· As
the President has granted numerous waivers and
exemptions to
states, government entities, and companies, the Supreme Court’s “tax”
ruling has resulted
in some concerns.
We are concerned the health care tax (or penalty in deference to the
President) will be levied in violation
of our equal protection rights
under the Constitution. The tax is clearly not progressive, but
punitive in nature.
All citizens,
companies, municipalities, and states should have the taxes, or
penalties equally applied, or equally exempted.
If they are progressively applied, they should be applied equally within each class.
· The
implementation of the health care bill, prior
to, and subsequent
to the Supreme Court ruling has been in apparent violation of the equal
protection provisions of the Constitution,
as stated above.
My employer has already deducted the “premium tax” in 2012 in
anticipation of full implementation
in 2014. This
deduction would appear to create an economic impact or “tax” deduction
and a violation of the equal
protection
provisions, inasmuch, other tax payers, companies, municipalities, and
states have been exempted, or by other construct
have not had to
pay the tax – deemed a penalty with equal application.
·
If, as the President has insisted, the health care tax is a penalty, there is the concept of due
process.
The Constitution protects an individual’s rights by limiting government
power and providing judicial
review and certain
procedural protections. Due process standards, either substantive or
procedural refers to a requirement
that laws and
regulations be related to a legitimate government interest and not
contain provisions that result in the unfair
or arbitrary
(unequal) treatment of an individual. The 5th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States states that
“no person
shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law.” This right was
extended to the
states by the 14th Amendment (1868). Fundamental to procedural due
process are adequate notice before the
government can
deprive one of life, liberty, or property, and the opportunity to be
heard (judicial procedure) and defend
one's rights.
· Evidence
presented
in state and in
Congressional hearings, and statements from the Executive Branch of
government have indicated a great deal
of the unpaid
health care costs have resulted from non-citizens who are not eligible
to gain health insurance through employers.
We are struggling
to understand why the state or federal governments have not petitioned
the parent country (ies) for payment.
Further, this
presents an equal protection concern, as non-citizens and the indigent
are exempted by a non-progressive and
equally applied
tax to support public health care delivery. Public Health care delivery
in Mexico is accomplished via an elaborate
provisioning and
delivery system instituted by the Mexican Federal Government. Public
health care is provided to all Mexican
citizens as
guaranteed via Article 4 of the Constitution. Public care is either
fully or partially subsidized by the federal
government,
depending on the person's (Spanish: derechohabiente's) employment
status. All Mexican citizens are eligible
for subsidized
health care regardless of their work status via a system of health care
facilities operating under the federal
Secretariat of
Health (formerly the Secretaria de Salubridad y Asistencia, or SSA)
agency.
· As
they are covered, why has the state or federal
government not
petitioned Mexico and other nations for reimbursement through the health
care delivery plans guaranteed to
their citizens?
