- 213
Folks,
Today's political environment surrounding health insurance is a debate of philosophy, economics, and logistics.
I'd like to expound on a thought prompted by the Citizens United v. FEC case addressing rights of association and the electoral process, upholding speech by associations of people. It was an argument citing that differing property rights between mortal legal entities (people) and immortal legal entities (unions, corporations, PACs) presented a level of discrimination in estate taxation, raising an issue of violation of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, the prohibition against Titles of Nobility and the perpetual ownership and special rights of title.
Although neutral, one could postulate that the allowance of special groups to have lower rates than other consumers by directive of the government is similar to antiquated special rights of nobility than that allowed in most markets. This is because the pricing is regulated by the government. If the insurance market and rates were not regulated I would not argue this. That's why COSTCO can have memberships and also why AARP discounts exist. They're privately negotiated and purchased. But insurance is not COSTCO, and in insurance the government approves the rates. By allowing groups, they are codifying the creation of special associations with preferential treatment. This is unconstitutional. No one gets special pricing as per government decree and that is why Article I Section 9 exists. Only the market and the consumer's preference and negotiating skills are supposed to achieve such ends.
Perhaps healthcare reform could be accomplished in the courts, not in Congress. It seems that some of the regulation and systems upon which we've built group vs individual insurance is unnatural with our Constitutional arrangements of economic (and personal) freedom.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Today's political environment surrounding health insurance is a debate of philosophy, economics, and logistics.
I'd like to expound on a thought prompted by the Citizens United v. FEC case addressing rights of association and the electoral process, upholding speech by associations of people. It was an argument citing that differing property rights between mortal legal entities (people) and immortal legal entities (unions, corporations, PACs) presented a level of discrimination in estate taxation, raising an issue of violation of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, the prohibition against Titles of Nobility and the perpetual ownership and special rights of title.
Although neutral, one could postulate that the allowance of special groups to have lower rates than other consumers by directive of the government is similar to antiquated special rights of nobility than that allowed in most markets. This is because the pricing is regulated by the government. If the insurance market and rates were not regulated I would not argue this. That's why COSTCO can have memberships and also why AARP discounts exist. They're privately negotiated and purchased. But insurance is not COSTCO, and in insurance the government approves the rates. By allowing groups, they are codifying the creation of special associations with preferential treatment. This is unconstitutional. No one gets special pricing as per government decree and that is why Article I Section 9 exists. Only the market and the consumer's preference and negotiating skills are supposed to achieve such ends.
Perhaps healthcare reform could be accomplished in the courts, not in Congress. It seems that some of the regulation and systems upon which we've built group vs individual insurance is unnatural with our Constitutional arrangements of economic (and personal) freedom.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Last edited:
