I must take exceptional issue with your apparent refusal to conduct Town Hall meetings regarding your likely support of HR3200.  As you must be aware, most of your ordinary constituents are either extremely concerned about certain provisions or adamantly opposed after having read the proposed legislation.  I proudly consider myself part of the later.

To be fair, I do understand the need for regulatory and tort reform in the Health Insurance market, and that Congress does have clear written Constitutional Authority to do this limited amount.  However, neither Congress nor the Executive has Constitutional Authority to interfere in actual care decisions between a medical professional and his patient.  Further, the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue at least twice (In Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S. Ct. 446 (1925), The court ruled: "Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the of states is beyond the power the federal government."

In U.S. v. Anthony, 15 Supp. 553, 555, (S.D. Ca., 1936) and U.S. v. Evers, 453 F. Supp. 1141, 1150 (M.D. Ala., 1978), the court ruled: "...The direct control of medical practice has been left to the states.") and in many other specific instances. 

In short, you have NO, ZERO, Constitutional authority for this legislation (same for Cap and Trample - which is founded on questionable 'science' at best) and your Oath of Office (to support and DEFEND the Constitution) requires you to OPPOSE this legislation.

If you would like to propose limited legislation, limited to 'pain & suffering' awards in malpractice, allowing interstate sale of smorgasbord health insurance plans (elimination of State/Federally mandated coverages) - i.e. YOUR PRIVATELY administered plan, I will be more than happy to give it a fair read and likely support.  As this legislation stands now, I can not in good conscience to MY oath to support and defend the Constitution (3 times as Enlisted AF) and as a citizen of the United States, allow this legislation to go unopposed.

Finally, while your own site states that you caucus with the Blue Dogs, your voting record (as far as I have been able to determine), states otherwise.  In short, your votes have been overwhelmingly in support and lockstep with the Current leadership.  I understand your desire for preferred committee assignments to work for what you feel is necessary to your Constituents in the 8th District, the State of Arizona, and the United States, and I could respect that if your votes on vital matters actually support this.  The record accurately reflects that it does not, and I can not in good conscience support your reelection at this time.

Most Respectfully Submitted,

  Your Constituent,

    Jonathan P Gilbert

    (SSGT, USAF 1985-2001)

Obama Blasts Healthcare 'Scare Tactics'

 ‘President Barack Obama fought back Monday against "scare tactics" aimed at derailing his drive to remake US health care, unleashing a battle-tested strategy adapted from his 2008 White House run.

Obama unveiled a new Internet site, www.whitehouse.gov/RealityCheck, inspired by his campaign's fightthesmears.com site, which countered rumors like the debunked but persistent claim that he was not born in the United States.

The move came as his Democratic allies alleged an orchestrated campaign of disinformation, including plots to disrupt lawmakers' "town hall" discussions on health care at home during the Congress's month-long August break. ‘

Meanwhile we have this…

Union thugs out for BHO’s Take Over

‘Organized labor is gearing up to make a big push for President Obama’s “public-option” healthcare plan, while also claiming to be the victim in melees that sent one town hall protester to the hospital late last week.

Union leaders appear to have decided that their best defense, following charges that town hall protesters were roughed up, is to levy those same allegations against the opponents of reform.

“Attacking a staffer? Harassing a pregnant woman? All in a day’s work for the opposition to healthcare reform,” one post on the Web site of the Service Employees International Union stated.’

And this:

'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate, By Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer

Meanwhile, Conservative speakers are protested and shouted down at every opportunity. Not to mention what our distinguished Secretary of Snakes has said herself (paraphrase): Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

And we have this from RedState…

Let’s Talk Astroturf, detailing who is actually paying for demonstrators. Hint, it’s all of us.

Finally, we have the following Supreme Court cases which dealt specifically with Federal interference in local medical care:

Linder v United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S. Ct. 446 (1925): "Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government."

U.S. v Anthony, 15 F Supp. 553, 555 (S.D. Ca., 1936) and U.S. v. Evers, 453 F. Supp. 1141, 1150 (M.D. Ala., 1978): "...the direct control of medical practice has been left to the states."

For those who are convinced that insurance is a new concept, I refer you to the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_insurance, while Wikipedia is admittedly iffy as a source, there is interesting information here, such as Benjamin Franklin (Yes, one of our Founders), sold fire insurance. So the concept of insurance was known to the Founders. That they did not address this issue in the Constitution tells me they felt it better left to communities and the Several States.

So, having presented all of this and read and re-read the Constitution, I can’t find anything that permits the Congress to do more than regulate the interstate trade of insurance policies under the commerce clause. Can any of you???