More IRS abuse: A warrant too far
ObamaCare hasn't yet hit its stride, and already its chief enforcer, the Internal Revenue Service, faces a class-action lawsuit for improperly seizing medical records — about 60 million of them from 10 million Americans.
Citing a report by courthousenews.com, Scott Gottlieb of Forbes says an unnamed health care provider in California is suing the IRS and 15 agents. Supposedly the agency had a warrant for financial data; the warrant “did not authorize any seizure of any health care or medical record of any persons,” according to the complaint.
Contained in those records was sensitive information on psychological and gynecological counseling, along with data on sexual and drug treatments. And included in this alleged mining expedition in March 2011 were the medical records of California's state judges. That would be around the same time that another IRS squad was busy targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.
“In fact, no effort was made at all (by the IRS) to even try maintaining the illusion of legitimacy and legality,” according to the lawsuit.
And we're to presume that a grossly enlarged, vastly empowered IRS will be more mindful of constitutional boundaries as it implements sweeping new regulations, tax increases and penalties prescribed by ObamaCare?
No. Amid mounting scandals there's more than enough justification for Congress to stop this intolerable expansion of the IRS until all allegations of abuse are fully answered.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- America the diminished: Cotton candy resolve
- Pittsburgh Christmas takes
- Greensburg Christmas takes
- Alle-Kiski Christmas takes
- U.N. Watch: Another jaded ‘inquiry’
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Expanding Medicaid: Gov.-elect Wolf embraces a false premise
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- The revolving door: Washington’s ‘gift’
- Saturday essay: A manger’s light
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes