 | The so-called healthcare reform legislation which passed the House of Representatives (with Steve Driehaus’s vote) and the Senate is a mess. Yes, there are many things relative to healthcare which should be reformed, but the two bills passed by Congress are flawed in so many respects that it’s hard to know where to begin. |
But there’s another reason to oppose the Obama/Pelosi/Reid so-called healthcare reform legislation, and this one may actually have a chance of stopping this travesty from becoming law. It may well be unconstitutional. With that in mind, I sent the following letter today to Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray:
Dear Attorney General Cordray,
For six of the fourteen years I served in the United States Congress, I was the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution. During my tenure as Chairman, we dealt with and held hearings on various issues having constitutional implications, including the Reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, same sex marriage, banning Partial Birth Abortion, and the Victims Rights Constitutional Amendment to name but a few.
As I’m sure you know, both houses of the United States Congress have recently passed separate bills dealing with healthcare. This legislation clearly has constitutional implications.
Thirteen of your fellow state attorneys general (representing Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington state) intend to challenge said legislation as being constitutionally flawed. There are two principle legal arguments against the legislation.
First, the so-called Nebraska Compromise violates fundamental constitutional principles of non-discrimination by imposing billions of dollars of new Medicaid obligations on 49 states (including Ohio) while singling out one state, Nebraska, for special treatment. This was a pure political payoff to one Senator in order to purchase his vote.
Second, this legislation is arguably unconstitutional on the basis that it would establish a mandate that has never before been imposed on the American people – that they BUY something (healthcare insurance), or face a penalty. This requirement by the federal government seems to clearly violate the 10th Amendment which says that all powers not specifically granted to the Congress are reserved to the States or to the people. Even the Congress’s own Congressional Research Service opined that “it may be argued that the mandate (that an American citizen buy health insurance) goes beyond the bounds of the Commerce Clause” and is therefore unconstitutional.
In conclusion, I strongly urge that you, on behalf of the people of Ohio, join with your fellow state attorneys general in challenging the constitutionality of the healthcare legislation currently being considered by the United States Congress.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Chabot
TEXT and PHOTO CREDIT: Chabot for Congress
1 comment:
Healthcare reform can start now with no high price tag
Obama and Congress are taking the entirely wrong approach to healthcare reform. We can be doing so much right now to improve healthcare without suspicious price tags. There is nothing wrong with carrying out reform in two phases: the immediate and low price-tag phase, and the longer-term, let's-find-the-money-first phase.
What can be done now, with little public opposition:
One group plan
Everyone would have access to insurance if all insurance companies were required to offer a plan to individuals as though they were all in one large company group plan, with the same rate and no exclusions. There is no cost to taxpayers; premiums are paid by the insured.
Guaranteed coverage and insurance market reforms
Few would argue with such provisions. The health insurance industry has been such a Wild West that companies could promise anything and provide nothing. They suffered no bad consequences when they blatantly breached contracts with subscribers. Other than enforcement, there would be no cost to taxpayers.
Essential benefits
An independent committee would define an "essential benefit package" as a minimum quality standard. It would include preventive services with no co-pays or deductibles, mental health services, and oral health and vision for children. It would cap the amount that consumers have to spend per year, and cost taxpayers nothing. Insurance companies could add features to this basic package. Now they can get away with not paying for basic services because most people do not have a choice of plans, and insurance plans are far too complicated to easily compare.
Individual responsibility
It is time for the government to be honest about the lifestyle factors that cause many of our healthcare problems. According to an article at preventdisease.com that is based on research reported in The New England Journal of Medicine, "preventable illness makes up approximately 80% of the burden of illness and 90% of all healthcare costs," and "preventable illnesses account for eight of the nine leading categories of death." This is the single most important factor in lowering healthcare costs and making people healthier. But in most ways it is not a role for government. It is up to individuals to change their habits. However, the federal government certainly shouldn't be making the situation worse. That means telling the truth about the fast food and prepared food industries. And it means requiring that government agencies and contractors use part-time and telecommuting work arrangements so people have time to exercise and prepare food at home. A national campaign aimed at employers, encouraging them to use flexible schedules for workers, such as part-time and telecommuting, could do a lot of good, with the government itself taking the lead. Cost to taxpayers: nothing. In fact, there are potentially huge savings in lowered healthcare costs.
Read the rest of the article at http://www.pbzproductions.com/newsletter-green%20living/healthcare%20reform%2002-11-10.html
These and other no- or low-cost changes would greatly improve care and save millions. They are the first step. There is no reason to delay them in order to get a “comprehensive” healthcare reform. No reform can possibly work without them in place first.
Patty Zevallos
media producer – web, video, print
www.pbzproductions.com
Post a Comment