Senators outline patently unconstitutional proposal and no one screams

My jaw dropped when I saw the statement on the jump of The Washington Post story that bannered our Wednesday edition. It was the story about our Sen. Harry Reid announcing a health care reform compromise, but not really offering any details. That was coming out in leaks.

The Post version stated matter of factly, "And private insurance companies would face stringent new regulations, including a requirement that they spend at least 90 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical services for their customers."

The AP version stated just as blandly, "The deal reached Tuesday puts even more requirements on insurers by requiring that 90 percent of premium dollars be spent on medical benefits, as opposed to administrative costs, officials said. The officials who described the details of the closed-door negotiations did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them publicly."

I suspect, though the writer did not apparently ask, "administrative costs" include that superfluous category pejoratively know as profit.

Where, pray tell, in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to dictate to any private company how it must spend its customers' money?

That is like telling newspapers that 90 percent of their advertising and circulation revenue must be spent on newsgathering. Hope I'm not giving anyone ideas.

If nothing else, that provision is a violation of the First Amendment, because it would prevent a company from spending whatever it sees fit on advertising in an attempt to increase its customer base. Democrats talks about health competition but this bans competition in any real sense.

Can't believe anyone, much less the U.S. Senate, could swallow this nonsense.