11/11/09 by admin.

We are pleased to introduce a new author to AmendmentX.info; G.

G was a mentor in our philosophy and is a contributor to many debates and should give a slightly different view on a variety of subjects. G will have occasional posts and may or may not contribute regularly. As we don’t have a regular posting schedule, this should be of little consequence. Enjoy.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

09/10/09 by admin.

There are certainly problems with the health care system in the U.S. The problem with the current government position is that government has been the problem all along and now they want to cause more problems. Most Americans like even the least favorite insurance companies enough to stick with them. This is no surprise because often their employer is paying the deductible or a portion thereof. Also, the health insurance industry is highly competitive and hence, even the lowliest must provide decent coverage to remain viable. What people don’t like is the cost. High premiums or high out of pocket expenses and deductibles are where consumers feel the negative side. As we delve into why costs are so high, try to remember the part of the Constitution where the Federal Government has responsibility for individual’s health insurance.

Employer provided health insurance is a major problem today. Before jumping  to the idea that everyone would take it in the shorts, consider that when an employer decides to hire someone, the overall compensation for that person must be available. That necessarily includes insurance benefits. In a free market,those funds would still be provided to the employee, who then uses those dollars to purchase private health insurance. This would make insurance companies compete on the individual level rather than for large companies. This brings the question; Why do companies provide health insurance anyways? Government is the answer to this problem, although not directly (at first). Wage and price controls instituted by FDR were the beginning. By limiting the top wage allowed to be paid by private companies during times of war (WWII and Korea), companies could not attract the best people with wages alone. So they found another way to compensate those they wanted in a competitive market; benefits including health insurance. Prior to that, people purchased insurance individually. Once the ball was rolling, Nixon not only re-instituted wage and price controls but went even farther toward institutionalizing employer based coverage. The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 mandated offering insurance by companies with 25 or more employees. While that act expired in 1995, the seed had been sown. The populace had become accustomed and conditioned to expect insurance benefits from employers. Now insurance companies are going for the big fish and competing for group policies in companies. So the group policies cost less due to built in risk pools? No. Once again, the government mandates what minimum coverage a company provided policy must contain if they offer insurance. So if a company has employees that are almost all men and older women, (construction, auto repair shop, etc.) they still may have to pay for maternity and well-baby coverage. If your small painting company wants to provide insurance to the all male crew, they still pay for mammographies. The all female companies still pay premiums for prostate exams. Health insurance is not a commodity that should be intimately related to employment any more than car insurance or homeowner’s insurance. Those last two are legally required and contractually required respectively. Health insurance is not either of those yet, although unless a person has a lot of money, it is a good idea. If your house catches fire, you generally want to have insurance much in the same way you want health insurance if a serious accident or health issue arises. If you change jobs, you don’t normally change your car insurance. Why would we want to have to change health insurance. Eliminating this relationship would provide a very good start in getting the government out of the way and improving the quality of the insurance available to individuals by allowing the tailoring of policies to suit them. Resolving the risk pool situation is another matter.

To be continued…

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

09/03/09 by admin.

The country has forgotten about the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution for a very long time. Lawyers love to talk about the rest of the Bill of Rights, but rarely seem to care about the last two. Free speech is a most important right to be sure. Religious freedom is often argued from the sides of allowing expression and removing Government acknowledgment. Freedom of the press is currently embattled with the current administration looking to ideas of re-institution of the fairness doctrine and nearly daily press briefings. The right to keep and bear arms is an ongoing debate. OK, the quartering soldiers in private homes during times of peace (and war for that matter) has not really been an issue. On the other hand, searches and seizures, as covered by the Fourth Amendment, could not be more interesting to at least attorneys. Everyone knows about the right to not provide witness against himself (you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to …). Some of the other right enumerated in the Fifth Amendment would also be not too difficult to remember and lawyers know and argue about them all the time. The right to be represented by an attorney is an integral part of the Sixth Amendment. The Seventh pertains to civil cases and is more of a practical set of rules that are followed when those types of cases are brought to Federal court. Cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden as it should be by the Eighth. The Fourteenth Amendment allows for incorporation of these limitation on government to the states. Originally the Bill of Rights was only a limitation on the Federal Government. States could largely disregard these limitations and institute an official religion or whatever else they wanted, so long as their state constitution allowed it. Some limitations did apply though. A republican form of governance was at the top of the list. This allowed the people to closely hold politicians accountable for their actions. We have the very few limitations on the states via the Tenth Amendment. The Constitution in Article IV sets certain minimal standards for states wishing to join the union. The Tenth Amendment is easy to understand and is in fact quite short. It reads, in its entirety; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.The Ninth is not much different; The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Yes, we are very aware of the commerce clause in section 8 of article I. This blog is largely about how that clause has been interpreted to reach virtually every aspect of people’s daily life. As we examine the news from regular media and courts, special attention will be paid to how the Bill of Rights sets limits on Government, not methods of persecution.

We are not radical Libertarians that believe in anarchy on a federal level. We live in modern political reality. We do believe in satire as much as hardcore rationality. This discussion is not limited to any particular area of life. Criminal law, politics, education, health care, drugs, torture, or any other item we see fit is fair game. Whenever we see abuses of governmental powers, we will be here writing about it.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »