uniform throughout the United States." This tax cannot be uniform if it varies from state to state and gives preference to those states that are fortunate to have senators who serve on the committee and can write exemptions for those states.
Senator Hatch concludes by pointing out that it is "tempting to brush the Constitution aside to pursue political objectives, to let the ends justify the means. But if politics trumps the Constitution, the Constitution cannot limit government and, therefore, cannot protect liberty."
The senator is raising important constitutional issues. Congress should listen. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Decide for Yourself
I am not a fan of Glen Beck, but I saw this link to the video from another source. She either has a bad ability to kid or she adores a murderous, criminal, communist, mad man.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
President Obama and the Doctors
Did you see the photo op yesterday? President Obama had his staff hand-pick a number of doctors that agreed with his agenda for socialized medicine. If you ever believed Hollywood directors were not involved with our government, this might have given you pause to start believing (sarcasm). What a hoax.
They actually had someone walking around handing out these white lab coats to the doctors. How many doctors ever leave their office or the hospital wearing a lab coat? If they don't do it then, why would they dress this way in order to meet the President.
I saw a video today that parody's Hollywood's "expertise" in health care. Here's a great laugh:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
