I have a proposed campaign slogan for opponents of the health care reform travesty:
Why do Democrats Hate Our Children?
Cue sympathetic female voice from somewhere off camera:
Senator/ Representative (insert name here), why do you hate our children? You voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that caps the amount families can spend each year through their pre-tax “Flexible Spending Accounts”. We can no longer effectively use these accounts to pay for little Maggie’s occupational therapy.
Cue: picture of darling Maggie, confined to a wheelchair
Maggie has cerebral palsy, which is a result of her premature birth. We are lucky to have Maggie, thanks to the wonderful life saving devices in the Neonatal and Pediatric Intensive Care Units. You voted against an amendment to stop the added tax on these devices. Now they will be more expensive to create and use.
Dear Senator/representative X: why have you made it more expensive to treat and care for our children? Why did you vote against measures meant to help our children and for federal subsidization of Viagra to convicted child molesters?
-----------------------
Think this is an exaggeration or over-reaction? Shocked that your Senators and Representatives could be so crass, so stupid, as to vote for a cap on FSA’s and a tax on medical devices? Think again.
Cap on FSA’s as stated in the bill: page 1960 lines 5-16
Senate Amendment to exempt pediatric devices from medical tax
Senate Amendment to prevent subsidization of Viagra to rapists and child molesters
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Constitutional Challenges to health care "reform"
In case you haven’t heard, 11 state attorneys general have signed on to a lawsuit declaring the recently passed health care reform act to be unconstitutional. If you’ll recall, I mentioned just such a concern a few weeks ago: An Apple a Day...
Defenders of the bill claim the Congress has a Constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce. They are correct. With such a right, and responsibility, comes the ability to regulate health insurance companies and large multi-state health care providers. What the regulation of interstate commerce does not cover is the right to tell Americans that they must be insured or what form that insurance must take. Health care is not, on an individual level, an economic activity- it is a personal choice. The bill itself acknowledges the personal choice of individuals when it exempts from fines those with religious objections. If a person is guaranteed the First Amendment right to follow his religion, and thus refuse health care services or insurance, the decision to sign up for health insurance is, de facto, a personal freedom choice and not an economic activity.
The darker, and politically more volatile, constitutional dispute over the bill comes from its specific exemption of illegal aliens from fines or fees associated with mandated coverage. The 5th Amendment concludes:
....nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
The 14th Amendment states:
Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
One of the primary money sinks of our health care system is that hospitals and associated health care providers have to provide treatment to individuals regardless of their immigration status. From a humanitarian perspective this is a very good thing. We do not want, nor should we ever advocate, persons to suffer when care can be provided. There are also very real public health benefits to treating all residents, even non citizens. Contagious diseases do not stop to ask for immigration documents before jumping from one host to another. So, we currently treat all persons needing immediate medical care, and if they cannot pay then the government picks up the tab. The government pays that tab with tax dollars.
Many of the new fines and fees on uninsured individuals as set forth in this new legislation specifically exempt illegal aliens. Obviously it would be hard to enforce such fines on undocumented and transient persons. However, by paying for the treatment of these individuals the States, and the Federal government, effectively have jurisdiction over said persons. The states must, by the 14th amendment, treat all persons under their jurisdiction equally. There is an inherent inequality in creating an exempted sub-class of persons. Add to that the taking of private property: income, and using it for public functions (paying for the health care of those who do not pay into the systems themselves) without the just compensation of equal benefits and consideration, and you have a violation of the Constitutional “fairness’ clauses.
Defenders of the bill claim the Congress has a Constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce. They are correct. With such a right, and responsibility, comes the ability to regulate health insurance companies and large multi-state health care providers. What the regulation of interstate commerce does not cover is the right to tell Americans that they must be insured or what form that insurance must take. Health care is not, on an individual level, an economic activity- it is a personal choice. The bill itself acknowledges the personal choice of individuals when it exempts from fines those with religious objections. If a person is guaranteed the First Amendment right to follow his religion, and thus refuse health care services or insurance, the decision to sign up for health insurance is, de facto, a personal freedom choice and not an economic activity.
The darker, and politically more volatile, constitutional dispute over the bill comes from its specific exemption of illegal aliens from fines or fees associated with mandated coverage. The 5th Amendment concludes:
....nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
The 14th Amendment states:
Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
One of the primary money sinks of our health care system is that hospitals and associated health care providers have to provide treatment to individuals regardless of their immigration status. From a humanitarian perspective this is a very good thing. We do not want, nor should we ever advocate, persons to suffer when care can be provided. There are also very real public health benefits to treating all residents, even non citizens. Contagious diseases do not stop to ask for immigration documents before jumping from one host to another. So, we currently treat all persons needing immediate medical care, and if they cannot pay then the government picks up the tab. The government pays that tab with tax dollars.
Many of the new fines and fees on uninsured individuals as set forth in this new legislation specifically exempt illegal aliens. Obviously it would be hard to enforce such fines on undocumented and transient persons. However, by paying for the treatment of these individuals the States, and the Federal government, effectively have jurisdiction over said persons. The states must, by the 14th amendment, treat all persons under their jurisdiction equally. There is an inherent inequality in creating an exempted sub-class of persons. Add to that the taking of private property: income, and using it for public functions (paying for the health care of those who do not pay into the systems themselves) without the just compensation of equal benefits and consideration, and you have a violation of the Constitutional “fairness’ clauses.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Healthcare links
I’ve been really ill for the past few weeks, so please excuse my lack of updates.
I have joined a group on Facebook named “Vote No on healthcare or we vote YES for your opponent”. If you’re a Facebook member, join up and then tell your friends.
While I work on catching up, feel free to browse the links below regarding today’s news about the health-care boondoggle.
Malkin: A wrench in Dem’s Wreckonciliation Plans
IBD: Democrats Stop Trying to win over Stupak, Pro-life Dems
Washington Post: Student Loan Overhaul likely to join Senate healthcare bill
CNN: Health Care Reform Deadlines: DOA
I have joined a group on Facebook named “Vote No on healthcare or we vote YES for your opponent”. If you’re a Facebook member, join up and then tell your friends.
While I work on catching up, feel free to browse the links below regarding today’s news about the health-care boondoggle.
Malkin: A wrench in Dem’s Wreckonciliation Plans
IBD: Democrats Stop Trying to win over Stupak, Pro-life Dems
Washington Post: Student Loan Overhaul likely to join Senate healthcare bill
CNN: Health Care Reform Deadlines: DOA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)