The Truth About the Health Care Bills
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas
Comments
If your goal truly is to better inform the public, it would be helpful if you cited the actual sections of the bill that you are using to draw your conclusions.
You comments about the 3rd and 4th Amendments seem a bit seems a bit dubious. First of all, I'm not sure how the 3rd Amendment (protection against forced quartering of soldiers) comes into play.
More importantly, the suggestion that this legislation grants the federal government access to your records is a bit off. They already have that access thanks to a whole host security and law enforcement legislation (like the Patriot Act) enacted over the past 20 years.
Interesting arguments. I appreciated the way you talked on the basis of constitutional principles instead of fear-mongering by misinterpreting specific sections. My problem with your analysis (and you know this, being a lawyer) is that their are three proposed bills in the House and another two in the Senate. The bill you read was an original version; there have been 69 amendments since them (info courtesy of Sen. Webb's office.) Also, the 10th amendment has been dead for a long time. The Civil Rights Act and Brown v. Board of Education were both violations of the 10th amendment. Portions of OSHA were violations of the 10th amendment. The imposition of the Bill of Rights onto the states is itself a violation of the 10th amendment.
In fact, my comments on the 3rd Amendment are based on a Supreme Court decision which decided that the 3rd Amendment granted the right to Privacy. I cite this as the Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) case.
Hi Kristopher Carlson: I admit that for a long time the 10th Amendment was considered dead. However, during the last few years of my active practice of law I successfully used it several times in cases and in recent years it has seemed to have been revived. The fact that it was ignored for years does not mean that it is not still the law of the land as envisioned by the framers of the Bill of Rights.
Hello, Michael. Thanks for your time to read through the entire bill and for your comments and analyzations. I do have a question in regards to the possible passing of the health care reform legislation that I have yet to hear anyone address: Should Congress pass this piece of legislation, couldn't another Congress come in behind them and undo the legislation? To put it simply, if Congress passes this, can't Congress undo it? What would it take? Will the Supreme Court ultimately be called upon to hear whether or not this legislation is unconstitutional? One more question: since an individual has to have permission from the federal government to sue the federal government, how will that work with governmnet run health care? Will patients be able to sue these doctors for what will be most likely crappy practice since most of the exceptional and competent doctors will have most likely left or chosen not to enter the profession after this fiasco passes? Thank you very much.
Thank you for spending your time, Mr. Connelly, on behalf of the American people to analyze the Health Care Reform Bill. I have been saying for some time now that the objection coming from main-stream Americans is that it does indeed feel like a take-over ... control ... and a stripping of our freedoms.
It seems that is at the root of the objections at a core level.
Here is another huge concern.
Please, GOOGLE:
H1N1 and "Swine Flu Vaccine" and Squalene and "Cytokine Storm"
Also, see my YouTube page under recent activity videos and comments section pages for further information referencing articles and websites pertaining to the concerns over the H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine ... and further pieces to the puzzle ... enjoy connecting the dots.
May God Bless You & Yours!
Hi Craig:
Thanks you for your comments and I will try to answer your questions. Unfortunately our Congress has a very poor record when it comes to reversing previous legislation, no matter how bad it is. Only during the years of the Reagan Administration and for a few years thereafter did Congress take steps to reverse the disasters of things like the Welfare system. In the case of the current health care proposals this could be very difficult. If Congress and the Obama administration succeed in destroying the private system of health care and insurance, which is clearly their goal, it may be virtually impossible to restore after a few years have passed. Doctors will have stopped practicing and private insurance companies will have shut down. This is precisely the situation that has occurred in Great Britain and Canada.
The government will be in control of everything relating to health care and you will only be allowed to see the doctors that the government approves. As for the Supreme Court, I don't trust them to save us. When the Obama administration decided to take control of General Motors and void private contacts in favor of giving labor unions the benefits of helping to run the company the U.S. Supreme Court refused to intervene, despite the fact that this was clearly unconstitutional. I no longer trust the court to rescue us. We must do it ourselves by keeping this legislation from ever passing. I hope this answers your questions.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your comments and analysis. I keep wondering what my fellow Americans are thinking when they go peacefully into the night to destruction. I wonder just what it is going to take for them to rise up like our for fathers and take a stand. We are watching as America burns down around us. Our freedoms under the constitution are only guaranteed by our willingness to stand and demand that the law be followed. We also have to start electing people who believe in the sanctity of the constitution and who will refuse to vote for bad law as our representatives. Thanks for your work and for lifting your voice to be heard.
Thank you so much for taking your time to read the legislation, Mr. Connelly. That is more than most of our Congress members, who are trying to shove this bill down the throats of Americans, have even done. I began to read it, to try to see for myself, what is fact and what is fiction when it came to the stories going around about the translation of this bill. However, I have no experience in interpreting law, and it just all seemed confusing to me.
I am very frustrated and angry that the Obama administration and the Left are trying to take away our freedoms, and this is just the beginning. What is even more frustrating are the "sheeple" who are just following blindly and allowing the Head Marxist to turn our country into a socialist state. That is not what our great nation was founded upon! If these people want to live under socialism, then they can move to a country where it is already in effect. But don't try to change MY country to be like the rest of the world!
I want to be more informed and know what specific wording in the bill means and how it can be interpreted. Is it true that, like in the UK, if you are young with lung cancer, you will get treatment quicker than if you are an old person with lung cancer? That they put a value on your life dependent upon your age and how much more you can contribute to society? What of these stories (that the Left are calling "scare tactics") are really true and what are exaggerations of the wording in the bill? I want to be able to defend myself when standing up against this health care reform, but simply don't know what is really the truth anymore. Do you know what we, as simple citizens, can do to prove to the lemmings that this is a bad idea?
Good points Gretchen and the key is to continue making these points to everyone you know and getting the word out. The tremendous rresponse I'm getting to my articles shows that are most people are willing to listen and learn.
Republicans are saying that, “the United States has the best quality of care and the best access to care in the world”. The truth is that, according to the World Health Organization in an analysis of 109 health care systems, the U.S. ranks 37th (between Costa Rica and Slovenia) in overall health care performance. In terms of access, all other industrialized countries have universal health coverage meaning 100% access while in the U.S. a minimum of 15% to 20% of Americans have no access at all and many more are underinsured. In addition, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Americans have access to fewer health care resources than people in most other OECD countries, measured in three major categories: hospital beds per capita, physicians and nurses per capita, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) scanners per capita.
Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats repeatedly express concern over the cost of universal health coverage. The truth is that without universal coverage Americans are paying more than citizens of other countries and we are getting less. U.S. citizens spent $5,267 per capita for health care in 2002—53 percent more than any other country. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks 2nd among nations in the amount of GDP spent on health care. Republicans also fail to note what the cost to taxpayers will be if we fail to provide universal coverage. People still get sick and need health care. Ultimately, who will pay the cost of care for people who cannot pay for it themselves?
Republicans fear that mandating universal coverage would “likely mean that” many businesses would stop providing health insurance coverage for their employees forcing their employees to enroll in the ‘public’ option. The truth is that, the rising cost of health care premiums has forced a growing number of businesses to stop providing health care coverage to their employees. Those employees have great difficulty and often cannot obtain individual insurance. In 2007, 60% of employers offered group coverage, down from 69% in 2000. The number of uninsured rose to 46.6 million, up from 44.8 million in 2005. At least, if health care reform legislation includes a ‘public’ option, employees in these circumstances will have somewhere to turn.
Republicans contend that should employers choose to stop offering health care insurance as an employee benefit, the employees will lose the health care plan they like. This is already a fact of life for most Americans. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2008, only 12.4 percent of employed wage and salary workers were Union members. Employees not represented by a Union have no say in what health care coverage plan or provider is selected by their employer or control over what percentage of the premium the employee will be expected to pay and when or if that percentage will change, or whether coverage offered by the plan will be reduced or changed.
Republicans admit that “our nation’s health care system needs drastic reforms.” Their solution is the free marketplace. Isn’t that what we already have?
Among the “market-based reforms” Republicans propose is “allowing” Americans to have health savings accounts to enable Americans to purchase their own health care insurance. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average cost of premiums for single coverage in 2008 is $392 per month or $4,704 per year. The average cost of premiums for family coverage is $1,057 per month or $12,680 per year. How many families do you know who can save $12,680 per year? The median income in Florida is $46,142. Thus half the families in Florida could expect to pay a minimum of slightly more than one-quarter (27.4%) of their income for health insurance coverage alone. That is assuming the unlikely probability that individual insurance premiums will be equal to those awarded to businesses with greater bargaining power.
Republicans also recommend “Curbing frivolous malpractice lawsuits”. The OECD compared malpractice costs in the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia because all four countries have legal systems rooted in British law and manage malpractice claims through a British-style tort system. According to the OECD, malpractice payments represent less than 0.5% of health care spending in all four countries. Also, malpractice costs measured on a per capita basis show that the cost of malpractice lawsuits to the health care system is only slightly higher in the U.S. ($16 per capita in 2001, compared with $12 in the United Kingdom, $10 in Australia, and $4 in Canada).
Republicans tell us, “Tort reform could save billions of dollars that are wasted each year in defensive medicine.” Because malpractice spending is such a small percentage of overall health care spending (0.5%), it does not account for how much more Americans are paying for an inferior health care system. Granting that it is difficult to identify what is defensive medicine and what is appropriate, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that "savings from defensive medicine would be small" following tort reform.
In some other countries nonemergency medical procedures often have waiting lists effectively rationing health care. Republicans propose that in order to contain costs, Americans should ration their own health care. The truth is, these procedures account for only 3 percent of health spending and do not account for the wide disparity of health care costs in the U.S. and abroad. The OECD concludes that as research has repeatedly shown that “the prices of care, not the amount of care delivered, are the primary difference between the United States and other countries. These higher prices are increasingly making health care unaffordable for many Americans. Equally troubling, the more-costly U.S. health care has not resulted in demonstrably better technical quality of care or better patient satisfaction with care. Future U.S. policies should focus on the prices paid for health services and on improving the quality of those services. “
Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats are most concerned about the cost of health care reform and that it will add substantially to the deficit. Republicans are concerned that taxes will be increased to pay for health care reform. In order to pay for health care reform without adversely affecting the deficit, Democrats in Congress have proposed a tax increase on only 2% to 3% of Americans. Like Republicans, I also believe that reform is necessary. Unlike Republicans, I don’t believe in free lunches or free-loading. I am far from being in that 2%-3% likely to see my taxes increased. However, if I have to pay more in taxes so that all Americans have access to good quality health care, I’m more than willing to pay my fair share. That is what true American independence means; standing on one’s own two feet and paying one’s own way.
Republicans are defrauding their constituents by telling lies about health care reform. Republicans have failed to put forth a real alternative. Republicans are denying us the right to make an educated decision about a very serious pocketbook issue by obscuring the facts. When are Republican voters going to insist that Republicans stop worrying about the next election and start doing their job which ought to be representing the best interests of their constituents right now -- not lying to us!!!!!!!
I appreciate your analysis, Michael. You should know that your blog has been circulating heavily through email (that is how I received a copy).
I am an attorney as well, and have long been concerned about the Federal government's ever-extending reach. Many of the claims you make are extreme, however, and I would like to echo "Michael's" unanswered request that you cite the portions of the bill(s) that support your contentions that : "The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession."
I thought Kristofer also made a good point about the many amendments that have occurred since the draft you apparently read. Do these amendments alter your analysis, at least about the contentions you made in the above quote? There is not much point to objecting to a version of the bill that is no longer in contention.
I look forward to your responses to these two requests. Thanks!
For many years I was busy raising my family while my taxes were PAYING our representatives to 'represent' us. Now I understand why we have to be diligent in watching over these people who want to control every aspect of our lives. The final bill that is written should be made available to the public timely and not changed in the dead of night after it has gone to a vote. This practice is dishonest and deceitful. They do not want people to know for what they are voting. I will never be silent again, nor will I ever rely on anything our lawmakers say as truth. I will find out myself and speak out every chance I get. "The only way for evil to succeed is for good men to remain silent."
What a nightmare we are stuck within.
The fact that something this....well, evil...has made it so close to law is a reason to despair.
We've got to KILL THIS IDEA. Keep writing (on real paper, not only email) and calling your Senators and Congressmen. Don't let up for a second.
Fight. Fight. Fight.
Michael,
Thank you for taking the time to write up your analysis of HR 3200. I am not a lawyer. I'm just your average American citizen trying to muddle my way through this nightmare.
I am keeping myself informed mostly through FOX News, but I am very distressed that this bill has come so far so fast. From what I have been able to ferret out, I don't think anyone in Congress actually wrote this bill, but an outside and invisible group. Much like the Stimulus bill was written by the far-left group The Apollo Alliance. My first question is , is this legal? How can Congress take bills from outside and push them through? I do not think the Founding Fathers intended for an unknown, outside group would have this kind of power. And why isn't this information more widely known?
I write letters to my representatives. I call, I email and I plan on protesting this September 12th. I tell my friends and collogues. With the mass media forwarding Obama’s agenda and refusing to act as a Free Press and thus the watchdog for the general public, I am further distressed that the truth about what is happening is not getting to average Americans. The far-left Progressives only represent a small portion of the American people, so why is it that they have so much power?
My second question is, what can we, The People, do to stop this? Not just this bill, but all the other attempts to transform our great Country into a second-rate Orwellian State where the elite ignore the Constitution and do whatever they please, as long as it forwards their hidden agenda? Is there any legal action that can be taken to stop this and to reverse what is going on? Is there any legal group that can take on a Class Action suit to get us back to our Constitution and our Rights restored?
Thank you again for your efforts.
I too am thankful that someone has read the thing since my legislators do not. I would like to see the parts you quote from and have link to it as well.
Thank you
Ok so you still didn't answer the first posters question bud. Where are the actual sections in the bill that lead you to this conclusion. You are expecting people to follow your annalysis blindly without providing citations so that your argument can be verified. That's like showing up for court charging someone with murder but having no evidence to prove your case. Only your word against his. I think as a lawyer you should know better than this. So why don't you give us some references in the bill to validate your argument?
Thanks to everyone for your comments and interest. Even when people disagree with me I appreciate what they have to say if it is done in a respectful manner. This nation was built on the right to disagree.
It is difficult to cite specific sections of HR 3200 for several reasons. First, much of what I refer to as being done by the bill may not be in just one particular section. Instead the preparers attempt to hide their actual intent by spreading things throughout the bill in different sections. Second, any specific section I refer to by number may change as the Congress returns from recess and starts trying to rework the bill to make it seem more reasonable to the American people. In other words, what is contained in Section 1173A that provides for government electronic access to private information may be renumbered and contain something totally different tomorrow.
However, here are some of the most pertinent sections dealing with some of the areas you are asking about. Section 113 gives the government control over all health insurance, private and public. Section 141 authorizes the appointment of the Health Choices Administrator. He or she will answer to no one other than the President. Sections 201 and 203 give this person the power to decide what benefits you can get in your insurance, whether public or private. This opens the door for health care rationing. This is further mandated by Section 225 that gives the administrator complete control over hospitals and doctors. It sets the fees that can be charged and the services that can be provided.
If the Administrator decides you didn’t need to be hospitalized the hospital can be fined for “breaking the government rules.” This also opens the door for the Administrator to force hospitals and physicians to perform abortions. All health procedures will mandated by the government. There is also no provision for services to be provided only to citizens or legal residents of the United States. This means that since illegal aliens get the services now, they will continue to do so.
Here is a link to the entire bill and you can look up these and other provisions: http://thomas.loc.gov/. I hope you find this helpful
I believe it is people like you who are inciting this nation to react before having the true facts. You seem to have a lot of criticism, but no answers. Please give this a chance and get all the facts of the FINAL Health Care package before expressing your opinions. I am tired of this nation being pulled apart. We need unity and solutions if we are to survive and thrive.
MC:
Thanks for your ongoing effort to raise awareness about this Bill and alerting all that it will allow the current Administration to virtually takeover the U.S. healthcare industry.
In addition to all the dangerous language inserted into this Bill, I am equally bothered that our Congress continues to spend money that it does not have on things it cannot fix.
Congress, this Administration and it's followers have squandered most of the wealth of the U.S. in the first half of this year on Stimulus, GM, etc-- this final theft of the healthcare industry will truly bankrupt our children's generation.
"HOPE for CHANGE in 2010".
Most of us know by gut feel that this "reform" is going to finish destroying what is left of our Constitution, bankrupting our country, and taking away individual freedoms. It's good that there are smart people out there, taking the time to do our representatives jobs for them, giving specific grounds for those gut feelings, and keeping this debate going. The worst thing that could happen is that Congress does not take time to debate and deliberate before they decide anything. THERE IS NO BIG RUSH TO DO THIS! Also, whatever this program's proponents say their program will do or not do, it will not remain that way: Take a look at what Social Security was when the great socialist, FDR, started it, and what it is now. Want more of that? I personally wish the government would get out of my life and my wallet--that's what the Constitution was written for, to protect individuals from the government, not to provide for the general welfare at the cost of nearly everything else. Most Federal programs in existence today are beyond the scope of the delegated powers; they exist only under that vague clause, "promote the general welfare." Americans of all political persuasions need to be careful what we ask for, because we might get it.
What are your thoughts about the president's speech from last night?
Thank you so much for your hard work and thank you for the links!
My Father was a US serviceman for 20 years (Not an officer) and I know first hand what it is like to have government healthcare! I do not want it! Ever!
Dear Mr. Connelly,
Alas, we Americans have allowed ourselves to deteriorate into xenophobic sheep, perpetually distracted by text messaging and NFL games. Most of us rarely travel to Europe, suspecting that the world is flat and that sea serpents lurk off the Atlantic seaboard. If we would occasionally make our way there, we would get a peek into the future and return with a renewed appreciation for what you are warning us about. Euro-socialism is grim, indeed, and we mistakenly flirt with it by electing leftist Presidents and vacuous Congressmen. At some point, we must face reality and shift our nomenclature for socialism to what it really is—Marxism. Karl Marx’ Manifest der Kommunistischen Parte of 1848, with its ten steps for communizing a nation, would be chilling reading for the remaining Americans who can still read and write and carry a thought to its rational conclusion.
Respectfully submitted,
Warren Donworth
You sir are a GODDAMN LIAR! Just like Joe Wilson is a disgrace, so are you. This is a big lie. In HB3200 it specifically says no funding for abortion. If you had read the bill you would know that. Therefore the only conclusion I can come to is that your a GODDAMN LIAR!
The word abortion is not in the bill!!!!!!!
Wow John - could you be any more disrespectful? That is a big part of the problem with this country. Please provide the section that disputes Mr. Connelly's assertion that abortion would be paid for. It is a moral issue for me and I should not be forced to pay for it thru my taxes so I would hope it specifically states they would not be funded with my tax dollars.
As far as healthcare reform, I believe something needs to be done but I completely disagree with how Congress is forcing it and rushing it. You can't rush something this big thru. Tort reform needs to be tackled first. Doctors are not infallible so to further protect themselves they order numerous tests that are not needed driving up the costs, frivilous lawsuits costing millions drive up costs - get that under control first. Then tackle the insurance companies. It has been stated that 38% of what we pay is for profit and overhead costs. They are pocketing more and paying out less. Perfect example - last year between myself and my employer we paid over $18K in healthcare premiums - just premiums, not co-pays - the insurance company paid out less then $1K on my entire family. I switched to an HSA which is saving me thousands every year as my family is healthy - I want to be assured I won't lose that right. Having to satisfy a deductible before running to the ER for a runny nose should curb the abuse of the ER. Annual physicals are paid for 100% without having to satisfy a deductible so unless you get sick enough to visit the urgent care, you shouldn't have big expenses. The urgent care is only $64 on my HSA whereas I paid a $30 co-pay before but a whole heck of a lot more in premiums. The money I am saving on premiums goes into a health savings account that I use to pay for it. You don't lose it at the end of the year and you can invest it. Change employers? Take it with you - you own it! We need more people taking control of thier own personal misuse of doctors and hospitals - you don't need to run to the ER because you have a cold! Abuse of the system adds to problem.
As I have pointed out there are many ways to bring down the costs - not just by taking over the industry and forcing it down our throats.
MM
The fact is our forefathers fought/died over 3% which was the highest tax imposed on them by Great Britian prior to 1776. The fact is for those of us fortunate to currently have an income the majority of us are paying more than 25% tax to the current federal government. The fact is this very government has an ever increasing deficiet with no end in site. The fact is we have one of if not the highest corporate tax rates in the world. The fact is there is no penalty for frivilous/bogus lawsuit...no skin in the game for trial lawyers. The fact is this bill is designed to go in to effect in 2013...four years from now...not urgent. Most likely if it were not for people such as Michael the first draft would be the FINAL health care package already passed by house and senate. The fact is the unemployment rate continues to rise. Are you being truthful saying that what Michael is doing is pulling this nation apart? If so, provide fact if not merely your opinion.
John, (24) I am not a lawyer but I do understand that in legal terms what is not specifically stated can and is implied. The Republicans have been trying to get an insert into the bills specifically banning abortion; however, as of now, to no avail.
For those of you concerned about the 10th Amendment,do not forget about education. Too many rules and policies have become mill stones around the neck of educators just as these health bills will become detriments to our welfare. I, too, have lived in Europe.
I do thank you, Mr. Connelly, for your efforts and I do feel strongly that we need to start removing some of the untouchables in Congress
Mike,
I hope you sent this to O'Rielly,Hanity and Beck.
Earl
I've read everything the government has released on this topic to date. You are so off base it's embarrassing. I can't believe I'm validating your existence, maybe I'm writing this in the hopes that those who read this blog will be seeded with the doubt they need to not trust one source. Certainly one so close minded about the subject.
Please, go lock yourself in a closet until this is over so the stupid Americans that believe everything they read won't be swayed by your rubbish. Manipulating them is the way to an illegitimate goal, not honest or truthful in any respect. But then again, you claim to be a lawyer so I couldn't expect anything better I suppose.
I am an accountant for the State where I live, not an attorney, so please forgive my ignorance regarding the law. I am up on my reporting responsibilities for the Stimulus Package because of the 9 conferences I have had to attend since March, 2009 and still the changes and clarifications come fast and furious every day via e-mail and snail mail (it is the Government, after all). But, I have read this bill, along with the incredible number of hyper-links attached to the on-line version to provide clarification. It occurs to me, a month down the road, that I have wasted my time. This is not even the real Bill! While I am not a fan of sequels, I think we need a "Kill Bill" 2, 3, 4, 5...
I am increasingly convinced that this is one more smoke screen. This Administration seems to be very apt at creating drama on the surface while, at the same time, steadily disassembling the Constitution beneath the surface. My deepest concern is that we have seen the next to the last, if not the last, election our Country will see. My hope is in the Town Hall Meetings and the Tea Party Movement. Perhaps the people will rise up and reclaim what is ours, but it is frightening to see. The dissent is "allowed" but, they are not listening, they are not hearing.
Michael,
Once again, thank you for delving into the proposed legislation. To MM, if we wait until the final health care package is done, there will be very little time for us to let our Representatives know what we do and don't support. They represent US whether we voted for them or not. We need to know exactly what to ask them to support as well as what we would like for them to not support.
Michael, doesn't this (especially the information/privacy portions) wipe out the HIPAA laws that are currently in place, protecting our medical records from being accessed by anyone other than ourselves?
I've written to all 3 of my Representatives. One of them is on the Senate Finance Committee. (I'm in NM.) I tried to be as specific as possible, letting them know the parts that I do support and what I don't support. (I looked up HR3200 online to try to get as much information as possible.)
Whew, that was difficult to do! (No, I've not read the entire proposed bill.)
Question: As amendments are made to the bill, are the changes posted to the online version that we can access?
Question: If something in this legislation does nullify an existing Constitutional Amendment, is this seen as a NEW amendment, subject to the procedures in Article V of the Constitution? (2/3's of the Congress approval or 2/3 of State Legislatures.)
I know that this is asking a lot but I sense that you might be up to it...
We need to act. Rather than just say "NO to health care reform!" at the top of our lungs, we need to be specific.
We (those of us opposed to this massive 1000+ page piece of legislation) need someone to pen a draft of a letter to send to our Representatives as well as President Obama -- something that cites specific issues that we are opposed to and why. (Similar to what you've written so far.) If we had a template of sorts that outlines the critical issues (Medical records privacy, Government being able to make medical decisions rather than our Doctors, Inclusion/Exclusion of illegal immigrants etc.) then we'd be able to speak intelligently.
In correspondence to our Representatives, we can then include or exclude pieces that express our individual opinions. (For example, I am for the elimination of pre-existing conditions clauses for individual health insurance policies and am for mandatory insurance, at least at a minimal level.)
I've talked to many people who are frustrated and mad and who are opposed to many (if not most) of the proposed health care legislation. Yes, many have signed electronic petitions. That isn't going to get anything done though.
Most have not contacted anyone to tell them how they feel. Why? because they don't know what to say.
The AMA has endorsed "Obama Care" yet I've not spoken to one doctor who agrees with it. I called my insurance broker as well as the group that provides our health care. I asked them "What can I do?" I'm not getting any answers other than "Let your Congressmen know that you oppose the bill." That isn't going to cut it. That is what makes us appear to be "sheeple", chanting "no, no, noooo."
If we had a template of-sorts available; one from a reliable source; one that contains facts, then we could pass that on to like-minded citizens so that we could all let our representatives know how we expect them to vote.
To everyone here who is concerned, please do the best that you can to let your voice be heard in a calm, rational, fact-based way. Write to your Congress-people. Write to the President.
Sorry for going on so -- this is a huge issue that not only concerns health care. We need to take it one step at a time though.
I don't think that most people realize what a miracle it is that we have our Country. I would recommend that others review how and why our Country was founded. (Not to promote another Author's work but everyone should read "1776" and "John Adams" by David McCullough to get a refresher-course in US History.)
Michael Connelly, I will definitely start reading your books! Thank you for starting this dialogue.
Republican blogs, Conservative talk radio, and Faux news always do their best to scare people. Take off your blinders, cite specific sections so that you can be rebutted, or shut it. At a time when we need people to work together, we have people like you being divisive. No wonder we can never get anything done.
I would like to see some sources for the things you said, specifically citations of the specific portions of the bill that name/seem to imply these things. I have no time to read a 1000-page bill, but would definitely like to verify the information.
Thanks,
Liberty from Teenage Politics
are you people "brain-dead" or just "brain-washed" by the conservative movement? has anyone else who has commented read any of the bill? has anyone else even cared to pay attention to the facts as opposed to what people like Michael Connelly tell you in their "anti-anything that doesn't benefit them specifically" blog rants? has common sense become a lost function in conservative america? why would destroying the system benefit anybody? how is obama "just another person looking for a hanout"? he and most other people in office have worked their asses off to get where they are. i will admit that politics can be easy to get into with fame or connections, after all voting was really never more than a popularity contest. did anyone, outside of washington, in 1860 know what abraham lincoln's policies were? no. did obama have previous fame? no. connections or family in politics? no. he worked his ass off just like anyone else and yet he's treated by conservatives like he's done something wrong. he was just a man who got into politics and happened to become the president of the united states. why would he benefit from destroying health-care? i can promise you he has health insurance and i can also promise that he isn't on welfare. why would he benefit? he wouldn't. the world isn't out to get you or anyone else. the system isn't set up to make your life terrible. in fact it's just the opposite. this health-care bill is to help people who cant afford health insurance. are there people taking advantage of the system? yes, but get over it that's nothing new. you only think it's new because the conservative mentality is that "if it doesn't benefit you than why bother. in fact we should fight against it." is your money, the small amount of taxes you'll have to pay, more important than a human life? is that how self-centered this country is becoming? are you all so blind that you would complain about the fact that the health-care benefits may not extend to certain groups? are you not understanding the fact that this only applies to those who wouldn't have had health-care to begin with, and are therefor in the same situation they are in under the current system? why, at this point, are people so selfish, so ignorant, so arrogant that they refuse to listen to reason. for, where would we be without logic and rationalization? i think most of the people viewing this post, if it isn't deleted by the stubborn blog writer, need to take a step back and walk into situations without an opinion. and once you're well informed, make your own. please don't take the word of every "seeming to be" professional out there. you owe yourself and everybody you later rant to this much. thanks.
Wow, Aaron! I appreciate your passion. Although I can't speak for everyone who has commented, I have read the most updated version of the bill. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm sure there are things I didn't properly understand, but it was surprisingly comprehensible, although l-o-n-g!
I'm guessing that most people here get their news and information from a number of sources, not just this blog. And I think you're missing the point...the real danger of this bill is the already-over-long-arm of the federal government. The Founders of our system of government and their peers fought a 10 year battle for (forgive the caps) the RIGHT of SELF GOVERNMENT. What this means is that WE THE PEOPLE govern ourselves. The seemingly most important thing to the framers of the U.S. Constitution is Article 1 Section 1 which states basically that no law shall be made in this country except by lawfully elected representatives in the House and Senate (and the lawmaking ability given the states, naturally).
The problem with this health care bill is just an extension or a representation of what's been going wrong for over 100 years.
Firstly, our elected officials in Congress, for the most part, refuse to listen to us, thinking they know what's good for us -or they know what serves their OWN interests more.
Secondly, we the people have allowed these bandits to steal our Constitutional freedoms little by little, to our great shame. Executive Order, bureaucracies (like the EPA) making law, and our runaway judiciary legislating from the bench are all examples of violations of the Constitution.
Thirdly, government schools (you know them as the public school system) teach versions of history that in some cases bear little resemblance to what I learned in the same schools 40 years ago. They almost never teach the basics of our nation's founding documents. Sadly, they focus less and less on academics at all, all of this according to my cousin, who has been a public school English and history teacher for the past 40 years.
The Bible says the people perish for lack of knowledge. You may not appreciate the Book, but there's no denying the truth of that statement.
I need to stop talking and give someone else a chance, so finally, please understand it's not about the money--it's about principles. The Framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure the U.S. Gov't didn't become so big it outweighed the states, but it's happened. If the proposed health care legislation goes through it will give the federal gov't control of another, conservatively, one-sixth of the economy, and it's only ONE of the frightening things the current adminsitration is attempting, if not doing.
I could go on, but I just want to add that my family can't afford the $2,500 monthly premium for health insurance and so we don't have it. Yep, I have several chronic health problems and no insurance. And I am dead set against this bill. I hope that, at least, says something to you, Aaron.
And I do appreciate that you took the time to write your thoughts, really!
John-#24 who cursed God and then had the nerve to use disgrace aganist Joe Wilson. Everyone one has Freedom of Speech, but respect should be in the response. Just wanted you to know your response means nothing, and it shows your limited vocabulary.
I have worked in hospitals and treated patients with supreme care. The physicians provide this same treatment. For those that think care is not provided now, just wait till the Govenment Health Care Bill passes. Folks are thinking that they can still receive insurance from their employer. This is true now, but where is it in the Constitution that private companies will always have to insure their employees. Some companies have already stopped offering a plan. Eventually, all of them will stop insuring the employees. Why should they cover the employees? There will be a government plan to insure all.
This is also going to cause patients to receive little care if any. Let the Democrats handle this and it will show you their limited knowledge.
If I understand correctly Donna, this bill will only require insurance coverage for everyone, which is even more than Obama's original plan, if you go and read his book (The Audacity of Hope) and his campaign website. His plan was only to require children to have coverage, but Congress has taken it one step further.
I do not like the way this bill is set out, but I'd still like some sources for the things Mr. Connelly claimed about this bill. I'm one of those 'verify at all costs' people. ;)
I think that the government as well as the everyday people have some misconceptions about healthcare. Insurance companies are really messing over the everyday person, and don't really do much more than this bill would. They decide what care a person will get (something the government will not do under this bill), they can deny care (something the government will not do), and they charge outrageous amounts of money for it (something the government may or may not do.)
I agree that the Constitutional bounds on this issue are a bit shaky, and it has been argued both ways- that it is Constitutional, and that it is not. Since Congress has already trespassed against that document manymany times, I think it's a bit late to be throwing a temper tantrum now. But I think that if we really want healthcare to be left to the people, and we want costs to go down (it is a fact that costs are extremely high at this time) then we've got to educate people. Most people don't realize that insurance companies are really at fault here- combined with the outrageous regulations the government has placed on them in some cases.
I suggest watching Michael Moore's 'Sicko'. It's a liberal movie, yes, but it does have some good information, and balanced out with other sources, it can be quite a learning experience.
Good points. I think we should have actual citations from the bill introduced in a post that would give the argument much more weight. From an economic perspective you already know there will be rationing of care, destruction of private insurance, etc. There is no way out of that. Also, could you post a link to the actual bill? I would like to give it a read. Thanks
Are you able to provide hyperlinks from each of the key points to the proof text in the bill??
As for constitutionality, I believe that written constitutions are not intended to protect anyone's rights, but to provide a self-justifying legal wedge with which legislatures can chisel their way into their constituents' private lives and property. A free people do not need a piece of paper defining their freedom, and if anyone proffers such a piece of paper as an alleged bulwark against tyranny then their motivations should be automatically suspected.
Besides all the legal and constitutional arguments, there is also the question of why a nation which is already insolvent and nearing the point of having to renege on its loans or massively devalue its currency, would react by putting the pedal to the metal and drastically INCREASING spending. It is not just foolhardy but suicidal. At the risk of invoking whatsisname's law of internet debate, I would like to point out that this kind of suicidal tilting at windmills, both domestic and foreign, was the hallmark of government policies in Germany and Japan in the 1930s and 1940s. But I will admit that right up until the moment of the collapse of these regimes, the people who promoted these suicidal policies did benefit enormously from them in terms of power, perks and money.
What portions of the Constitution are left to destroy? Talk about closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out. But, alas, it couldn't end any other way as oooo noooo presciently revealed the true nature of the beast.
Here is a web-site link to my blog. I served as a soldier and a police officer. I also was sworn to defend, protect and serve.
I am against the healthcare reform as I also see it as stripping away our liberties.
Please read my blog and see how we agree on the subject. Leave a comment. I wish everyone would see what they are doing to themselves and to society as it can not be reversed once it (healthcare) is in place.
http://chrisitanamericanpatriots.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-future-of-american
GOD BLESS!
Seccession is the solution!
If the current or any future health care reform bill that is proposed in Congress could deliver health care to everyone at a less cost, on time, with full choice of providers and no limits on benefits I would still be opposed to it. It is not the business of the Federal, state or local governments to provide health care in any way, shape or form.
From that great liberal city of Madison Wisconsin
Insurance companies will not have to compete with each other if it is mandated for all. It makes for a captive audience. We will have no choice at all.
The excuse for mandating health care is the likes of the law that requires hospitals treat patients regardless of their ability to pay. This gives people the argument that lack of insurance increases costs for everyone, but it is only that way because government mandated it. That was an early step in take over of every aspect of our lives. If everyone suffers because you don't have insurance, we'll mandate insurance. Now your decision to ride motorcycles or play contact sports may be curbed as your potential injuries will cost the rest of us.
People think health care is a right. How can anyone have the right to the talents and efforts of doctors? Don't doctors have rights too? Or are they our slaves?
Michael, you said your comments on the 3rd Amendment are based on Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) case.
I'm not convinced you're actually a constitutional scholar. Griswold said that privacy, while not specifically mentioned in the constitution, could be found in the penumbras of the various texts within.
With regard to the Third Amendment, they said "The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy."
Now, no constitutional scholar would say that a potential violation of privacy afforded by the constitution would be a violation of the 3rd Amendment merely because the SCOTUS referred to an inherent protection of privacy in the 3rd Amendment. That's unsound analysis.
Here is the link provided by THOMAS (the Library of Congress searchable website) for the bill:
The other constitutional problem with obligatory insurance is the contracts clause of the 13th Amendment Reynolds vs United States ruled that the government cannot coerce a citizen into entering into a contract which is what insurance is. The "wheel of servitude" was defined in this SCOTUS case.
Unlike auto insurance. Mandatory health insurance is levied on people for being alive. There is no "Right to Drive". But I thought there was a "Right to Life".
I'm interested in reading views opposed to mine, but this part lost my attention with this article. Could you please clarify on your basis for this comment please because this strikes me as blatant scaremongering.
"and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession."
Coming from a country with universal health, which I rate highly, I have never heard of anyone being forced to have an abortion. Nor have I heard about this in any other first world nation with universal health.
Also from the same paragraph:
"free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services"
Clarification has already been made by Obama that illegal immigrants do not get free health care, any more than the current US system which are obligated to treat anyone in an emergency. The mention of abortion is sidestepping the important topic here and is playing on those who oppose abortion, but it makes no difference if this is paid for by universal health care or insurance companies - it's the same source of funds. The only difference is universal health don't skim large amounts off the top first.
My objection is purely because of my lack of trust for insurance companies, which I rate far lower than any US administration. These purely profit driven companies account for much of the reason the US has by far the highest GDP spent on health and why so many Americans are in debt, of which health care is easily the biggest contributor.
I have a close friend in the US who pays a considerable amount to health insurance, yet has been left in thousands of dollars of debt despite this, and that's just for the scans. Plus future insurance costs are affected, likely rejected for similar reoccurance of ill health, and employ people to find ways of canceling policies when people get sick to the extent of paying them bonuses.
I'd really like to hear rational counterpoints to the clearly flawed insurance system and proposed alternatives to even contemplate changing my standpoint on this issue.
I'm not sure I get your point Bryan. In his opinion William Douglas said the right to privacy could be found in penumbras of the texts of the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 9th amendment and were applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment. I didn't refer to the privacy issue as originiating in the 3rd Amendment, but if the court has ruled that it comes from that text among others, it stands to reason that if the right to privacy is threatened, all the language in amendments that form its basis is also threatened.
As for citing section numbers, I posted a response to that issue on this blog (see post 17). In the case of paying for abortions and care for illegals that the Democrats say is not going to happen under the provisions of the bill; why do the Democrats in the House continue to block every effort to specifically include those prohibitions?
Hi Michael~
First of all, thank you for posting this. In spite of the few negative comments from people who will probably never understand, you are a doing a great service to our country by making us more aware.
I would like to make a suggestion, so that when people view your site who may question your motives and ask for "sections" to be listed- it might behoove you to edit your original post, included an "edited date" at the very bottom - and include your response that you had posted under the comment section listing the House Bill 3200 section references as well as the paragraph you wrote explaining how these references may change as the bill is rewritten... especially how vaguely illegal immigrants were written in and what it does and doesn't imply. Include why don't they write in into the bill more specifically? That way if the reader does not know how to access the "comments" section (as a few of my friends did not know there were other sections) then they will see the Bill section references at the end of each of your Blog Entry posts.
Just a suggestion. Again, thank you for taking the time to write. You are a very honorable man! :)
if you really read this bill, even though you mention violations to our privacy in a general sense, how did you not specifically mention the Section entitled:
National Device Registry??? IT MAKES PROVISIONS FOR MICROCHIPPING US! Did you miss that somehow while you were reading the whole thing? Or just not think it important?
To MM: Mr Connelly is not the problem. He is not dividing this country. He cannot "wait" for the "real" bill to come to fruition and THEN analyze the consequences of the various provisions. Given this congress, the bill will come out; it will not be available in print; and the Democrats will vote it in before even THEY have read it, much less anyone else.
NOW is the time to look at provisions in THIS bill, because many will no doubt be in whatever other bill is written.
I am praying that if this ugly monster of a bill passes, that Constitutionalist attorneys will band together some how to keep on and keep on challenging its provisions in the courts until it is clearly shown to be inimical to our Constitution and to our nations heritage.
Although my wife and I, Christian missionaries, could discuss a dozen ways this legislation, if passed, will all but destroy our present ministry and labors (we self-insure, and that successfully), our chief concern is the damage it does to the very foundations and insistitutions of a free society.
me #51- that section is not what it you make it out to be. It is in fact merely making provisions for a database of pacemakers and the like. I have read the entire section. And lest we forget: such a database already exists. Several databases like this already exist.
The insurance companies have your infomation, and it is kept in a database. The government already knows all about you, from your social security number, your birth certificate records, and (guess who) the insurance companies. The government could gain that info from the ins. companies in a New York minute if they wanted it.
One thing that really bugs me, and this is a bit OT- President Obama's ultimate plan is a single-payer system. He has said so in various places, including his book The Audacity of Hope. I don't understand why he won't just out and say so now, when he doesn't have much to lose. I might actually be able to get behind such a plan if it seemed right to me, but his lying and cowering behind the (very thin) facade of Constitutionality is not becoming or honest in any way.
Here's my point Michael: are you saying that if Congress were to pass a bill that flew in the face of 14th amendment privacy jurisprudence, that as a result Congress would be able to quarter soldiers in my home?
Otherwise, my point was that you're adding references to multiple amendments under the guise of "privacy" in order to fluff up the areas in which you think this bill is unconstitutional.
To "me": The Device Registry is already in place (and has been for some time.) This is for all devices that are put into someone's body. This includes things like joint replacements, pins to fix broken bones, mechanical heart valves and even breast implants. (I'm not sure about dental implants.) In case there is a recall or a product problem, the individuals with the devices can be notified.
This is a great example of how wild rumors can get started.
Are there illegals in this country. Yes. Do they get health care? Yes. Where? ERs. I lived in Houston recently for five years and I remember seeing them get admitted for treatment while I sat there for six hours with a RUPTURED APPENDIX! They cannot be denied care due to not having ID.
So many of you say this bill does not specifically cover illegals? Well, since it does not EXCLUDE them, it WILL cover them.
How immature are you people that think this government wants to protect you? They just want to enhance their voting bloc. Wake up before it is too late.
God bless the USA
You claim that there is now there is no provision for excluding illegal immigrants yet section 242 seems to cover that ( from the link you gave in comment 17)
I am very appreciative of your professional insight.
I hope you don't mind but I posted a copy on ireport to get the word out to more people.
Thank you so much from all of those that are concerned about our future.
heathroi:
You mean
as a nonimmigrant described in a sub-
paragraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U),
and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act)—
...where three of the four references DO NOT EVEN EXIST?
How many of you will continue to trust the politicians of this country to look after your rights?
Michael C: Your blog came to my attention in one of those mass emails with every one forwarding it to everyone they know, typically something I avoid, but not this one! Thank you, thank you and thank you!
After relearning the Constitution in light of recent dangerous events occurring in two of our branches of government, I concluded all of these eventualities.
I would add one thought regarding the 1st Amendment regarding our right to assembly, or in the abstract, our right to not be forced to assembly, such as will be the case when we are either limited in our choices for healthcare or have no choice at all.
For Michael H and other like-minded: I would ask you this: Are you law abiding citizens? And if so, why would you ever want to break the Supreme Law of the Nation?
This (healthcare reform) is a matter of States Rights and as such an issue the individual States who may or may not have similar restrictions in their State Constitutions yet whom are not restricted in their undertaking. Don't like one states law on healthcare, move to one more appealing to you.
This is just more misinformation. Almost NONE of what you claim is in the bill, and what little pieces of it are, you have grossly misinterpreted. And by not citing sections or quoting the exact language, you've made it difficult to rebut specifically. This is pathetic.
If you don't have health insurance and you only use cash-only practitioners the government has no medical information about you. This however is effectively criminalized and penalized by the bill.
@#48 "Coming from a country with universal health, which I rate highly, I have never heard of anyone being forced to have an abortion. Nor have I heard about this in any other first world nation with universal health."
You quoted what MC said ("and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession."), but you clearly did not read it carefully. "BY MEMBERS OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION" means that hospitals and medical clinics might be forced to perform abortions, or risk being shut down, under this plan, regardless of their personal moral code.
What is boils down to, and so many Americans seem to forget, is what the government subsidises, the government controls. If you want government out of your personal health care and retain your privacy, stop expecting a handout for medical benefits.
One point that is also often missed is that many countries that have NHC still require their participants to have private health insurance, like Australia, where citizens and residents are fined if they don't carry their own private coverage. So not only do you get inferior care with NHC, but then you STILL have to have private coverage, and it's far more dear in price because there isn't enough variety in what they have to cover to smooth out the medical costs to the insurance company, i.e., they are only used for the big ticket proceedures.
Dear Michael,
Thanks so much for your excellent work and presentation. For me the premise that the government should be (or has the constitutional power to be) in the health care business at all is repulsive. The issue for me is not whether the proposed legislation is good or bad. The real issue is that the Federal government is realistically bankrupt and is borrowing one half of every dollar it spends so more expense of any kind is suicidal to the nation in the long run. Anything the government touches makes it more expensive, more difficult and any encounters with true justice are purely coincidental. I have reached an age and disposition that any additional government encroachment is unacceptable. No other power is remotely close to threatening my personal (lawful) pursuit of happiness as is our own government. One more point: If the legislators did not even read the bill who wrote it?
Michael C: Could you provide an overview of how the judical branch functions as a check & balancing 3rd branch of our government? How and when do they get involved in the balance of power?
I would like to hear your thought on the ultimate abolishment of private insurance policies, and the "Contracts Clause" of the Constitution.
Thanks.
Jay Harris
I'm soooooo impressed. Thank you for sharing your expertise during this freedom crises.
Question for everyone, where do you think concern for your health ranks among the Administration, Congress, Federal Courts, or the thousands of federal bureaucrats?
The federal republic was destroyed in 1865 (and yes slavery was too, the ONLY good that came out of the war), and since then the federal government has ignored, twisted, and trampled the Constitution, this bill like so many others is clearly unconstitutional on its face. I agree with Bob #44, “secession is the solution.”
Bob V.
Seems like we are watching everything that our revolutionist stood and died for being recreated though lies and deciete to protect greed .Greed is not what democracy was met to accomplish ,in fact it was just the opposite .The revolution ,as I was taught ,was to bring an end to taxation without representation ,which of course reached out in to all the other areas that were in control of the KING and his REPRESENTATIVES.So now we have gone full circle and are giving up our rights, ( gaurenteed by OUR Constitution ,not the Kings constitution,being re-written by a new KING.By the way didn't we go to the President idea after we left England .All I can offer was said the best by Jessie Ventura "Don't start the Revolution with out me" Scares me to say that as I am not to sure that the King and his Representatives won't be at my door calling me a Racist .Your break down was just what I needed to understand how big what is happening really is as I am not the smartest in the world but I am a Patriot and a Wounded Combat Vet that just can't believe what we are letting happen to us Thanks
Michael,
Kudos on your persistence in reading the whole thing and decoding it. Please ignore those few demagogues who have provided negative comments without any basis in fact. The best thing about this entire issue is that it will never pass. If it does, the federal government does not have the structure to enforce it. There are too many patriots who oppose this kind of control. Besides, God is the One who is in total control and I believe He will not pass this judgment on us - not for long anyway! The Age of Tabernacles is already underway, which will see the manifestation of the sons of God and His Millennial Kingdom on earth. No rapture, no heaven, everybody will eventually be saved. Praise Him now or later...
Michael,
A HUGE percentage of what you say is FLAT WRONG. Everyone should check out http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/ for an unbiased analysis of the bill.
The current health care system is unsustainable, an HMO administrator friend of mine calls it the "Health care death spiral". Right now those of us with insurance (which thankfully includes me) are sustaining a huge percentage of everyone's health care costs. That includes the uninsured. As health care becomes more expensive fewer and fewer people can afford it. That raises the premium costs on the remaining insured, resulting in more people dropping out because of the costs, leading to an eventual collapse of the system.
You have to give Obama credit for trying to address this issue. "Just say no" is not an answer, be a part of the solution.
@Faith
"You quoted what MC said ("and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession."), but you clearly did not read it carefully. "BY MEMBERS OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION" means that hospitals and medical clinics might be forced to perform abortions"
Actually, the sentence can be read two ways. It's ambiguous and could probably have been better phrased. But point taken. But hospitals being asked to perform accepted practice, whatever that may involve, is hardly surprising. Not that this example would be standard practice - there are dedicated clinics.
@Kevin,
"God is the One who is in total control..."
Is it really too much to ask to have an adult debate without bible bashing all over it.
There seems to be many who think this article answers questions, but I fail to see any proposals for solutions from these kinds of articles nor its readers. Anyone can pick flaws without suggesting alternatives.
The insurance companies model is badly broken. There are valid reasons every other first world nation has moved over to universal health.
Rescission - the act of canceling a health policy when people get sick, and paying bonuses to employees to reject the most. Many of you right now are paying a large chunk of your salary into a policy which is void, but they'll only take issue when you come to depend on it.
A Clinical Research Study found that 62.1% of all bankruptcies in '07 were medical. 75% had insurance! That is downright scary. It seems those who actively trash health reform haven't been bitten by the current system, yet.
The list goes on. But why anyone would want insurance companies standing between them and health care is beyond me. You have gotchas in small print, whether it excludes certain health issues, policies which exclude similar/repeat health issues, increased costs based on your history/claims, a profit incentive to reject claims, insisting ill people pay thousands towards scans/treatment - what's the point in paying thousands into a policy if it doesn't cover you fully when you need it!
I wouldn't mind so much with articles against health reform but there's so much misinformation over this issue that the integrity of those against health reform has been in question so far. For example factcheck.org analyzed emails circulated by Repubs and found that of 48 claims, 26 are blatant lies, 18 deliberately misleading, just 4 accurate.
http://tr.im/xuTl
Then there's others who sensationalize it to new extremes by comparing Obama with Nazi Germany when really they're polar opposites. Comparing someone who is trying to improve health with a sadistic movement is disgraceful frankly.
Even Fox News has joined in. Rather than just reporting balanced news they've imposed heavily one-sided political views. It seems many have forgot how untrustworthy the organization is. Here's previous employees of Fox News blowing the whistle on corruption:
http://bit.ly/CmzQH
Anyway, just to clarify my standpoint on insurance companies. Consider that the US has by far the highest GDP spent on health, double that of many others rated higher by the World Health Org. When they last compiled the stats they put the US at 37th, behind the UK at 18th (who have been aggressively misrepresented with edge cases). Also of note is that all of the top 10 on the list (at least), consisting of European countries, Singapore and Japan have universal health, and notably better stats on average lifespan and deaths under five. So with these kind of results, why is the US not #1 given the GDP? Perhaps because insurance companies are skimming so much off polcies? I read 30% somewhere. The 300m profits being made by top insurance companies is coming from somewhere, and that's not going to the health professionals.
"Death panel" is being banded about. But that's exactly what insurance companies are. People talk about universal health like they're signing their life away. You aren't forced to do anything. For example in the UK, if you prefer to wait less for an op, just do it via BUPA for example. You're not forced to use the NHS for everything. But that's not to say the NHS is bad - a close friend had cancer and he has made a full recovery already, so I've seen first hand how efficient the NHS is. You'll see failings and edge cases in every health system in the world, and the US has more than its fair share too (Michael Moore made a film about it if I recall). So reaching points of view based on edge cases achieves nothing, other than scaremonger.
@Anthony:
At no point did you address the constitutional issue upon which the original blog post was based. All you have done is bat around the other arguments and counter-arguments, but you never even begin to delve into what constitutional authority the federal government has to institute such reform. If this "reform" is going to pass it will require an amendment to the Constitution to make it constitutional.
Those who take the approach that the Constitution has been ignored since 1865, 1913, 1937, whenever, which creates a precedence are plain wrong. Were that the case, the law failing to prosecute one person who commits an unlawful homicide would justify all people committing the same act. The law is the law, and it begins with the Constitution.
It is high time we quit nursing at the teat of mother government awaiting another handout, man up, and tend to our own houses.
Reform is needed, but it should be done to increase liberty, not infringe upon it. Tort reform and purchasing of policies across state lines would be a place to start, but leave insurance to the individual. Create more competition, not less. A government option (incorrectly called a "public option") will create an entity which cannot be sued, controlled or competed with. It will price the competition out of business and force all onto its rolls.
People, this is not about whether people have access to health care. They do. This is about each and every person's right to make choices about his own care and well-being. This is about liberty. When there is doubt about an issue, liberty should prevail.
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your dedication to the study and understanding of Constitutional law. The Bible tells us in the book of Hosea, "My people are destroyed for their lack of knowledge." I believe this blatant insurgence of chaos and corruption has stimulated our thinking and motivation to action in a way not many events have. I again applaud you for this informative evaluation. There is GOOD NEWS! In Revelation 11:15
"The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign for all ages." Evil will not prevail! Christ will rule in Love and Righteousness and all these events point to the fact that this will occur soon. Not the end, but all things will be made new.
We are seeing the chaos when man rules apart from dependence on God. When morality and respect for God are absent and rejected there is an inability to process rational stability of thought. Man does what is right in his own eyes.
The hope for man is not in man, but in Jesus, the resurrected Son of God. He is and He will prevail!
Again my thanks to you.
John
I'm an attorney who wonders where all the attorneys are in the systematic removal of our civil rights in this and other legislation like the USA Patriot Act and the stimulus package (which sets up a billion-dollar system for centralized control of our health information).
I largely agree with Liberty and Anthony Hocken. Unlike most who have written in comment, however, I'm very concerned about the poor and working class of this country who, with their innocent children, are being driven to destitution by the actions of an elite corporatist state that diverts our attention from the really important issues through partisan bickering. Don't you all understand that if you are not in the top .5% or so in this country you are being screwed by those who are?
The ranks or the poor are increasing as formerly middle class people whose jobs have been eliminated are falling into poverty, loss of home and loss of health insurance. I, for one, have no health insurance, because I am underemployed and can't afford it, and I'm terrified what will happen if I get cancer. One of the reasons I'm in the state I'm in is that I was in Washington (during Bush I, Clinton and Bush II and can't tell you which was worst) and I tried to work for reform of the housing system, at high levels. I know about the corruption. My career was destroyed over doing what was right. There are few to support one when one takes a stand against The Powers that Be and tells the truth. I tried to get a job at the SEC, among other government agencies, and I could never get an interview. I was a mortgage backed securities specialist, friends. I was saying the currency was at risk and Fannie and Freddie were corrupt and risking taxpayer money and that HUD was a cesspool of corruption and encouraging loans to those who couldn't afford them, resulting in housing prices being too high. That was TEN YEARS AGO. I was drummed out of Washington. Now everyone says "who could have known?" that the crash would happen.
I believe everyone has a right to health care, as everyone who is accused of a crime has a right to representation by an attorney. Good health should not be something that only relatively wealthy people can have. Many, many, many hardworking Americans are a paycheck or an illness away from loss of everything. Aside from this being a moral and social justice issue, IMHO, it's not good for the rest of the country for more and more people to be uninsured and lose their homes. After all, who will pay the taxes or buy the products from the companies who are outsourcing the jobs?
As for health care, I also know a good deal about that. I did pharmaceutical regulation. HIPAA is largely useless because you can't get insurance without waiving your privacy rights. Now I understand insurance companies are using credit scores to price health insurance. For shame. I do pro bono work for people losing their homes through foreclosure. I now have a client in foreclosure because of Hodgkins Lymphoma. A hardworking middle class family with two cars and a nice house, which they put $55,000 down on, and three kids in a suburban community. The company the husband (who was ill) worked for had $6,000 deductible insurance and the insurance company denied many of the charges. The son was in a sports accident. The wife was laid off. They ended up having to use their mortgage money to pay for hospital bills, or the hospital would have kicked him out. Something like half the bankruptcies in this country are because of or compounded by unconscionable medical bills, and 80% of those involve people who are INSURED. Many people think their health insurance is great because they have never been catastrophically sick and seen what happens. Also, many people are stuck in government or large corporation jobs because it's almost impossible for many to get affordable health insurance on a one-off or small business basis. So the health insurance crisis is stifling the creation of and survival of small businesses, where almost all of the new jobs are coming from. Kaufman Foundation recently reported that effectively 100% of the growth in jobs in this country was due to small businesses. But we still continue to support corporatistas.
The danger with partisan people like Mr. Connelly presenting interpretations of pending bills is that they tend to say bills will end up with certain things happening as if that's what the law says, whereas they are really just figuring out a worst-case scenario involving things that are unstated in the legislation. In this case, so-called "conservatives" are saying the pending bills will cover illegal aliens largely because Democrats refused to put in a provision that would have involved sanctions if illegal aliens were covered. The bill actually says that illegal aliens are not covered -- it just doesn't have an enforcement mechanism. Similar situation vis a vis abortions. The bill does not say one way or another about abortions, or cancer for that matter, I think. This is scary enough without invoking scare tactics.
I believe in universal health care in theory, but I also think our culture is so greedy and our system is so corporatized and uncaring for the welfare of those who dissent or don't toe the line as The Powers That Be demand or that are just plain out of luck, that any overhaul could be worse than the pitiful status quo. That said, I know people who have lived in countries with universal health care and it can work and costs about half of what we are now paying as a society, so everyone could be covered for what we are paying now if it were done right under universal health care. This is one reason almost half the doctors in this country apparently support some form of "public plan." If Medicare were such a failure, they would not be taking that position. Medicare, for all its faults, actually works pretty well.
The question is whether we are up to social justice.
Michael, thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully examine and analyze this bill, and for citing Griswold. While it is a case well known to law students and attorneys, most of the general public is unaware of its significance and it is only through the efforts of people such as yourself that we can help our electorate become truly well informed. I look very much forward to having you on Constitutional Radio next Tuesday night with Drkate and me!
For those who would like to tune in, the link is:
Again, I can't help but beg you to rework your argument and cite actual portions of the bill so that we can see the details you claim are so clearly terrible.
And where do you stand on the Patriot Act?
Michael,
Your most important message is...."This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights."
How did we get into this mess? We "trusted" or a better word, became "apathetic"...allowed others to do our thinking for us. This began right after we won our freedom, many, many years ago.
We began to be self-glorifed as time went on, instead of glorigying our Creator. We now have come to a point in history (just as many in previous generations - even Old Testament), where we have lost focus on the "True God."
We had all better start praying constantly! We are going into exile unless we return to obediencey to the Will of our Creator!
If we don't, history will repeat itself! Is our state of affairs any different the Isrealites exile by the Babylonians? The Jews exile by Hitler? The United States exile by a nation who are descendants of Ishmael?
Pray unceasingly for our Nation and God's children, that we will return our focus to the one true God. Through His mercy, He will guide and enlighten us once again to be the people He created us to be.
Thank you Michael for the gifts given to you by our Creator and being a good steward of those gifts.
God bless you in all ways,
Are you sure you read the right bill? I can't find any basis for your complaints in the text of H.R. 3200, nor in the drafts of the other bills (I haven't read the Gang of Six bill yet -- it was just out today).
For example, your privacy concerns would be obviated by the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), it seems to me. Nothing in any of these proposals touches HIPAA. I can't figure out where you found any language that affects privacy. Can you cite the section?
wow, Mr. TexASS lawyer dude, are you an ignorant asshole or what? I've worked in the health care 'industry' for 20 years, on the business side, and I can tell you without reservation that you must be totally oblivious to reality in America as most of us know it (of course yer frum TexASS so that explains a lot...I hears dey don't likes to much book larnin' down der?!) Seriously, mo-rans like you are the reason we are ranked 37th in health care in the world...fuck how I pray every day for deliverance from you goddam idiots and your stinkin' thinkin' (and I'm an atheist!) Take your load of bullshit and peddle it someplace else, and while your at it, in the words of your hero and fearful leader, Big Dick Cheney, GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!
Hi Joe,
I have to admit I am extremely conservative. But, I look for opposing points of few to broaden my understanding of a subject and to test my own set of facts, opinions, and beliefs on a subject. When someone presents an opposing view, it often will give me a chance to objectively review a subject from a different prospective then my own.
Unfortunately I have found nothing of any redeeming value in our comment. I will go so far as to request that you not be so blatantly disrespectful, it does nothing to further understanding or decision making on either side of this particular debate.
Sincerely,
Dean
I agree with Bryan. You claim to be a constitutional scholar but you are making assertions in your writing that seem to demonstrate a lack of understanding of even basic Constitutional Law. Your use of the 3rd Amendment is inappropriate. The right to keep soldiers out of your home has little to nothing to do with your argument. Further, you challenge the reader to locate the text in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to regulate healthcare. This is a disingenuous statement for a Constitutional Scholar to make. The reader would need to look to Supreme Court decisions and legislative notes. That is where you would find the connection between Congress' power of health care and the text of the constitution. Finally, you make the untruthful statement that there is "nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax [related to private healthcare]." 42 USC 1983 allows you to contest "deprivation of a legal right", including due process of law; giving you an opportunity to contest the tax.
Because of these dubious assertions, I am seriously questioning your credibility. It is extremely unfortunate that your writing is being circulated in mass e-mail.
Michael,
Thank you for your efforts however, I am a little confused about some of the comments you have made. Particularly when you say this bill provides for free health care for illegal immigrants. I have found, in two different sections of the bill, where it refers to individuals who are "lawfully present".
First in Section 242 - "(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this division, the term `affordable credit eligible individual' means, subject to subsection (b), an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a subparagraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act)--"
Then in Section 246 - "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."
I may be wrong (it would not be the first time), but I believe this specifically excludes illegal immigrants from obtaining free health care coverage. Keep in mind, I am not bringing this to your attention in an attempt to debate or argue this bill, but only to seek the truth. Any additional information from you, or anyone, regarding this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Brian
I can't believe this thing is scaring everyone so much! I almost think the public believes that the Obama Administration is trying to harm them purposefully in this health care legislation.
Mr. Conelly- I very much doubt the Democrats or any government official are/is crafting this legislation with the purpose of grasping more power and denying rights to people. I have been to over 23 countries and have never seen lifestyles like ours here in the US. What people consider poverty here is laughable to most of the world.
People, even with this terrible recession we have more "stuff" in our homes than we can use. People have made dieting a gigantic business here where others can't find enough to eat.
Seriously, the American Dream is cool, but it needs lots of small players to maintain every big shot. I think this legislation is meant protect the small players. My only criticism of it from what I have read, is the length and complexity of it. The simpler, the better. We waste so much of our lives worrying about our downfall as a country. Great Britain lost it's dominance after WW2 and it is still there and so is it's government. If some other power were to become the world policeman I would welcome it. Ex-Governor Palin actually said to a heckler that some of her family were in Iraq defending his "right to dissent". I love our troops, but that is not why they are there. Get them home safe and that might pay for the whole thing or at least help wouldn't it?
Thanks to everyone who has maintained a respectful tone even while disagreeing!
Jim
Michael,
Thank you very much for your analysis of HB 3200. The Dems (and many Repubs) just don't grasp the concerns of mainstream America. We want Gov. to leave us ALONE and stay out of our business. If they were to stay within the framework of what our constitution outlines, there would be NO issues. Yet, they keep reaching, further and further until at some point, they reach too far and fall over. I think the falling has begun. We can right this thing, actually they can right this thing if they so choose but they won't. I fear for our country and its people. All the symptoms are there of a bad Cancer and our politicians that are supposed to be representing us are looking very much like a tumor. I mean look at the facts:
1.) Our traditional allys feel like we've abandoned them. (Poland and Czech just today; not to mention Israel)
2.) The most vile leaders in the word are calling Obama a hero (Chavez and Castro). Leaders that would love to see our downfall are are calling him "brave" and a "great leader" (Putin and Ahmadinejad)
3.) He appoints Racists and Communist to his cabinet and Czar positions
4.) He has vowed to run our coal industry out of business with cap and trade
The list is too long for a blog post but you know where this goes..
Lastly, every single social program that our government has ever run has failed, is failing or on the verge a failing. Every one of them are loaded with bureaucratic nightmares, excessive expenditures and no accountability for their employees. THIS is what is going to be running your and my health care?!?!? No thank you...well written Michael.
How can anyone not understand that this is not about providing healthcare for everyone? They say monopolies are the downfall of this system... but they want the biggest monopoly in charge of it. The best way to make something cost less is to promote competition. The government has stifled that with regulation. Stop stupid lawsuits and you will stop having lawyers tell doctors what needs to be done because they will get sued. How many tests are done because the doctor is afraid to get sued, not because he wants to make more money like the president insinuated?
Then they say they can pay for this by eliminating fraud. Shouldn't they have already done that? What makes them think they can now?
Don't enslave me by making me come to mother governement to ask for back what I've already earned through hard work and you have taken it away from me.
Thank you Michael for taking the time to read the pages that our elected officials don't feel they have to. ("Who has time to read the bill? - John Conyers)
Brett
great, just what we need, more idiots pretending to be experts, spreading more lies to their blind sheep followers, fanning the flames of hatred & violence. you people are getting hysterical about nothing. if you spent all that pent-up energy trying to make the world a better place rather than trying to tear down something positive (for a change), we might make some progress in this country. if you don't like the way things are going, please, all of you, move to Texas with this idiot and Ron Paul and live happily ever after.
NOTE: this comment was orginally posted with hyperlinks, which will not work in this blog.
I am a lawyer myself, and enjoy studying consitutional law; but I find Mr. Connelly's claims that HR3200 violates the Constitution dubious. So, I wanted to post a response. First of all, I think Mr. Connelly should have been more specific as to what parts of the HR3200 he is talking about. That would be much more constructive to the discussion.
1. Mr. Connelly claims that Congress does not have the authority to legislate health care reform. How so? It seems pretty easy to justify it on the basis of Congress' commerce power (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) enumerated in the Constitution. The issue of Health Care reform easily affects
interstate commerce.
2. Mr. Connelly claims that HR3200 will allow the executive branch to have access to any individual's healthcare information, and this is a violation of the 4th amendment probibition against unreasonable search and seizure. Mr. Connelley does not say where in HR3200. Is he talking about data collections by the Health Choices Commissioner under section 142(c)?
In any case, It does not folllow that it a immediately and always a direct violation of the fourth amendment. What if the government had probable cause to support a legitimate warrant to inspect someone's health care information, which is something they can do today? The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure but it doesn't prohibit ANY search and seizure.
Of course, I will be concerned if this bill overrides other current laws concerning privacy of medical information, which has been affected by past legislation; one being the PATRIOT act passed in 2001. Read your privacy notice next time you go the hospital. In there is a provision that the hospital has to divulge information if the government suspects illegal activity or something like that. This, I believe, doesn't even need probable cause to support it.
see ACLU on Patriot Act
3. Mr Connelly claims that HR3200 infringes on the due process right to privacy as recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) by way of the 3rd and 4th amendment. Maybe. Unfortunately, Mr. Connelley does not state where in HR3200 it infringes on the due process right to privacy.
Of course, it may already be the case that the Government can gain access to your private medical information thanks to laws like the PATRIOT act.
see Griswold v. Connecticut on wikipedia and Griswold opinion
Moreover, The description of the Griswold case is only partly true. The opinions in this case are all over the place, trying to determine where the right of privacy is based in the Constitution. There is no express provision declaring a right of privacy in the Constitution. The Douglas opinion with the most justices (three I think) expresed the opinion that the right of privacy that was infringed in this case was implied in the "penumbra" of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendment. id at 381. Since the Griswold decision, the right of privacy has largely been grounded as a substantive
due process right in the liberty provision of the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment. ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"). see Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), see
Casey on wikipedia
The 3rd amendment has largely been ignored. Why? It talks about the prohibition of troops taking over your house. The Griswold decision just might be the broadest reading of that amendment. It is not clear how HR3200 would violate the prohibition against quartering your house to use for tropps.
4. I would argue that any Congressional legislation can't simply override the Constitution. Congress must propose an amendment to the Constitution by passing the amendment in both the House and the Senate by 2/3 vote each, and then 3/4 of the states must ratify the proposed amendment. See Article V of the Constitution.
If the law infringes on your rights or violates the Constitution, you must sue in court to enforce your rights and if the court (especially the Supreme Court) determines it to violate the Constitution, then the law may get struck down. Thus, it is not true that Congress can simply override the Consitution with ordinary legislation.
5. Mr. Connelley claims that the tax on private health care is an violation of the due process claim of the Fifth amendment.The main rule that the Supreme Court has found concerning Due Process, Adminstrative Agencies, and taxes is that if it is legislative in nature, that it is not a deprivation
of property without due process. Bi-Metallitic 239 US 441 (1915). Legislative means that if it applies to future conduct and it is generally applicable to everyone.
see Metallic on wikipedia.
Certainly, it seems that a tax on private health care insurance proscribes future conduct and applies ot everyone. Anyone, that is, who decides not to avoid the tax by conforming conduct. Due process means the legal process that is fair, like a court proceeding or an adminstrative hearing, that allows one to present their side and notice that there is a proceeding or hearing that threatens to take a due process right. It makes much more sense for legislative matters to be resolved in the legislature by voting and representation than every body in the population address their grievance with their representatives in court. The "due process" with legislation is voting for your representatives.
Thus, it far from clear why a tax here is deprivation without due process. To be fair though, the constitutional power to tax is controversial and source of a whole another topic.
see taxing power on wikipedia
6. It is certainly unfounded that the "left hates" the Bill of Rights. Libertarians exist on the left and everywhere in between. The point is precisely that the Bill of Rights has NOTHING To do with ideology. Libertarians of all political stripes stood in opposition to the PATRIOT Act in 2001.
7. Mr. Connelley claims that the 9th and the 10th amendment are effectively nullifed by this law if it passes. AGain, I reliterate that no ordinary legislation can overrule the Constitution. Congress has to pass an amendment by 2/3 of the vote in each house, and the 3/4 of the states must ratify the amendment. Again, if an individual beleives his or her rights is violated, by all means he or she should sue in court to enforce the right.
8. Mr. Connelley does not explain what the 9th amendment means or how HR3200 nullifies it. It states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What does it mean? It does signify that the Bill of Rights,
which were enumerated, will not deny or disparage other rights. what are these other rights? There are theories but no hard and fast rule what it means. It might mean the Magna Carta. It might mean some of the rights recognized in common law Britain. Justice Goldberg concurring in the Griswold case thought it contained the right to privacy. So, if there is no definite consensus on what it means, how does HR3200 clearly "nullify it?"
see 9th Amendment on wikipedia
9. To be fair, the 10th amendment is more definite. As I understand it, it means that the states have certain powers reserved to them, noticeably the police power--the power to legislate health, welfare, safety, and morals. Health care reform, in general, can implicate a police power. However, health care reform is probably easily within Congress' power because it is within Congress' commerce power. Health care easily affects interstate commerce. Federal Legislation that becomes law is the supreme law of the land (Article VI, Section 2).
See Supreme Court cases where legislation has been upheld under Commerce clause. (Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 2005, Congress can enact Controlled Substances Act to legislate even medical marijuana laws passed by some states, see Gonzales on Wikipedia); (Kazenbach v. McClung 379 U.S. 294 (1964), Congress can pass law prohibiting racial discrimination by private parties b/c they were near interstate highways, see Katzenbach on Wikipedia); (Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146 (1971), congress can legsilate purely intrastate loan rates under Rackecteering Statute, see Perez opinion).
Here are some cases where Congress legislation WAS struck down: (United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), Violence Against Women was not related to interstate commerce, see Morrison on Wikipedia; (United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995), Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was not related to interstate Commerce, see Lopez on Wikipedia. Thus, if Congress has the commerce power to legislate health care reform, how does HR3200 if passed clearly "nullify" the 10th amendment? Or rather, What is the arguement that health care reform does not fall under the commerce clause?
see also 10th Amendment on Wikipdeia and Commerce Clause on Wikipedia
Therefore, I believe that Mr. Connelly makes an overly broad and false claim that HR3200 is a violation of the Constitution without much reference to the house bill or much consitutional support. I disagree with him for that reason. I encourage anyone with a interest in Constitutional law and how it relates to the health care reform debate to refer to all the links in this article.
“Mr. Connelly claims that Congress does not have the authority to legislate health care reform. How so? It seems pretty easy to justify it on the basis of Congress' commerce power (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) enumerated in the Constitution. The issue of Health Care reform easily affects interstate commerce.”
You left out an important adverb, to wit, “among” the several states. Obama is on record as stating that he supports a single payer (not to be confused with payee) health care system that can only happen if all other payers are eliminated. This imitative clearly violates the section you reference. However, I am aware that this is a patent rebuke of progressives who insist that the Constitution is a document open to interpretation amid the concerns of the present. Are you a progressive?
“In any case, It does not folllow that it a immediately and always a direct violation of the fourth amendment. What if the government had probable cause to support a legitimate warrant to inspect someone's health care information, which is something they can do today? The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure but it doesn't prohibit ANY search and seizure.”
What if a frog had wings? You answer your own question: “…if the government had probable cause…” I believe Mr. Connelly is precisely correct.
“Unfortunately, Mr. Connelley does not state where in HR3200 it infringes on the due process right to privacy.”
I think you must look at this within the context of all the demonstrated contradictory statements of this administration, such as the lies about supporting a single payer system couple with the inability of our government to manage almost any federal program. Any toad once kissed is still a toad. Clever are those who can convince you they have become a prince.
“There is no express provision declaring a right of privacy in the Constitution.”
There is an express provision declaring that if it isn’t here, it isn’t constitutional.
“The 3rd amendment has largely been ignored. Why? It talks about the prohibition of troops taking over your house. The Griswold decision just might be the broadest reading of that amendment. It is not clear how HR3200 would violate the prohibition against quartering your house to use for tropps.”
I think you are being obtuse here.
“Thus, it is not true that Congress can simply override the Consitution with ordinary legislation.”
Suppose Congress chooses to use progressive’s interpretation of the Constitution, IMO such as your own?
“Certainly, it seems that a tax on private health care insurance proscribes future conduct and applies ot everyone.”
You can not assert or ignore the legality of one aspect of the Constitution to the detriment of any other aspect. This is the say that if you violate my 1st amendment rights, successfully arguing the 3rd amendment makes the action still illegal.
“The point is precisely that the Bill of Rights has NOTHING To do with ideology.”
The Constitution and Bill of Rights have everything to do with ideology in the practices of our government. Shame on you.
“Mr. Connelley claims that the 9th and the 10th amendment are effectively nullifed by this law if it passes. AGain, I reliterate that no ordinary legislation can overrule the Constitution.”
I guess that depends on whether or not such opinion is based upon either traditionalist or progressive interpretation. Personally, I find traditionalist interpretation to be the longest lasting.
“"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What does it mean? It does signify that the Bill of Rights,
which were enumerated, will not deny or disparage other rights. what are these other rights?”
I think the focus is heavily weighted upon the idea that if it isn’t enumerated, then it is a matter of the States and the people, not the federal government.
“So, if there is no definite consensus on what it means, how does HR3200 clearly "nullify it?"
Again, I think you are taking a progressives’ approach to interpretation. I believe the consensus is in the abstract that if it isn’t supported by the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights, then the matter rests solely with the States and the people.
Why is it so hard for you and those likeminded to grasp that the founder’s predicated problem solving on the lowest level possible? Turn to your States for answers to problems such as healthcare; big brother will only screw it up!
“However, health care reform is probably easily within Congress' power because it is within Congress' commerce power.”
If the intent of this healthcare initiative was to enhance commerce “between” the states, I would agree. However, every indication of this healthcare initiative is to severely restrict or eliminate this specific commerce between all states.
“I encourage anyone with a interest in Constitutional law and how it relates to the health care reform debate to refer to all the links in this article.”
I still think that you are being obtuse. While I have little doubt that your links support what I believe to be a “progressive” approach to “fundamentally changing America”, I am rooted the security of traditionalist interpretation of the Constitution and the stability it provides us, the people, therefore have a very different interpretation.
“Again, if an individual beleives his or her rights is violated, by all means he or she should sue in court to enforce the right.”
I think that is precisely what is going to happen.
“Federal Legislation that becomes law is the supreme law of the land (Article VI, Section 2).”
Subordinate to the Constitution. That disparity in the laws of the country exists usurps not the constitutionality of their existence.
This issue along with many others have awakened many, myself included. I believe that the will of the people will prevail. That the proof will be in the pudding, not within the ingredients.
@Jack
I am hoping your response was some form of parody. Just so you don't write this off as some form of progressive rant, I am a libertarian and my notions of government involvement are very conservative. I am highly skeptical that Obama will be able to come up with any workable form of a single payer system. That being said, I am also a law student studying the Constitution and the Supreme Court quite closely and I take issue with most of your response. Unfortunately, I don't have time to address your entire response so I will focus on the beginning:
"You left out an important adverb, to wit, “among” the several states. Obama is on record as stating that he supports a single payer (not to be confused with payee) health care system that can only happen if all other payers are eliminated. This imitative clearly violates the section you reference. However, I am aware that this is a patent rebuke of progressives who insist that the Constitution is a document open to interpretation amid the concerns of the present. Are you a progressive?"
The Commerce Clause clearly still governs here. From a strict constructionist standpoint, a single payer system would affect commerce in every state. For example, anytime a reimbursement check is sent from, say, DC to a hospital in Kansas, that is interstate commerce.
From a liberal interpretation standpoint, the single-payer health care system relates to the health care of all citizens in every state. Unhealthy citizens means may negatively impact commercial activities, thus affecting national commerce. (The courts have used reasoning similar to this to uphold government involvement in education.)
You make clear your political leanings and even more clear your ignorance of Constitutional Law. Again, if your response was simply parody, then well done. Otherwise, I encourage you to study up on the Constitution and the evolution of its interpretation over time.
My comment is: we do need a Healthcare that is national. Borders of states/ or the out lying islands should also be included. Those who are against the constitution/ or want it changed is for their own profit. America is based on freedom, and iregardless of the subject if it enchroaches upon Freedom Of this nation- it is to be rejected with all one's might!
In the original Bill, please cite the language which refers to the rationing, especially to seniors, that you speak of. I'm arguing with several liberal friends of mine about that point.
“I am hoping your response was some form of parody. Just so you don't write this off as some form of progressive rant, I am a libertarian and my notions of government involvement are very conservative.”
I think, Eric, that your smarmy reply wasn’t a hope for parody but rather a projection of your own efforts. Tell me, are you a progressive?
“The Commerce Clause clearly still governs here. From a strict constructionist standpoint, a single payer system would affect commerce in every state. For example, anytime a reimbursement check is sent from, say, DC to a hospital in Kansas, that is interstate commerce.”
Again, I point out that the commerce clause stipulates “among” the several states and again I point out that “checks” between the federal government in DC (or anyplace else) and Kansas is not interstate commerce. In your studies, are they teaching you that the federal government is a "state"?
“From a liberal interpretation standpoint, the single-payer health care system relates to the health care of all citizens in every state.”
I think your liberal interpretation is actually a progressives’ argument. Single payer does not refer to the citizen of any state, they are payees. Single payer refers to having only one source for health care, in this case from the federal government.
“Unhealthy citizens means may negatively impact commercial activities, thus affecting national commerce. (The courts have used reasoning similar to this to uphold government involvement in education.)”
So too can unwise citizens negatively impact commercial activities on Wall St. Is that next? How about citizens negatively impacting commercial activities due to their job choice?
“You make clear your political leanings and even more clear your ignorance of Constitutional Law.”
As do you in your smarmy reply. As for ignorance…again I think you greatly over-rate your soapbox.
“Again, if your response was simply parody, then well done. Otherwise, I encourage you to study up on the Constitution and the evolution of its interpretation over time. “
I am quite comfortable with my knowledge of the constitution. Perhaps yours may change when you are no longer a law student.
So, Eric, you quickly declare libertarian and conservative leanings. Tell me why you didn’t come right out and say you are a progressive? Why hide it? Are you ashamed of it?
Thank you sir for taking time to read and
post your findings. Peggy
I think of all the comments for and against, Jack's statement as follows pretty much gets to the bottom line: "If the intent of this healthcare initiative was to enhance commerce “between” the states, I would agree. However, every indication of this healthcare initiative is to severely restrict or eliminate this specific commerce between all states." From my point of view, every other "program" the government has gotten it's fingers into is pretty much messed up and we tax payers are the ones footing the bill.
Where are the references, i.e. where in the bill does it say the following?
The Insurance Companies provide for rationing of healthcare, particularly, where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free healthcare for illegal immigrants, free abortion services (in emergency rooms) and probably (NOTE: Probably -- what Attorney would use that term) , forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put Money into a government run system. All decisions about personal healthcare are being made by being made by Ins Co. and most of them are not healthcare professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled as they are now by insurance companies.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information (the IRS already has that) and the information of your employer, physician and hospital.. (This is great because if you are on a vacation and get sick, your information is in a central file. Or, if you got to a different specialist, that information will be available.) All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. (Says who?)
In the early 1970's I stood in a small room in an Armed Forces Induction Center and raised my arm to the square and swore to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Every 4 years for the next 24 years I raised my arm to square and swore the same oath. I have long since retired and nothing has changed, my oath still stands to defend this nation and our constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. In all my life I have never felt a greater need to prepare for what Thomas Jefferson forewarned of. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."
The silent majority has stood by now for over 50 years and let the government grow and give and give and give. 'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.' -Thomas Jefferson
Mr. Michael Connelly I greatly appreciate your effort to read the entire bill and as a Constitutional Lawyer and a Law Instructor give the American People your interpretation of the Health-Care Bill that Barrack Obama and his Democratic members of the Congress are trying to force down our throats.
I realize that still other Lawyers will give us other interpretations each with their own agenda. All we can do as the American people is become as knowledgeable as possible to the issues with a clear and open mind to what the Congress is attempting to do in light of the fact that Congress has exempted themselves, the President and the Courts from subjectivity to the provisions of this legislation.
Mr. Connelly in your in interpretation HB 3200 you direct your comments to this bill being used essentially destroy our rights protected under the 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments. In the event that everything you have tried to warn us about does comes to pass and the Supreme Court continues to refuse to hear arguments which stand to hold the Congress and the President in check as with what happened with the unconstitutional governmental takeover of General Motors. Legally, what is next...Our nation was founded on the principles of this country being governed by the PEOPLE, Thus the bold and flamboyant opening of the Constitution "We The People". Will they really be surprised when we actually rise up ready to refresh the Tree Of Liberty?
Mr. Connelly, your commentary on this seems both informative, and scary. What I'm wondering is, why haven't we heard more about the specifics, particularly as they relate to the Constitution, in the supposedly unbiased news media? It's not that I'm necessarily doubting what you're saying, but if it were as serious as you're claiming it is, I don't understand why everyone who is reasonably well-versed with the Constitution, and has also read this bill, isn't jumping up and down screaming their brains out about it. Sure, the Republicans are, as well as a few Democrats, but the GOP's shouting is, as usual, dismissed as their typically purely political ravings against ANYTHING positive that the Democrats are hoping to accomplish. While I'm certainly not trying to politicize the entire debate, I don't think that ANYONE can argue the fact that the GOP dreads the idea of President Obama successfully accomplishing ANY sort of sweeping reform, in ANY area, which the American people may ultimately view as a good thing. I certainly don't agree with everything I've heard about this bill, but, I think everyone agrees that something has to be done about the pitiful state of massive "corporate-run" health care. Maybe the GOP can stop pouting about the butt-kicking they got last November, and begin to realize that they may actually improve their image by putting an end to all of the destructively negative rhetoric, and try to work across the aisle with the Democrats on something that we can all feel comfortable with. Demonstrating a little "constructive flexibility" might even help them in the next election! Crazier things have happened. Or, they can simply keep bashing anything that Obama and his party come up with, and let the chips fall where they may, and maybe EVERYONE winds up screwed in the process! PS: I highly recommend that you try to present this, in detail, to CNN's Rick Sanchez, Wolf Blitzer, or Anderson Cooper. But be aware that they will 'fact-check' the hell out of everything that you're claiming.
The quesiton I have is this; We have hundreds upon hundreds of qualified people in this country who have the ability to replace these so called public servants, but NO ONE is stepping up to accept the challenge, and run against these professional politicians. WHY IS THAT ?
America, as we know it, is doomed unless there is a significant change in government at ALL levels. The great grandchildren that are yet unborn will be saddled with a government that literally owns them from cradle to grave. The wreckless spending of this Congress has lead to the indentured servitutde of a people to the local politicians who serve their foreign masters, among which China is the leader. We all know the history of China and its enslavement of its citizens for the good of China.
The 9/12 project put more than 1.2 million people in the mall in Washington DC on Sep 12, 2009 protesting this present form of government. While the American people have the right to "alter, amend or abolish" the present form of government, is the will to engage present? Do the people have the fortitude for what must occur in order to make a 'radical' change? Or, can we effectively change our present form of government at the ballot box? One path is more preferred than the other, but - a new revolution is coming to America. The form of that revolution will be decided by the politicians who are presently in office, and their desire to cling to the power they have stolen from the people.
The choice will be made, and the choice is theirs to make.
Mr. Connelly, You finally provided some section numbers which you say support your claims. I went to Sec. 113 but it does not seem to do anything of the kind. That section does two things: Outlines that a study must be carried out concerning large insurance markets; and, second, lays out how a health benefits plan could vary. Where is the government takeover? Have you not unleashed onto the public an editorial that you cannot back up?
"Where is the government takeover?"
For God's sake, the most daunting task for the moral majority is spoon feeding literacy! The gun is 1000 pages, the bullets are sections. Just because you pull the trigger and your head remains on your shoulder should only indicate to you the next pull is all the more likely to separate you from your freedom.
"Have you not unleashed onto the public an editorial that you cannot back up? "
You think Mr. Connelly is the only source of this information?
Go to Amazon.com and purchase a copy of "The United States Constitution; What It Says, What It Means". Its less than 90pages. It will be the best $5 investment you have ever made.
Why are these health care bills addressing insurance instead of health care? Health care insurance is a relatively new invention created by unions and big business as a perk and benefit for those who were included. Financial success for the insurance industry, medical profession and medical services has required rationing.
Insurance companies exclude those who need costly services. Physicians work to limit competition by opposing new medical schools and services being provided by those without a medical degree. Certificates of need have controlled construction of new healthcare facilities.
Competition required by capitalism has been eliminated from the health care scene. Why not restore business principles that have been so successful in this country? Personal independence and responsibility and the possibility of both success and failure are indispensible components of capitalism.
Government could completely change the health care environment by building and subsidizing teaching facilities and providing medical training to every qualified person who commits to working in needed areas, such as family medicine and emergency care. As a responsibility of government, research should be subsidized; but patients and taxpayers, not private individuals or investors should benefit from the investment.
Government needs to make more health care available, not control the lives of subjects.
I find it funny that people are thanking you for reading something they should read for themselves. I carry a copy of the Bill of Rights with me - it is very important to all Americans.
I am also an American who has been negatively affected by our healthcare system. I have a pre-exisitng condition so there is no actual coverage for me because I have "writers" on my faulty parts (I might as well not have insurance). My father got sick 18 years ago and although my parents paid preminums for 30 years, the insurance companies got out of paying for everything they could. My mother lost her home, her business, her savings - she lost everything. What were they buying for 30 years?
We liberals are demanding accountability from the insurance companies. Like regulating electricity and water - we should regulate this basic human need as well. We need regional systems that take care of people - not insurance company profits.
Hey Jonnie not everyone has a law degree in their back pocket either that's why there's lawyers. The government has done a great job with the mail , social security, the military, IRS, etc, etc, etc. $5 Mil for Worker Reinvestment signs that's real smart like we need to know where the money came from. Just add some more government oh they'll take care of everything As long as the government is handing out free lunches this country will always be divided Oh by the way why hasn't OBAMA sent the troops home oh I forgot that's just what he told you to get elected.(TYPICAL DEMO)
THANKS FOR NOTHING
AND POLITICIANS DON"T PROFIT GIVE ME A BREAK
I don't think many of us who are opposed to this huge take over of our lives would disagree with you, Mr. Connelly, but I wish that people who were going to make these claims would annotate same.
"Hey Jonnie not everyone has a law degree in their back pocket either that's why there's lawyers."
Travis: The Constitution is 1000 words long and you don't need to be a lawyer to read it. I think it is un-American to not seek to know and understand your rights.
I would not trust any lawyer with whom I could not understand either in words or actions.
You who vehemently disagree with Michael seem to have one thing in common; you haven't read the bill. All that Michael says is in this bill. Yes, it's the original bill, but have you wondered why we have no access to the ammendments? Obama wanted this thing passed before recess, he didn't want congressman let alone the public to read it. It is clear in the bill that health care prof will have access to IRS, bank and personal information. They say it's to determine ability to pay. However, what ability? I thought our quadrupelled taxes were to pay for our health care. It is also clear in the bill that the gov't will fine businesses & individuals that do not chose the public option, he calls it the exchange. Furthermore it is clearly stated that gov't will regulate, ration, health care services. You say what's the rush, it's not taking effect until 2013; that's because he needs 4 years of higher taxes to start paying for it.
Health care is not the issue, paying for all these programs is. The gov't, Obama, is bankrupting the US. 92 bank closures so far this year and more to come are expected to cost the FDIC, US, over 90 billion dollars. The stimulus has put U.S. into multiple billion dollar debt, the health care bill in whatever form it passes will increase the debt to a trillion and the swine flu vaccination being strongly recommended will cost trillions of dollars as well. To cap it off Cap & trade will be the final nail in the US debt coffin. Obama's promised 2 things, our taxes are going to be extremely high & utility services will be at an astronomical cost. He says this is necessary to dig US out of the hole we put ourselves in. It's necessary, but not to dig US out but to bury US. The US survives by selling it's debt through treasury bills to foreign investors, that's how the gov't pays its bills. The US can only sell if it looks like we have the money to buy back. A multiple trillion dollar debt and a nation strapped with high taxes will not be able to sell to investors.
All this from a president who claims America is a Muslim nation & he's embarrased by everything WE are.
@Debi - #104: Your rant is ridiculous, juvenile, and clearly the vision of an imprudent irresponsible person. First of all, much like everyone on here has been saying, site specific parts of the bill that "clearly state" the government will ration health care, fine business/individuals who do not choose the public option, or any of the other preposterous claims you make.
Second, tell us why Obama would want to destroy the U.S.? What does he gain? What does Congress gain? What would our government gain by destroying itself?
Third, yes the stimulus bill created debt. We all know that. You’re not unearthing any brilliant insight there. But you do understand you have to spend money to get the economy moving again, right? No spending = no jobs = Great Depression #2. And where and when has Obama "promised our taxes are going to be extremely high and utility services will be at an astronomical cost"? What person would ever make such a politically suicidal statement?
Finally, and this is by far the most bizarre thing I've ever heard, WHEN has Obama made a claim that “America is a Muslim nation and he's embarrassed by everything we are”? That is so completely absurd that I actually feel embarrassed for you. You must realize that when you make these adolescent outlandish and obviously false claims that you appear juvenile and thoughtless. It voids everything you've said whether relevant or not.
Now go back to reading your tabloids and leave the conversation to people that have a rational thought.
The saddest aspect of standing up to protect our rights, our Constitution and our nation is that in doing so, our success protects the freedom of many other ignorant and obtuse Americans, like Tim.
Let not this anomaly stand in the way of being a patriot and standing up for our Constitution and the American way of life.
You pay for healthcare in 2 ways in this country - through your taxes and through insurance. Your taxes pay for the sickest people - Medicare is the healthcare system for all senior citizens over 65 years. Seniors love this system - none of them would give it up - all of their healthcare is taken care of. Medicaid is the system for poor people - whether you were born sick and or you became sick and were tossed out of the insurance roles - this is for the sickest people in our society. You have to be dirt poor to be on Medicaid.
Medicaid and Medicare are a huge portion of our federal budget and getting exponenatially larger as the baby boomers head for retirement. This is why Pres. Obama has made this an upfront issue - we have to figure out how to pay for these populations of sick people. We have the Veterans Association also paid for through our taxes. I don't believe our veterans have been taken care of like they need to be - this system needs more funding.
The insurance system is where rationing of healthcare is occurring. Collecting money from the young and healthy - keeping a huge, bureaucratic middleman between doctors and patieients. The government's role in our healthcare system is already huge - if it's unconstitutional then that should have been discussed before all these other institutions were created.
Thanks for Mr. Connelly's knowledge and insight on the constitutionality of the proposed system. I'd like to share thoughts and concerns of the consequences of our political system.
1. Beauracracy generally breeds inefficiency, waste, power play, corruption, creation of csars whose qualification and performance are under the Executive Branch for whose pleasure and agenda they will function. With the current appointments of csars by the administration, one has to be concerned about the direction the president is taking us.
2. Once this humongous system is in place, 1/6 of our work force is in this industry. There comes the powerful union whose interest and allegiance is to the members and the Board and the officials themselves only. The reversal of the system is hard to imagine. 1/6 of the employees plus other interest goups certainly make for a huge voting bloc. The unions certainly have plenty in their coffer from the dues for political campaigning and lobbying. Guess what candidates will flourish? Guess who will in his right mind instigate any congressional investigation for wrong doings. Guess who will have free hands to promote and implement socialistic agenda?
Would'nt that change the face of our checks and balance system designed by the founding fathers?
Yes, reforms are needed. But let's hope that men of principal will rise up to come up with intellegent and sensible plans that are not politically motivated.
Oh yes Jack. Your insight is powerful and brilliant. Thank you so much for validating exactly what I was saying about ill-bred uninformed people such as yourself who are given the same rights as other Americans to speak your mind, no matter how incredibly dull, dim witted, and thick in the head they may be. Well done!
tim, I find name-callers such as you to almost always project upon others the labels of themselves. That is to say that the ill-bred think others are ill-bred and the uninformed are often uninformed. In every case, people like you, Tim, are quick to point out your belief that others are beneath you and do not deserve the same rights as other Americans.
Your defining moment is a loss to your credibility, so sad, too bad.
Jack, I'm simply pointing out that you're defending a person that says, and I quote, "All this from a president who claims America is a Muslim nation & he's embarrased by everything WE are. "
And you're going to tell me that your choice to defend such brainless comment was warranted and judicious? You can play road side psychiatrist if you'd like in your failed attempt to classify "people like me" however your lack of insight combined with the fact that you're just plain wrong is entertaining if nonetheless unimpressive.
Jack, your comments are laughable and your intelligence has shown to be sub-par by your off target attacks and your erroneous psychoanalysis. Your “findings” give you comfort so that you may not be isolated when in actuality you are the only one who is clueless and therefore project your shortcomings on others.
But hey, this is America so you too have the right to say exactly what you want.
See what I mean, tim? I tell you that you project, you tell me I'm wrong and then tell me that I project. You tell someone else they deserve no rights, then remark that they do.
Tell me, whom do you hate less, your mother or your father?
Jack, of course I tell you that you project. That is what you're doing and have been doing since the beginning. I'm sorry you don't have the aptitude to see that. Your first comment towards me started out that way when you interjected in a conversation that had nothing to do with you. You’re defending a person and her absurd uneducated comments. I never said anybody DESERVED no rights. I simply stated that she, Debi, had made ridiculous comments that were unfounded and illogical. YOU felt it necessary to come to her aid.
Seriously, my mother and father? That’s comical! Your continued laughable attempts at psychoanalysis are amusing as it only reinforces my earlier points. But for the record they’re two wonderful people whom I love very much. Next are you going to tell me I was abused as a child or have some Oedipus complex? Very entertaining indeed “Dr. Jack”!
Just great - misinterpreted information leading ill-informed people to the wrong conclusions....
People, the GREAT America is being screwed by these large healthcare insurance & pharmaceutical companies. We have millions of people that have NO COVERAGE with more loosing their coverage as health care costs continue to skyrocket.
Do nothing is not an option. I think many of the changes the Obama administration are far from perfect - however, they are a massive step in the RIGHT direction. Something many presidents before Barak have tried and failed to accomplish.
Competition in the health care universe will make things better for all of us - so please give these initiatives a chance - what Mr. Connelly is saying is far from the truth. Lies and angry rhetoric is the last thing this messed up country needs right now.....
Loss of our freedoms are far from being in jeopardy. That is not what this reform is about....
This is the beast that will devour us; regardless of any subsequent permutations, aka, Bacchus Health "care"(control), the controlling premise in the body of current or future bureaucratic byzantine texts of any “health care” bill MUST remain intact in order to accomplish its intended ends. Amendments, rearrangement of text doesn't matter. It's a dog and pony show designed to deceive. Suicide is a logical alternative to reading H.R.3200. Implementation of same will be a surrealistic unmitigated nightmare. In the movie, Apocalypse Now, Charlie sheen quoted the unknown author: "HELL IS THE ABSENCE OF REASON". Welcome to H.R. 3200.
THOMAS JEFFERSON: "A GOVERNMENT BIG ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING YOU WANT IS STRONG ENOUGH TO TAKE EVERY THING YOU HAVE".
Americans can no longer afford to be silent. Read the U.S. Constitution and founding documents. One cannot know a counterfeit if the orginal is not known. Article VI cites the U.S. Constitution as the "supreme law of the land". Our elected representatives have become a law unto themselves. Health care is no more a "right" than a drivers license. Wake up America..........act.
Amendment I, (1791) guarentees the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
SILENCE=CONSENT.
Had them all "staked" out did you, tim? A conversation owned by you, private conversation for everyone to see but how dare anyone respond.
I bet on your mother, tim. I'm also betting that you are prone to abusive relationships in which you are the aggressor.
"Yes, reforms are needed. But let's hope that men of principal will rise up to come up with intellegent and sensible plans that are not politically motivated."
Penny, what person of principal would be willing to enter such a corrupt government? Such people are out there, I'm sure yet our savor will not be at the hands of anyone other than ourselves. To pave the way, we must act and that action is to overwhelm our political system by unbalancing the power of incumbency. Vote them out. Who you vote is not of much consequence. The job we have before us is going to take decades. America needs to be refounded.
Jack, you are wrong again. You are now officially monotonous and ridiculous and have nothing new to say which is only a testament to your lack of intelligence. My 8 year marriage with my very beautiful, happy, and successful wife along with my wonderful daughter would tell you that, yet again, you are wrong. You are always wrong. It must grow lonely in your sad pathetic world. I only wish you would stop projecting your sick and deranged relationship with your mother on to others. It really is really very disturbing. Please seek out the help you so desperately and evidently require (as evidenced by the known fact that you judge everyone to have the same unsettling relationship with their mother that you have with yours).
Gee, tim, most people wouldn't reveal so much about their relationship when confronted which such criticism. Matter of fact, an abusive control freak would say what you have said. Certainly you don't think anyone would believe you?
No Jack. Just proving you wrong --- yet again.
"and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession."
--- You know, for an attorney and constitutional law professor to engage in such speculative statements using weasel words like "probably" just shows that you are just babbling with no facts to back your statements.
"...weasel words like "probably"..."? LOL.
Are the baby boomers going to have Medicare like their grandparents? All of you should talk to your family & friends over 65 yrs. and find out if they will be willing to give it up.
Is this institution constitutional? Did our government break the law when they created Medicare?
The following is response to Jack and his notes numbered #87 and #91. My response to Mr. Connelly was number #86
1. A Strict constructivist reading of the Constitution is one way of intepreting the Constitution. Something like, read a document only within the four corners of the document. However, I think it is still an interpretation, and in many cases requires reading beyond the four corners of the Constitution. For example, how do you read the 9th Amendment without any outside sources? Necessarily, what are those other rights?
Additionally, I think a strict constructivist approach is problematic when considering the modern era and its unique factual problems that the Founders may not have known about. For example, how do you read the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure in light of modern capabilites of the telephone, email, even infared devices? You might
analogize to the Constitutional era but even thtat I think is an interpretation going outside the four corners of the Constitution.
Moreover, I think your "traditionalist" interpretation is not even founded in strict constructionism.
2. I disagree with your reading of the Commerce Clause. According to your intepretation, any federal government attempt to regulate interstate commerce suddenly makes it not interstate commerce because the federal government is not itself a state. Thus, the Federal government is not capable of regulating ANY interstate commerce because to do so would change the nature of interstate commerce to something that is not interstate commerce. Why would the founders create a useless Commerce clause power?
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
3.How is Mr. Connelly "precisely correct" that HR3200 violates the 4th Amendment? The 4th Amendment is not an absolute prohibition against any search and seizure. The government can search you if you under arrest or in prison or they have probable cause that a crime has been committed and a warrant or they have a warrantless exception such as automobiles. Therefore, the 4th Amendment is not an absolute prohibition against searching medical information.
4. Exactly how does HR3200 expand on the Government ability to search medical information that isn't already available in the PATRIOT Act? Suppose that the PATRIOT act has been repealed, how does HR3200 expand the government's ability to search medical information under other laws or repeal other laws such as HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act)? YOu or Mr. Connelly have not supported this claim.
I certainly don't think mere opinions (meaning "the contradictiory statements of this adminstration") can be enforceable. It must become law going through the constitutional method of enacting a law. Moreover, how does those statements indicate a desire to expand the government's ability to search medical information?
5. Actually, the express provision of "it ain't there, it ain't constitutional" is in Article I, governing the power of Congress. It states that "All legislative powers HEREIN granted." The Executive and Judicial
powers have no similar wording, only "shall be vested." However, It isn't so obvious that Congress overstepeed their limited powers because health care reform seems to be easily a Commerce clause power. I don't think that even the conservative Supreme court would read the Commerce Clause as restricted as you have, and overturn 200+ years of Commerce clause legislation. By restricted, I mean your assertion that the Federal government is not a state, cannot regulate interstate commerce at all, and your assertion that "regulate" means only to "enhance."
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause and
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/28.html
6. Actually, I thought I read the 3rd Amendment in a strict constructivist way. How do you read a constitutional right of privacy in that amendment
alone without referring to any outside source?
7. It is true that I would not be intellectually honest if I assert the Constitutional legality of HR3200 in certain ways while ignoring the other Constitutional violations of this bill. However, I have argued that HR3200 does not clearly violate any part of the Constitution as Mr. Connelly asserts.
I don't think I have ignored how HR3200 violates the 1st Amendment. I don't see how. Would you care to explain?
I do think the PATRIOT act violates the Constitution. So, when I say that HR3200 does not expand any more than the PATRIOT act allows, I mean that there is no proof that HR3200 does not go beyond what other laws allow, Constitutional or not. Without the PATRIOT act, how does HR3200 violate the 4th on its own? Mr.
Connelly has not supported this claim. Thus, I don't think I assert the Constitutional legality of HR3200 and ignore other Constitutional violations.
8. You misunderstood me about ideology. Libertarians do not support only the rights of members in their own party or views. We should support the rights of anyone regardless of their viewpoint. The Bill of Rights is not conditional on what party you belong to or what view you express. Communists, neo-nazis, tea-party, anti-war protesters, criminals, innocent
people, immigrants, and anyone on this blog equally enjoy their rights under the Bill of Rights.
9. Why does a "traditionalist" interpretation support that idea that any ordinary Congressional legislation, if passed, can override the Constitution? Certainly, a law can violate it. But it does not follow that Congress can simply write over the Constitution. That requires a Constitutional amendment. I cannot see why "progressive" approach allows this as well.
10. Again, I ask, How does HR3200 violate the 9th? It is possible that the 9th amendment is a protection of the rights granted by the states. The Massachusetts Constutition was enacted in 1780 and is the oldest existing constitution. What rights in this documents that Massachusett citizens enjoy that HR3200 would violate? http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm
I think the key issue here is what "other rights" mean, and not just a general instruction on how to read the Constitution. Even if it means that the Federal Government cannot just expand onto rights not enumerated in the Constitution, it seems critical that we know (or at least agree) what those "other rights" are. Thus, my arugment is that Mr. Connelly has not shown how HR3200 violates the 9th amendment. He provides no support whatsoever.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Or try http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/
11. Your reading of the 9th that it limits Congress still does not support why HR3200 violates the 9th and 10th amendment. Congress should easily have the power to regulate health care reform because it is an interstate commerce matter.
12. It does not follow that The Commerce Cause's "regulate" means only to enhance interstate commerce. Certainly, an ordinary meaning of "regulate" means to impose rules and direct, not just "enhance" interstate commerce.
see the Gibbons v. Ogden case, 22 U.S. 1 (1824) at 196.
case opinion at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=22&invol=1
see also http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate
see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
& http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt10_user.html#amdt10_hd7
The view you have taken with respect to the health care reform proposal, which will not pass, is at best paranoia that has not taken into account the power of oversight given to the Judicial Branch and that amendments evolve over time due to their interpretation by the Justices appointed to do just that. People can talk about how awful this idea may turn out to be but never offer any solution nor offer proof that substantiates any claim they make. The case law you offer in your examples is the undoing of your argument. The cases are sited because they clarify the uses that can be made of the power granted, yet you and others like you refuse to believe that this kind of oversight will exist beyond yesterday. It is disheartening when someone who seems as knowledgeable as you do makes the statement "The present generation nor the next could not possibly fend for itself by doing things differently." This "socialized medicine" perversion of the proposal you are propagandizing is a farce and I can prove it. I serve in the U.S. Military and am privy to one of only two examples world wide of actual socialistic health care. I get better treatment than you, better doctors than you and I get it more readily than you. Insurance companies failed due to the American business model and Health Care, along with Education, Energy and National Security (to include all forms such as military, intelligence and others) should not be viewed as businesses because they are for the good of the people, not profit.
Mr. Connelley,
In order to try to better understand the basis for your positions on health care reform, are you the same Michael Connelley that wrote the "Soldiers Letter to Kerry" in 2004?
First, Bobby, I ask you are you a law abiding citizen and are you are a progressive? Then:
1a. Please define your “4 corners” theory.
1b. What other “outside sources” are necessary to understand that if it isn’t identified in the Constitution, then it is a matter for the States and the people of those states? This can only be a point of contention if you believe the federal government is responsible for your every need and desire.
1c. Constitutional era? The Constitution has no time limiting reference. Again, 4 corners?
1d. I am not aware that there are choices to the interpretation of simply stated guidelines for the limit of federal government in our lives.
2. Please reread and resubmit your disagreement with debate of how federal government limiting or eliminating commerce between the states is validated within the confines of the Constitution. Additionally, please address Constitution support for federalized commerce.
3. Please reformulate your point without the use of lawful due process of arrest and conviction.
4a. Please rethink and revise your explanation and include reference to the FISA laws relative to the Patriot Act and the relevance of “more or less” violation of the Constitution. It is generally thought that the degree of violation does not change the illegality.
4b. Do you think the “mere opinions” offered to date do not represent intention?
4c. Precisely what information do you think the government has current access to that does not have judiciary oversight?
5. Again, rethink and resubmit, arguing how federal government run commerce could be construed under the commerce clause as regulatory between the states.
6. Why would anyone need outside reference for a plainly stated right? The Constitution is a stand alone document. In the face of contention, such contention becomes a matter for the states and the people of those individual states. I must ask you, do you think that all of our states should be dissolved and become one under federal government?
7a. Generally, an honest person would feel that the violation of any provision or right of the Constitution rather than all provisions needing to be consistent throughout for unconstitutionality. Looking for “loop holes” is generally considered to be a dishonest venture.
7b. Suppose I forced you to move in a condemned building. Regardless of reason, how would you view your 1st amendment rights in this situation?
7b. Yes, I do think the PATRIOT act violates the Constitution.
7c. How can “you” say that HR3200 does not expand any more than the PATRIOT act allows? Is this your opinion?
7c. Do you feel that when laws come into conflict with the Constitution, that the Constitution should become subservient to any other law?
8a. Are you suggesting that Republican and Democratic parties support only the rights of those in their party? If you are, I might agree with you.
8b. If you are Libertarian, good for you.
8c. Why then pick apart the Bill of Rights as you have?
9. Humph!
10a. Being a matter of the state of Massachusetts, please right the Governor.
10b. I think the meaning of “other rights” simply invokes states rights. Why do you think that a federalized answer is the answer for all states?
10c. Why is it critical to know what those other rights are?
10d. I believe he has. So what?
11. Please explain how you feel the federal government has the right to conduct federal commerce as opposed to regulate commerce.
12. Does it follow that The Commerce Cause's "regulate" includes retardation? When would the Commerce Clause support any harmful action?
Does Medicare have a conflict with the Constitution???
to Jack
1. Commerce Clause. Here is what the Supreme Court has said about the Commerce Clause and the meaning of to regulate:
"It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution" Gibbons v. Odgen, 22 U.S. 1, 196 (1824). I do not find your "traditionalist" interpretation anywhere. The Supreme Court does not say that it means only to enhance, nor does It claim that interstate commerce changes into "federalized" commerce when the Federal Govt regulates. Who said that Commerce clause means only the power to enhance? Who said that if the Federal government gets involved in interstate commerce that it becomes not interstate commerce?
2. The 9th Amendment. Ok, so "other rights" mean states rights. Why would the Founders be so redundant since they addressed this issue in the 10th Amendment? That does not make sense anyways because it read "other [rights] retained by the people."
Why is it criticial? Because it is not self-evident what those other rights are. Thus, it is not obvious when a law violates this Amendment. Apparently, you think it is self-evident (states' rights). You think that Commerce Clause only permits enhancing interstate commerce and furthmore prohibits any federal involvment in interstate commerce because that would change the character of interstate commerce into something not interstate commerce ("federalized" commerce"). You have not supported this argument. Frankly, I find the latter result ("federalized commerce") to be absurd.
3. Ok, so technically HR3200 violates the 4th Amendment via the PATRIOT act. Thus, every Federal law now in existence, which requests any collection of data is also a technical violation of the 4th Amendment. No Child Left Behind, perhaps? All the more reason to repeal the PATRIOT act.
But again, I am asking you how does HR3200, itself, expand on the PATRIOT act or FISA? So, yes, it is my opinion that HR3200 does not expand on those acts because no one has provided proof. Tell me where HR3200 does so.
And for everything else,
Your analogy of the condemned building. Do you mean your right to association? Still don't see how HR3200 violates this right. Care to explain?
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_Association
I merely defined strict constructionism because you called yourself one. I don't think it really matters what that is because you refer to a "traditionalist" interpretation. This interpretation seems quite radical (see "federalized commerce"). This is fine but you need to substantiate it. Nobody can argue with only your opinion.
In any case, four corners means to contrue the meaning of a document ONLY by referring to the words in the document. No history lesson, no founder's intention, no dictionaries.
It doesn't matter if I am a progressive or I break the law constantly. Even if I am a rabid, foreign Communist or Anarchist or Klansman, it gives you and Mr. Connelly no excuse to substantiate your claims with nothing more than mere opinion.
Jack ~ Do you work?
Donna: Yes. You?
Bobby: “It doesn't matter if I am a progressive or I break the law constantly. Even if I am a rabid, foreign Communist or Anarchist or Klansman, it gives you and Mr. Connelly no excuse to substantiate your claims with nothing more than mere opinion. “
Whether it matters or not, you are avoiding the question. Are you progressive and do you consider yourself to be a law abiding citizen?
1. You’re suggesting that derogatory action in the name of the commerce clause would be generally acceptable to the citizenry. That sits well with you? IMO, the federal government is not a state and therefore to involve itself in, limit, or eliminate commerce between the states would be unconstitutional, notwithstanding the lack of precedence. This is a far cry from any action between the states.
2. You seem like a well informed person, Bobby. What precedent has been set by the Supreme Court relative to this subject and the 10th Amendment?
No, other rights does not mean states rights. You’re being obtuse. “Because it is not self-evident what those other rights are.” The Constitution plainly states that if it isn’t enumerated within the Constitution, then it is a matter for the states and people to decide. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp.
“Thus, it is not obvious when a law violates this Amendment.”
I think your being obtuse again.
“You think that Commerce Clause only permits enhancing interstate commerce” and furthmore prohibits any federal involvment in interstate commerce because that would change the character of interstate commerce into something not interstate commerce ("federalized" commerce"). “
There you have it.
“You have not supported this argument. Frankly, I find the latter result ("federalized commerce") to be absurd.”
That doesn’t surprise me, however this isn’t about you or me for that matter.
3. “Ok, so technically HR3200 violates the 4th Amendment via the PATRIOT act. “
The Constitution does mention the Patriot Act.
“Thus, every Federal law now in existence, which requests any collection of data is also a technical violation of the 4th Amendment. No Child Left Behind, perhaps? All the more reason to repeal the PATRIOT act.”
We agree.
“But again, I am asking you how does HR3200, itself, expand on the PATRIOT act or FISA? So, yes, it is my opinion that HR3200 does not expand on those acts because no one has provided proof. Tell me where HR3200 does so. “
It doesn’t. FISA is an aspect of the Patriot Act and, IMO, that is not meaningful part of this discussion.
And for everything else,
“Your analogy of the condemned building. Do you mean your right to association? Still don't see how HR3200 violates this right. Care to explain?”
Sure. The Supreme Court has upheld the abstract right to not be forced to associate. Being forced to join healthcare would be a good example. On one hand, Bobby, you are quick to convolute with simple concepts and then, as here, fain ignorance.
“I merely defined strict constructionism because you called yourself one.”
No, Bobby, you called me one.
“I don't think it really matters what that is because you refer to a "traditionalist" interpretation. This interpretation seems quite radical (see "federalized commerce"). This is fine but you need to substantiate it. Nobody can argue with only your opinion. “
Why not, Bobby?
“In any case, four corners means to contrue the meaning of a document ONLY by referring to the words in the document. No history lesson, no founder's intention, no dictionaries.”
Looking to context, if you mean “construe”, I gather that you (and many other progressives) are not a fan of this “four corners” concept? I think I fancy it.
Bobby, without legal precedent, and recognizing that the government has mismanaged Social Security, Medicare, and many other programs, why do you think the government is well suited to healthcare reform? Does track record carry any weight with you? Do you choose losers to manage your retirement investment?, assuming without insult that you have investments.
This is basically lies and fear mongering. calling yourself and expert, then railing on falsehood s and issues that have no bearing is just irresponsible and clearly the actions of someone who has some other agenda besides engaging in a rational debate about needed reforms.
What happened to rational fact based debate? I am ashamed of myself for even having read this screed, let alone responding. This is beneath contempt.
Christian News !
From: Reverend Steve
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:28 PM
To: Margaret Williams
Subject: Response to MediaMatters
Did you see the response of MediaMatters to Michael Connolly? (Monday, September 21, 2009, 3:01 PM Thanks for sending this along. We've responded to it here: http://mediamattersaction.org/emailchecker/200909110001 Please share with your family and friends. Media Matters Action Network)
Anyway they (MediaMatters) really savaged Mr. Connelly, and that seems to be the way of so many today. It is sad that in response to Mr. Connelly's blog on the Constitutionality of the proposed healthcare legislation, that MediaMatters resorted to personal disparaging attacks. Here then is MediaMatters' retort:
It seems the email originated as a blog post by Michael Connolly, who claims to be a "Constitutional Law Instructor." That's very misleading. Mr. Connolly doesn't actually work at a university or law school, but gives lessons online at www.ed2go.com whose motto is: "Learn it on Tuesday, Use it on Wednesday!" I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty shady to me.
That's like me claiming to be a pro football coach because I have a fantasy football team.
Check out his page: http://www.ed2go.com/cgi-bin/oic3/newcrsdes.cgi?name=firstclass&aw=yyy&course=cl1
As for the content of his blog post, it seems as if the fake professor is using fake information.
As to the college teaching; his online courses are used at the following institutions (listing just a few): Cuesta College of the San Luis Obispo Community College District; Mesa Community College the largest of the Maricopa County Community College District; Pass Christian University.
MediaMatters had this to say about the 10th Amendment:
As for "Professor" Connolly's claim that health care reform is unconstitutional, that's also wrong. This interpretation of the 10th amendment is an extremist view held by people who believe almost everything is unconstitutional. They think the same thing about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the federal highway system, rules regulating airplane safety and anti-discrimination laws.
My defense of the 10th Amendment: so the question begs to be answered, who do we prefer to trust? MediaMatters who seem to deride the 10th amendment or Thomas Jefferson who found it a pillar of our founding document, "The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution." Later Jefferson added that "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Quotes about the General Welfare:
James Madison had this to say about the general welfare. "If Congress can employ money indefinitely, for the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, the establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision of the poor ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."
Madison also said "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
Also Madison express the following "By rendering the labor of one, the property of the other, they cherish pride, luxury, and vanity on one side; on the other, vice and servility, or hatred and revolt."
In addition, James Madison declared "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
George Washington addressed the issue like this "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpations; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
I now continue with the defense of Mr. Connelly of which I found the following:
Diploma, Redemptorist High School in New Orleans, La. 1966.
· Bachelor of Science, Business and Public Administration, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La. (Degree required numerous political science and business courses. Many history and public speaking courses were taken as electives.) 1971
· Juris Doctorate, Louisiana State University Law School, 1973.
· Graduate, U.S. Army Intelligence School, Fort Huachuca, Arizona, 1973.
Commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve, 1971.
· Active duty at the U.S. Army Intelligence School from Sept. 1973- Nov. 1973.
· Assigned to reserve duty with 352nd Army Security Agency company in Baton Rouge from Jan 1974 until Aug. 1978. (Served as Supply officer, Operations officer, and Recruiting officer.)
· Left the reserves in 1978 as a Captain.
Licensed attorney in Baton Rouge, La. since 1973.
· Qualified to practice before all Louisiana State and Federal Courts and the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
· I have also represented clients before the U.S. Supreme Court.
· Areas of practice include Constitutional Law, Personal Injury Law, Criminal Law, Family Law, Business Law, Medical Malpractice and Successions.
· Special assistant attorney general for the State of Louisiana, 1977-80.
· Of Counsel for U.S. Justice Foundation, 1980-98.
· General Counsel, Council for Inter-American Security, 1978-95.
· Still licensed, but inactive since 2001.
Currently teaching courses on Evidence Law, Constitutional Law, Courtroom Strategy and Business Law for Education to Go, an online company providing courses for numerous universities.
· Have appeared as a guest lecturer at both LSU and University of New Orleans.
· Substitute high school teacher for East Baton Rouge Parish School System, Sept. 1998-Jan. 2000.
· Temporary full time teacher of World Geography, Woodlawn High School, Baton Rouge, La., 1998-99.
Authored, “Riders in the Sky: The Ghosts and Legends of Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico”, published by Merril Press in Aug 2001, and "The Mortarmen", published by Trafford Press in April 2005.
· Authored the true story, “Winds of Merit” which was the basis for a television documentary segment on the show “Storm Warning” shown extensively on both the Discovery Channel and The Learning Channel.
· Authored numerous published articles on politics, law, and scouting as well as many “keyword” articles for various companies.
· Contributor to the book, “Intruder in Your Home” by Ronald L. Cruit, published by Stein and Day, 1983
· Frequent speaker before civic groups and guest on radio and television talk shows (both local and national) on various political and legal subjects.
· Frequent speaker before school groups on Native American Heritage.
· Editor and Publisher of an award winning independent campus newspaper while at LSU.
· Co-host of a weekly radio talk show while at LSU.
Keeping watch, in service to Christ,
Steve Williams, Founding Father's Faith
http://foundingfathersfaith.org
Founding Father's Faith Radio:
http://www.live365.com/stations/pastorsteve1064?play
Simeon, I think there is nothing, repeat nothing more important than the support and defense of the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
Anyone not fearful of the loss of their rights is either very ignorant OR, as you infer, operating under hidden agenda.
To Jack,
why not substantiate an arugment with a fact or authority or even a premise? with just mere opinion, a debate is not very contructive. I can't check your premises. I can't check your facts. Without more, it is all cloudy and vague. Otherwise, the three blind men will keep arguing.
I apologize for you calling you strict constructivist. my mistake. I didn't think it was a derogatory name ayways. And yes, I am not a big fan because
this sort of interpretation is problematic (see #123 above). You fancy it because I don't like it? Ok. knock yourself out.
and, what the heck is a derogatory action?
Nonetheless, I have responded to what I though was an unsubstantiated claim by Mr. Connelly waving his hands in his armchair that HR3200 violated the Constitution. You have tried to elaborate on his claims. Stil, with nothing more than your own opinion, I have no choice but to reiterate.
1. I gleam from your statments that your argument as basically that Congress violates the Commerce clause and this is a violation of the 10th Amendment. Here's why I think you are wrong. You based the commerce clause claim on your opinion that WHENEVER Congress excercises its Commerce Clause power, it changes the nature of interstate commerce into something not interstate commerce ("federalized commerce"). Thus, Congress has NO authority to formulate ANY rules about interstate commerce. No state really can regulate interstate commerce, only the commerce within its state or just so happens to be in the state. IN effect, Congress no longer has the authority to regulate in an area that no one state can itself regulate. No one regulates interstate commerce. This is absurd.
The drafters of the Constitution obviously thought the Commerce clause was important because problems they had under the Articles of Conferation, and an increasingly interdependent national economy, and avoid protectionism in the states. Somebody needs to regulate interstate commerce. Again, I reiterate, Why in the world would the drafters create an impotent Commerce Clause power?
To be fair, The commerce Clause has been controversial. However, did any of the Founders ever argue that Congress should have no power to regulate
interstate commerce becomes it turns into "not-interstate" commerce?
Therefore, I completely disagree with your Federalized commerce clause claim.
you want to believe in absurdity just because I don't and because I am not in whatever political group(-think) name you approve of. OK. knock yourself out.
Without your Federalized Commerce clause argument, You really don't have much of an argument that the Federal government is violating the 10th. If Congress is within its commerce clause power, it cannot be violating the 10th for that reason.
2. As for the 9th, I don't know why you think it is easy to grasp (because its your opinion, perhaps). The 9th states "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Those "certain rights" mean not just the Bill of Rights but also rights like protection against bill of
attainer (can't make a law targeting one citizen or group), post de facto laws (making an act a crime after it has been done). See Article I, Section 9. What are the "other rights" that was not spelled out in the
Constitution? Assume that "retained" means also new rights granted to the people since the Constitution. What are they?
If you are arguing that the federalist structure of the Constitution is what is easy to grasp, then, of course, the Constitution created a federalist structure. The states and the people agree to give up certain rights to the federal government, the states would retain the ability to police power of their territories, and the people get the residue of power if you will. However, how does HR3200 invade this power of the people?
3. Finally, can you point to the express provision in the Constitution that states "if it isn't enumerated, it is a matter of the states and the people?" So far, it seems like your paraphase of SEction I, the 9th and
10th amendment combined. is that correct?
4. Right of Association. That's interesting but I am sure you speak of a much too broadly of association. There seems to be three rights to association. Right to Political Association, Right to Expressive
Association, and right to Intimate Association. The first two seem quite similar. The right to join groups for expressive purposes, and the right to
join political parties. How HR3200 curtails or forces you to change your group's expressive content? Here is Boy Scouts v. Dale (2000)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=99-699
AS for the right to intimate association, The Supreme Court has found such a right when a small, private group was forced to accept members that didn't fit its membership criteria. Again, I don't see HR3200 infringes on your right to intimate association. Could you explain how?
see
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&invol=609 &
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/12.html#t223
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-01/26-right-of-association.html
As to the Reverend Steve Williams, this Constitutional debate should have nothing to do with trusting authority. It should have to do with what makes
sense. Mr. Connelly stated generally that Congress has no authority to pass HR3200? Why? He doesn't say.
Michael: If this bill is so bad, what is your solution. What would you recommend? As a senior citizen who grew up poor with a widowed grandmother to raise me, I have first hand experience with having no medical for myself and my grandmother who died when I was 19 for lack of access to any medical care. Not everyone who can't pay for medical care is a lazy, bloodsucking parasite draining the system. I say this, not because you implied this, but because many with whom I discuss this object to providing for those in need. Again, I ask you, what are your solutions to this bill. Do you think there should be no health care reform? If so why, if not, contribute to the solution and not just to perpetuating procrastination while American citizens suffer. I have worked all my life from the age of 15 to 63. I have been a contributing member of society and have many blessings in my life quite different from my childhood. Poverty was very real to me. How many of your readers have attempted to read HB 3200 themselves instead of relying on another's opinion. Granted, it will be technical. How many of them ever contact the State or Federal legislature to ask questions or express opinions? How many of them vote? I think we should demand that our representatives read the bills, and make informed decisions before voting. Thanks, Anne. I await your reply.
Bobby, why does this health-care initative not scare you personally?
Anne:
Your concerns are real and I respect them. Some people who sent emails in response to my articles have accused me of being paid off by the insurance companies. Nothing could be farther from the truth since believe me, after all of the times I represented my clients and fought against the private insurance companies for their arbitrary refusal to pay just claims (and often won), I am the last person the insurnace companies would hire to champion their cause. On the other hand, I spent more time fighting for clients who had paid for years into Social Security System who were arbitrarily denied coverage they had earned when they became disabled. It was even worse for the military veterans who have defended our country and can't get proper care from the Federal Government even though they are entitled to it.
Many states have taken positive and effective actions to keep the private health insurance companies in line, yet if the healh care bills in Congress pass, the states will be able to nothing for their ciizens. The same people who have led the post office and the Social Security Administration into virual bankruptcy will now be handling health care for everyone. Well not exactly everyone; the President, his cabinet members, and the members of Congress will continue to get premium health care, the rest of us will get chaos.
“As to the Reverend Steve Williams, this Constitutional debate should have nothing to do with trusting authority. It should have to do with what makes sense. Mr. Connelly stated generally that Congress has no authority to pass HR3200? Why? He doesn't say.”
Sense, Bobby, is a keystone in the thinking of our founders. Why, under God’s creation, would anyone support anything that doesn’t make sense? Why would anyone even remotely consider trusting their rights and leadership to untrustworthy government?
I understand and agree with Mr. Connelly that Congress has no authority to pass HR3200 because of its conflict with the Constitution.
That said, Bobby, do you believe HR3200, as submitted, is completely constitutional?
Why are you personally not fearful of healthcare for yourself and your loved ones?
If the cornerstone of the tea party movement is believing absolutely in absurd ideas, or bogus, unsubstantiated claims like Mr. Connelly's, or blankly denying any rational arguments to the contrary just because they come from sources not deemed trustworthy, then we are all in big trouble.
That being said. There are good reasons to oppose big government. It is a valid political philosophy. There are very smart, informed conservatives who William F. Buckley, Jr who gave good arguments. However, I seriously doubt that William F. Buckley Jr. would have argued something absurd like "Federalized Commerce" or Mr. Connelly's vague argument based on nothing more than his expertise in Constitutional law.
Mr. Connelly should admit that he made a bad claim, and apologize for requiring his readers to trust his authority.
“If the cornerstone of the tea party movement is believing absolutely in absurd ideas, or bogus, unsubstantiated claims like Mr. Connelly's, or blankly denying any rational arguments to the contrary just because they come from sources not deemed trustworthy, then we are all in big trouble. “
So says ‘Bobby’ and I do not find you rational, or even credible. I think most people believe we are already in big trouble and that many of their government representatives are corrupt and untrustworthy. I think they, like me, basis this on common sense. You just don’t do business with the devil and expect anything other than hot deals.
“That being said. There are good reasons to oppose big government. It is a valid political philosophy. “
Do you think our government is too big? Do you think it is too powerful? Do you subscribe to this political philosophy?
“There are very smart, informed conservatives who William F. Buckley, Jr who gave good arguments. However, I seriously doubt that William F. Buckley Jr. would have argued something absurd like "Federalized Commerce" or Mr. Connelly's vague argument based on nothing more than his expertise in Constitutional law. “
Mr. Buckley’s opinion is but one, as is everyone here. I think you have a hidden and disingenuous agenda, Bobby.
“Mr. Connelly should admit that he made a bad claim, and apologize for requiring his readers to trust his authority. “
Required to trust his authority? Where in Sam Hell do you come up with this? This suggests strongly that we should trust you. As you opened the door on this, who are you that we should be required to trust you?
Seems to me, the only thing offered here has been opinion, facts and expertise notwithstanding. And that includes you.
Why do you care one way or the other about HR3200? Do you have a loved one who is dying or has died because of lack of healthcare insurance?
Please try to get information on the bills being proposed in the Senate, especially the one coming from the Baucus-led committee which apparently they are not going to let anyone see or read and, it is thought, are going to try to jam thru by attaching it as an amendment to a housebill.
I am a psychiatric physician and I am outraged by the "takeover" of our government by the radical left. They have not yet taken over our nation however and why? They have awakened the average common sense American by their transparent socialism and the audacity of their power grab.
Americans do not want the same government that runs the postal service to run their health care.
The government bankrupted medicare. This might be a clue to the undecided American about what is on the way.
The same liberal crowd that wouldn't allow our warriors to win in Vietnam is trying to engineer a pseudo-communistic takeover and they are well on their way. I'm another common sense patriot that is fed up. This is a fight for our country and we must win.
I thank you for your research and commitment. I have worked for the Federal government most of my life. The thought of them trying to managing health care doesn't invoke any confidence on my part.
My nephew, as an American, played basketball with a European team for many years. He had numerous treatments in socialized medical facilities during that time. He says we have no idea how much we take our medical resources for granted in this country. It breaks his heart to think that the US is even considering this bill.
Read and sign up to Impeach Obama... Also, read the lawsuit filed against the WHO & UN including Obama and staff for alleged bioterrorism via swine flu shots. Mr.Connelly, please check this out!
http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/
http://www.naturalnews.com/026503_pandemic_swine_flu_bioterrorism.html
http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=328&Itemid=95&lang=en
Mr. Connelly, Thank you for taking the trouble to read this bill. Frankly, I tried, but it was overwhelming just to get through the first 10 pages, because of the number of cross references. It really took a lawyer to do it, because lawyers crafted it, and, unfortunately, by their own admission, more than a few members of Congress, in both houses, have not read fully any completed versions of these bills. That's part of this unfolding tragedy of irresponsibility on the part of our elected representatives some of whom had the chutzpah to openly admit they haven't read the bill, nor would they. Like many of your respondents, my gut feeling is that we are in danger of losing our Country to a far left group of politicians and their overwhelmingly liberal constituents who are zeroing in on three particular areas -Healthcare, Energy and Education -possibly four with takeovers of major corporations such as Bank of America, General Motors, Chrysler, AIG and other banking and securites houses. The far left's intent is to establish federal control over the engines of social structure, production, finance and banking while simultaneoulsy bankrupting the Country with their irresponsible fiscal policies. Despite the fact they are in the public minority, we still seem to be losing out to them! They control the Congress, and unless we make changes in the legislative branch via the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 we are in danger of losing our rights, privacy and, possibly, our way of life. I have contacted my Congressional representative who has, I believe, done his job well in representing the views of his constituents here in his Florida district, because he has contacted us by phone -several times, mail and email to hear our positions and gather our support for his opposition to this bill. Unfortunately, there are not enough folks like him in the Congress, and we are faced with the prospect of having to be affected by the actions of hypocritical Congressional Representatives and Senators the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Schumer, Durbin, Boxer, Feinstein, Rangel, Murtha, Dodd, Leihy, Specter, Snowe, Collins et al ad nasuseum. Couple those with the President's cabinet appointments and appointed czars, many of whom, if not most, have highly questionable credentials and qualifications for their appointed positions like Geithner and the Education czar whose name escapes me. The former cheats on his taxes, and he is appointed Secretary of the Treasury, while the latter has ties to NAMBLA, a pedophilic orgazniation, that should immediately disqualify him, or anyone else, for any position dealing with our nation's children. Seeing all this going on one feels helpless to do anything about it other than protest to members of Congress, but if you are not from their distrcit they have clever ways of diverting your emails or outright stating they don't respond to persons who are not members of their district. Nancy Pelosi's web site is one of those. Keep up the good work, we need people like you with legal backgrounds to challenge these errant politicians and try to keep them in line with legal roadblocks until the populace can get to the ballot box in the next election in 2010. Our Founding Fathers established good contitutional rules to live and be governed by, and the Consitution has served us well for over 200 years. Let's hope the ballot box will restore our Constitutional balance and result in ridding ourselves of the same old faces in the same old places and replacing them with people who will do the job in Congress they were elected to do. It also wouldn't hurt if term limits were enacted -two terms for Senators, four for Representatives, and then you are out with a FIVE year interim between your departure and the time you can take a lucrative job as a lobbyist for some law firm in Washington, D. C. The Legislative Branch has become a class unto themselves in both houses with their perks such as a health plan no one else has outside the Congress. Others include their longevity far beyond their effective legislative capabilities -Senator Byrd comes to mind, their pensions that cover not only them to the grave but their spouses as well and their penchant for producing "earmarks" or "pork" to assure their re-election and perpetuity. They are not entilted to any of these yet they have an air of arrogant entitlement that readily conveys itself to the public at large and their consitutents within their districts or states they represent. The great majority of these legislators are simply out of touch with the people they represent, because they have been in the Congress far too long. This is a huge part of our problem that has also aided and abetted the election of a person like our current President who had no record of accomplishment as a Senator or, previously, as a lawyer specializing in community organizing prior to his election. He came to the office complete with the skills of an elite and polished orator but also with a lot of baggage. It included longstanding associations with groups like ACORN, radical people like Reverend Wright, Van Jones, Elijah Muhammed, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorn among others and his beliefs in the writing of Marxist writers like Saul Alinsky -"Rules for Radicals", a Marxist "bible" also favored by his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. The Country at large is now faced with this group of legislators and executives who are holding hostage the general public with their attempts to reshape our social doctrines and Constituion, democratic principles and way of life with their socialist agenda. It is time for us to wake up. We can not let this socialist agenda happen to us!
My friends in Canada and England said if this is the same type of health insurance as they have we don't want it. They figure sr citizens are expendable. If this is true God help me if I get so ill I need special medical attention. Please someone tell me this is not the case.
I certainly appreciate the time you put in to read and evaluate House Bill 3200. By now many things have changed and the Bill is not the same as it was at it's concept.
I have to comment on the statements made by some of the readers of your review of the Bill 3200. There have been good and bad comments from Republicans and from Democrats. There have been some comments that are so biased, they will never incourge a change in anyones opinion.
There are several questions I would like to ask not only you, but the persons who took the time to comment on your statement. First, you stated there are 46.6 million uninsured people in our Country. Where do they receive health care right now? And, who pays for it? We all know the answer to that question, the insured are paying for the uninsured. That means that the high cost of our Health Care is due to the insured having to pay for the uninsured. Also, out of the 46.6 million uninsured people in our Country, how many are Democrats and how many are Republicans?
Under the Health Care Reform Act, who will pay the premiums for the 46.6 million who now can't afford health insurance? The money must come from somewhere. I can't believe that these new insured patients will be paid for by the Health Care System becoming more efficient. That ellusion is political. The Federal Government doesn't have any agency that is efficient, so why would a new program be efficient?
The quality of our Health Care has been questioned. I'm going to paraphase a comment made by a reader, "the more-costly U.S. health care has not resulted in better technical quality of care or better patient satisfaction with care". Of course it has not. The increase in the cost of our health care has only been to cover the cost of the uninsured that the insured are paying for with their health care payments.
We have to come up with the money to pay for the 46.6 million uninsured people we have in this Country. I want to know how many of the 46.6 million uninsured are citizens and how many are Illegal? We will never be able to afford to pay the Health Care for all of the people who are in our Country illegally. Before we can control our Health Care cost, we have to control our Borders.
The money to pay for a Health Care Reform Act can only come from two places, either taxes or premiums. Any other idea where the money might come from is a political ellusion.
Have been reading with interest most of the comments here. I received Michael Connelly's blog via e-mail as many others. It is evident that our great country is in danger of being transformed into a socialist nation and it is with such subterfuge and confusion many Americans are in a state of shock.
There have been a few mentions of FACTCHECK.ORG in the comments as a rebuttal against Michael's interpretations. It takes a bit of searching to see what factcheck is all about. It claims to be an independent bipartisan outfit. Don't be fooled. Factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg foundation. Take the time to read about it. Interestingly, the Chicago Annenberg challenge on education reform group was co-founded by the very notorious terrorist Bill Ayers and chaired by our very own Barack Obama from 95-99. (But they barely knew each other). Stanley Kurtz of the national review has been trying to get access to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge archives but has been blocked thus far because he doesn't have the "credentials acceptable to the donor".......but no one knows who the "donor" might be.
Does Factcheck.org sound like a bipartisan, independent, unbiased source to you? Pshaw!
Our Constitution is the foundation of our law but is not the law and must be kept by the heart of the people since it consists of principles supporting the law. The Bible says I am not to steal or to bear false witness, both of which I can do. Therefore I must keep these commandments by my own volition rather than by threat of law. I hope this point can be understood. The law can punish me if I lie or steal but it cannot prevent me from doing either. It is something else that prevents me from stealing and lying. By the same reasoning the law does not, nay, cannot, keep our Constitution. If we loose our moral compass we soon find ourselves on the rock and the shoals.
This bill Mr. Connelly has waded through is unconstitutional just like the rest of the New Deal because its goal is diametrically opposite to that of our Constitution. I am amazed but not surprised at the amount of ignorance we have in the world and the degree of covetousness demonstrated by those who desire the fruit from the labor of others.
The only way we are going to restore our Constitution is to restore our own integrity and reinstall the golden rule in our own hearts, By truly looking out for the good of our neighbor we can look out for our own good for we are neighbors to them. If what we propose is truly good for our neighbor it will also be good for us. Otherwise we are just exploiting our neighbor for our own advantage. Remember, the farm subsidy is just as unconstitutional as any proposition in this health care bill and there is just too much inertia, force, lies and deceit involved here for it to be honest.
Richard L. Whitford
A very busy mom with four children is listening loud and clear. I am counting on you gentlemen to proceed this conversation to lead our nation to a righteous one. I am doing my part by raising responsible, God seeking, proud Americans that I hope will still have the right to vote when it's their time.
Please do not ruin their lives with selfish bickering. Simplify the complicated and do not complicate what is simple!
Perhaps you may have missed this.
Buried as a bi-line in last week’s newspapers, there was a diminutive reference to our Federal deficit.
This year our government has spent $1.42 trillion more than revenues. That equates to red ink so deep it mortgages every American’s family future for years.
How much is $1.42 trillion?
It works out to $4,700 for every individual in the United States (including each of your children).
And this represent just ONE year.
This is more than three times the debt ever amassed in one year by America.
It took Congress 200 years to accumulate the first trillion of U.S. debt and one bad year to double that. Wow! Great foresight!
What does this mean for us?
Higher taxes! Some economists estimate taxes could triple within 10 years just to pay the interest on our growing debt and growing government.
If this is bad news, consider adding the proposed revamping of health care. This proposal alone has a price tag of $850 billion annually.
Who would be responsible for paying this bill?
It won’t be your rich uncle Bob in Peoria.
Now just notice in the middle of this mess, and the billions given, loaned and granted to various areas of our economy, Congress voted to eliminate help to the senior sector.
For the first time since Cost of Living Adjustments were instituted in 1976, seniors will not receive a Social Security increase for 2010.
Of course Congress is discussing whether that rule should apply to their salaries and no decision has yet been made. Want to put money on that one?
What should really bother you as 535 Congressmen decide the fate for 300 million of us is their attempt to nationalize (Socialize) one sixth of our economy.
Imagine for a moment your health care in charge of a government bureaucracy.
Pretty scary!
Good for illegal aliens however, they would get coverage at our expense.
When this author started in the California health insurance business in 1974, there were 152 insurance companies offering competitive health insurance plans.
In 1993, when California Government got involved and passed AB 1672 it decimated competitive insurance. That is why we now have only six insurance carriers left doing health insurance business in the Brass State.
In discussing the consequences of AB 1672 with Sacramento leaders like Senator John Vasconcellos, he indicated he did not understand insurance and did not care to discuss it. However, he voted for AB 1672.
You can bet that a small percentage of Congress understand insurance either.
What they do understand is money and power.
Here is a chance to confiscate 1/6th of the American economy, emasculate medical payments as they have with Medicare, take Americans hostage, and make them dependent on government’s mercy. (God help us).
This information may motivate you to have your blood pressure checked.
I disagree with some that you have not included fear-mongering in your letter. In fact, as early as your second paragraph you make mention of unsubstantiated, hot-button issues such as: ".....The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession."
And your links you provided to at the bottom of the letter, in order to check the facts, are not to the actual text of HR3200, but to the constitution and the bill of rights.
In short: If your main objective was to point out the takeover of power by congress and the current administration, then why not get right to it? Your second paragraph makes some bold claims, then you fail to substantiate them in the succeeding 7 paragraphs.
It's clear your intention was to grab the reader by hook or crook, anger or fear, and convince them to read on. But I feel it is irresponsible prose to include such verbage for shock-value only without satisfying the readers' initial purpose for taking the time to read your letter.
But then again, gullable, nieve, conservative, non-thinkers who don't demand facts were the targets of your letter, right?
Excellent analyses of current Obama/Congressional legislation, all of which constitutes a climax to statist trends in this country over the last century. I've been writing about these trends for years myself, and even though I've braced myself for the worst, I still shudder, especially when you, Mr. Connelly, have laid it out so clearly (as Lord Monckton laid it out about the likely consequences of Obama signing the Copenhagen "climate debt" treaty next month), that I also shudder that many of your readers simply don't get it. How can laying out the facts, demonstrating the logic, and reaching clear conclusions be regarded as "irresponsible prose"? Useful fools, such persons.
Re my reference to Lord Monckton's warning about the Copenhagen treaty Obama is likely to sign. Monckton, as some of you might remember, was invited to testify before Congress about the truth of the global warming scam. He was then disinvited. But, here is a link to his eloquent address on the Copenhagen treaty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40&feature=player_embedded
After watching 60 Minutes on 10/25/09 I too am most hesitant about the government running anything as large as a health insurance company. HOWEVER!!!! What we have now is NOT WORKING!!! The working class citizen is not going to read the entire Health Care Bill - ever. Why can't the working class EXPECT the people we elect to these offices to pass legislation that will help the ones that put them there? Because the insurance companies are sending enough lobbyists to Washington DC to wine and dine every politician up there SIX TIMES OVER!!! Those politicians need to remember - it was us that put them there and us that can remove them. I - for one - will NOT be voting for anyone that does not support health care overhaul.
You're entitled to your opinion, but to present opinion as fact is unethical. Of course you'll appeal greatly to those, as indicated by many of the posters here, who are too lazy to think (or read) for themselves and would rather have their futures controlled by ideologues. Your "facts" are as full of holes as those in your letter to Senator Kerry.
The ‘Cloward-Piven Strategy’ is working.
"In fact, “the destruction of capitalism in America by swelling the welfare rolls to the point of collapsing our economy and then implementing socialism by nationalizing many private institutions” is a meticulous plan on the part of the global elite to consolidate power and destroy all opposition."
The ‘Cloward-Piven Strategy’
http://www.infowars.com/obama-the-cloward-piven-strategy-and-the-new-world-order/
How does disagreeing and presenting an opposing side equate fear mongering. There certainly is fear but it is rational and substantiated. It is not fear mongering. Does any proponent of this plan not agree that it follows in the path of European style health care? By controlling health care the gov takes a huge amount of power away from the people. Were you never taught by your Civics' teachers that the founding fathers distrusted government and created one with hopes that there would be enough checks and balances that the People would never have to be controlled by that government. Also, that if these checks and balances failed the People had a right to revolt. These aren't my words. These aren't the words of "right wing radicals." These are the words of the founding fathers. Still not convinced - Pro Obama-care people answer this - How effecient is government. Any honest person would say not very. You want your health - your life to be in the hands of inefficient people. What do you do now if your doctor is incompetent? You go to another doctor. What will you do when the government says who you must go to. Nothing. I don't care what political party you are for, if you support this plan you support the end of our country as we know it. You're darn right I'm afraid of that. Oh as a side note. I'm not a lawyer but how can the SC rule in favor of abortion rights using the 9th and 14th amendments - The government has no right to control the health or privacy of an individual thus gov can not prohibit abortion yet they can force health care on us. Maybe this will be used as precedent against Obamacare when the Peple take this to the SC.
Thank you, very well. buy nolvadex online http://www.stumbleupon.com/stumbler/med-brother/ buy nolvadex and clomid online See you soon!
I'm glad to see you! buy nolvadex on the net buy dbol nolvadex online
buy nolvadex liquid See you soon!
Micahel:
I agree with you that this whole thing is unconstitutional. Why isn't there a group willing to take this to court? That's what the far left did for years. I'm looking for a credible group/attorney to challenge this sweeping health care and centralization of power ("czars," etc.). I believe we could mobilize a huge number of people to finanacially support the effort. If you decide to take this on...or know someone who is.... and need an army of supporters, please let me know. I'm tired of all the talk; something needs to be done.
Thank you, not so bad. buy tamiflu in merced ca http://www.stumbleupon.com/stumbler/Buy-Tamiflu tamiflu buy Happy birthday to you!
How are you feeling? where to buy tamiflu buy tamiflu online pharr tx
where do you buy tamiflu See you soon!
Hello Commander Mike Sir - Just a small, fast note to Thank you! Happy Veterans Day! I hope to see you soon!
Dear Michael
Tahnk your for reading the entire health care bill. We can tell everyone we know, but then what. Some Congressmen from my state are against this, but then what, ...
This is too scary.
Michael,
As many others have stated, I appreciate all the trouble you have gone to to expose this attempt to socialize our government and healthcare.
Those that disagree with you do not address the government's reasoning for imposing their program on everyone instead of the 15-20% that need it.
Some have said your information is fear mongering. I say every American should be scared to death that there are members of our government out there that want to take us down this path of socialism for the betterment of many that are simply too lazy to work or feel that they are entitled to unearned taxpayer dollars. These vermin take away from the fine people that have a genuine need for help. President Obama and company are attempting to perpetuate the welfare state.
Keep up the good work Michael and don't listen to those that would take down our great country and the principles for which it stands. Americans like you need to join forces and with like minded people and make sure this bill is killed outright. If not now, certainly on election days in the future.
Don't wish to be confusing but from one Michael Connelly to another, I'm glad to have discovered your site. A Texan friend forwarded your site. I am a fellow vet and pro-troop activist, and look forward to making your site a regular place to visit. To avoid confusion in the future, I will make any comments under the name of "The Gray Dog"
Whatever it takes, let's please not allow this to happen to our great country and our citizens who have worked so hard all their lives only to retire to this end. What a devastating blow!! We must stand up and fight for our country and our freedome. We must pray everyday for God's guidance, direction and intervention!
If America truly wants to be the best in the world, then we should be! There are many divisive people out here, and this man is one of them. If you don't need the healthcare insurance when it is offered, don't take it. Unfortunately, there are millions who have lost their jobs or like us, we are self-employed and really needs this. We pay $980.00 per month for health insurance every month. It comes out of our life savings because we are scared to go without it. We have enough cash left for another 6 months but after that, we loose our home or have insurance. This is a choice millions have made already and it is heartbreaking. We are too young for SS and Medicare but too old to get cheap premiums. This is the large group that needs help the most. The only winners here are always the LAWYERS and the Insurance Companies. Their pockets are full and getting deeper each day. WAKE UP AMERICA!
Mike, thank you for all your hard work. This isn't health care, it's Death care.
No mention of who will enforce prison time? Probably Acorn or SEIU Union thugs. Who in this stupid Govt of a Camel, is going to watch my 6 children and 90 yr old Parents and my dogs and birds? Nanceeeeeee and Reid, maybe Funny Barney Frank. He better not lay a hand on any of my children or I'll see him in jail. The Govt is going to haveto build thousands more prisons, as well as Day care buildings, Animal hospitals, nursing homes, as everyone will be forclosing on current homes, with another tanking of our economy. Obama's Govt is soooooo stupid.
No matter what, we haveto kill this bill and bury it beffore they kill us.
This 'review' of HR3200 appears to be no more than a plagarized version of the OReilly-Hannity back to back programs...
He's yet to actually reference any link to HR3200 to validate his own claims.
And I feel for those original tea-baggers who are surely rolling in their graves as they see their mighty cause being slaughtered by the party that loss in '08.
C'mon folks, people like this Connelly are part of the problem..not the solution. Maybe HR3200 isn't the best solution but atleast after 8 years of Connelly's party we have some folks that want to address the issues that are plaguing our nation.
Sorry Nathan, but there is a major problem with your comments. The O'Rreilly and Hannity programs both came after I had written my original article. Therefore, I could not have plagerized them and they did not plagerize me. They just happened to reach independent conclusions that agreed with the conclusions I had reached.
In addition, the derogatory term of tea-baggers is something that has originated in the last few months by the liberal media. The original fighters for our freedom knew of no such term, they were just patriots, a concept that you clearly don't comprehend.
However, that is understandable from your viewpoint. I have dealt with enough of you left wing types over the years to know that you will never allow the true facts to interfere with your personal attacks on those who disagree wih you., especailly when you can't make any rational arguments against the truth of what we say.
By the way, how have you decided what political party I am currently affiliated with, if in fact I am not an independent not alligned with any party. But, then again, I don't want to confuse you with the facts.
You appear to be the one who tends to leave facts to the side. The Boston Tea Party was so tagged merely hours after the movement in Boston in 1773. A bold and ambitous movement against the BRITISH and their tea tax.
In fact our modern day tea partys, such as the one that gathered in the very same Boston Common as the original Samuel Adams tea party, to protest OUR countrie's Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009, pay great insult to what the original tea party stood for..and what lead to the Revolutionary War.
And I hate to break it to you, but seeing as HR3200 was drafted in the last 12 months, and OReilly and Hannity have been spewing for years now, I doubt your article beat their propaganda.
Everyone had an idea that if the Democrats won the election that they would revise the health care system. Grant it that the Insurance companies are in control and are getting fat raising premiums and cutting coverage but government isn't the answer. The real answer is cutting the insurance companies out of health care and putting the doctors and hospitals back in control. Let's make a monthly payment directly to the care providers and do away with the middleman.
It should be known that Government run means MORE intrusions & built-in profits by big Pharm!
Big Pharm holds allegiance to Wall Street; while taking everything from Main Street!
And this would be the kiss of death if implemented by those who doled out bailouts to Wall Street! Actually, special interests, drives "care of health" completely out of the picture.
Worse is the fact that no one knows what provision of either bill will end up in the final bill… But one such, allows a feeder line for the psycho/pharmaceutical industry directly into public schools. – [Section 2511, Page 1352]
Worth the read, from Citizen Commission on Human Rights International:
http://www.cchrint.org/legislative-alerts/federal-health-bill-calls-for-billions-in-orwellian-psych-programs-and-treatments/update/
NOTE: This should not be a partisan issue, as is our liberties, children, and future...
And last... I believe that if this Bill is allowed to pass (rather than the re-vamp of Ins. Companies) it holds high potential for bankrupting our Nation... Likely due to massive subsidies expenditures/miscalculation...
As scary as all this there is also the issue of government support for the legal "drugging of America" by the psychiatric and pharmaceutical communities. I'm reminded of South Park's Saddam and Satan scenes when I place those two groups of social criminals and misfits together.
What scares me the most about this health care bill, is that once it is approved in any shape or form it is over. Obama's czar will have total control and be able to change it anyway he wants without the approval of anyone but the President. If he wants to add a paragraph that states any one over the age of 70 that visits a doctor is to be euthanized, no one can stop him. President Obama has stated that once a health care bill passes it is mine! That is what is really scarry. Wake up America Obama wants control of every aspect of your life.
My fellow Americans, beware of complainer they bring death.
lets get more names
Gosh, I can't wait to have the government run yet another area of my life. It's hard enough to get a doctor on the phone, have you ever called a government office and gotten bounced form one department to another after very longggggg waits? I do not feel that I want to put my own health into the governments hands. I have a friend who lives in London (where the government handles health care) he had a life threatening problem that required immediate surgery, he was put on a 2 year waiting list. How can we fight this thing? I like having my own choices. I would bet that the new health plan would include lots of psychiatric drugs and so called care. Someone should take a look and see if big pharma has had any hand in developing this booby trap!
The disregard for the Constitution is terribly troubling and the outlook you present is dire. What are the possibilities of someone with your background and others filing a lawsuit to prevent these losses to our rights?
I am currently working with a group called the U.S. Justice Foundation that is preparing to challenge the Constitutionality of any of the current health care bills that is passed. I will post more information about that in my blog as it becomes availalbe.
Many of the folks I know have written and phoned their representatives to stop this health care bill. Yet, they vote approval. How else can this be stopped? Prayer for the right decision is the only final hope. Let's all remember that we still have the right to pray!!
The world has reached population max, and can not sustain a healthy environment nor continue to provide even the basics of needs, including health care. Millions around the world continue to live in poverty, a threat in itself to any hope of world wide peace. Greed, one of the human " virtues ", left unchecked will continue to erode any hope that poverty and injustice are ever overcome. Huge disparities in advantage continue drive systems that sustain the decay. As a lawyer, your appreciation for those powers of government that control lawlessness legitimize mans meager attempts to provide justice, should be recognized as beneficial. Cycles of power, throughout history, have all seen the event of change as suppression is eventually overcome. Having spent time inside the health care system, I recognize where the limited health care resources are continually divided and those of means continue to derive the best of the benefit. I have little faith that my letters to congress and the president effect any change, as clearly the powers of influence do not have the needs of the world’s people in mind, but rather a select few. I do believe that a world in prayer, focused on compassion for all, resisting the temptation of judging one and another as we construct a purpose higher than the self will eventually overcome the wills of corruption. In retirement, with the wisdom of a lifetime to reflect on, keep in mind that the circle of influence that we all have directly, is our power to believe in a higher good, and to conduct our lives with the whole of the world, God’s creation, as ours to steward. Stop using sugar. Limit petroleum use as best possible. Conduct civil change through the power to choose your actions. Support those organizations that would event the change in worldwide causes, assuring the fight against poverty. Limit consumption, and preserve conservation, while we struggle to harness the gifts of creativity and to maintain a balance with the nature of our universe.
This supposed constitutional scholar is defending the right to privacy in the Constitution. That's the same right to privacy that the Court used as part of the basis for its decision in Roe v Wade. Is he saying Roe v Wade was correctly decided?
This lawyer says the bill will allow for free abortions. But Roman Catholic Bishops support the House bill. Do you think they would back it if it allowed for free abortions? I'm betting they have better lawyers than this guy.
MC, please read the commerce clause in the Constitution, which gives Congress the right to legislate all aspects of interstate commerce. I think it would be difficult to maintain that no one goes out of state for health care, or that Blue Cross Blue Shield covers people in only one state.
Rationing: Health care is rationed now. I have an employee (Tom, an American citizen, born and raised in Georgia, and a great guy) who has no health insurance. He and his wife are uninsurable. His only health care is the emergency room and the free clinic, because with three kids and a low wage job, he and his wife pass on doctor's visits to provide for his family. His wife stays at home to provide a good environment for the children (who are covered by CHIP).
I would hope having to give up doctor's visits never happens to me or my children, and I'm sure if you knew the realities of it you would feel the same way. I could cite a handful more cases of which I have personal knowledge. Health care is already being rationed ... by the marketplace. If you have money or a good job, you have good health care. If you don't have money or insurance, you have totally inadequate health care. I know of too many cases personally where that is true for you or anyone else to convince me otherwise. If you qualify for Medicaid, that does provide help. But many people cannot get Medicaid.
In order to pay for decent health care, if we are to make it affordable at all, we absolutely have to "ration" it, particularly end of life care. If you want to spend $300,000 to stay alive an extra two weeks or two months, fine. If you have the money, do it. But we taxpayers cannot afford it.
At some point we have to say, it's time for God to take a person home, and leave it at that. For someone who believes in the Resurrection, that is not a scary decision. I don't want to exist on a ventilator, and I don't want my children to have the power to keep me alive artificially for weeks or months on end. I have a lengthy health care statement, along with a will, and my sons know where it is.
I do wish the bill would have focused more on primary and preventative care. That's what is really needed in this country. It's a lot cheaper to prevent problems than to treat them later. (Again, I have numerous stories of personal knowledge to back this up, plus dozens of writers.) But the Republicans' screaming about "death panels" made that impossible. This was never about helping people. This was about 'defeat Obama at any cost.' That is one of the reasons why I am not again voting Republican, at least not any time soon.
Another point is the quote: “All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.” Are you on Medicare? If so, you better get off of it now and get private insurance. Because hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices are controlled by the government. You are out of luck, brother. Better get off Medicare RIGHT NOW! (And how many people do you think are going to take my advice and give up Medicare? Right. NONE. So much for the horrors of government health care.)
Basic health care for everyone (without covering abortion, and without the tremendous expense of unlimited end of life care, which is bankrupting us now) is something this country easily can afford. It is much less expensive than the "emergency room treatment" plan we have now.
Not only is basic health care simple Christian charity, to which as Christians I presume we are committed, but it will reduce the deficit and make our country more productive and wealthier in the long run. How can we get the Republicans on board with this?
For those who have said the current state of health care (costs) are unsustainable...you're right. But just as I don't expect to get my car back from the dealer with a completely rebuilt engine when I sent it in for new tires, I don't expect a health care bill that takes over a sixth of the U.S. economy when real "Reform" can be taken care of without doing 99% of what they have done. It's become clear to most Americans (and many in other countries who are paying attention) what is really going on here. Health care could be "Reformed"...but there is nothing remotely close to "Reform" happening here. This is a complete takeover......and most people understand that no matter how nasty and vile the left gets.
I would hope having to give up doctor's visits never happens to me or my children, and I'm sure if you knew the realities of it you would feel the same way. I could cite a handful more cases of which I have personal knowledge. Health care is already being rationed ... by the marketplace. If you have money or a good job, you have good health care. If you don't have money or insurance, you have totally inadequate health care. I know of too many cases personally where that is true for you or anyone else to convince me otherwise. If you qualify for Medicaid, that does provide help. But many people cannot get Medicaid.
onlineuniversalwork
If all the Church (anyone who claims to be a Christain) were to be truly obedient to the Word of God (the Bible) and tithe 10% of their income to responsible Christian organizations, there would be no need for the government to take care of anyone...the Church would have plenty of resources to do what it was commanded to do and take care of the poor, the sick, widows and orphans. Unfortunately, too many of us (myself included) find it difficult to trust God with our finances, whether we have little or we have much.
For those who have said the current state of health care (costs) are unsustainable...you're right. But just as I don't expect to get my car back from the dealer with a completely rebuilt engine when I sent it in for new tires, I don't expect a health care bill that takes over a sixth of the U.S. economy when real "Reform" can be taken care of without doing 99% of what they have done. It's become clear to most Americans (and many in other countries who are paying attention) what is really going on here. Health care could be "Reformed"...but there is nothing remotely close to "Reform" happening here. This is a complete takeover and most people understand that no matter how nasty and vile the left gets.
Any of you (lawyer or laymen) who think that the government can run "Health Care" with any kind of fairness, reliability, improve anything concerning your health, more efficient, LESS COST, had better open your eyes.
This is an abomination to every Ameriacan Citizen and an outrage to us as a nation. There are much more effiecient ways to help those in "NEED".
More people NEED to get outraged and BE outraged and STAY outraged about what this bill does to our country. To begin with, when has the government run ANYTHING better than private enterprise can? We need to get our heads out of the sand and learn from history, because we are right where the Roman Empire was at the almost 250 year mark, and wasn't that where they went from being a democracy to a dictatorship? Just keep lying down while the government takes all our constitutional rights away, and say hello to a totalitarian state. And as far as the current health care system goes, yes, a lot of people slip through the cracks, but the kind of care I see our vets and those on medicare and medicaid getting, God will be the only help we have if we all have to rely on that. At least at this point in time anyone can walk into an emergency room and get emergency care when they need it, and have their bills forgiven if their income and situation qualify them.
I got this message on facebook. I have not read the bill, even if it is not a transfer of power it is still ludicrous, so I have not needed to read it ‘til I read Michael’s interpretation; I have no background in law; but if what Michael is saying is true then why can we not file an impeachment on the people passing the bill? If they have violated their oath we should be able to file an impeachment. Michael if you are such a knowledgeable retired lawyer tell me what I need to do to get these idiots out of office, I need some sound advice, because if your claims are true I would hope there is something I can do. --Can we start up a collection to pay a lawyer to at least file an impeachment? Because, even if we have no solid evidence it would make the news and maybe wake up these liberals, so they can see they are throwing there rights away.
The most dangerous thing about all versions of these Democrat bills is that every term in the bills is obsoleted by terms that state: the health care industry is to be administered by the HHS Secretary (Kathleen Sebelius) and every choice about any matter related to health care and every decision related to health care made by the Secretary is "above judicial and Administrative review" which authorizes the Secretary to have unlimited power over all health care matters. The horror of this power is that Kathleen Sebelius is the partner of Andrew L. Stern, president of SEIU (the janitors union).
This whole health care reform push is being driven by Andrew L. Stern - who publicly states he wants to be dictator of the United States of America and no one is going to stop him!
The only authentic issue at hand is: do you want the health care industry run by the head of the janitors union?
Thank you Mr. Connelly for taking the time to write about this topic. I am interested in how I may help your U.S. Justice Foundation, as I will gladly donate (time and money) to a group that will fight against this ridiculous bill. Thank you sir!
" Quote from:
19 MM September 9, 2009
I believe it is people like you who are inciting this nation to react before having the true facts. You seem to have a lot of criticism, but no answers. Please give this a chance and get all the facts of the FINAL Health Care package before expressing your opinions. I am tired of this nation being pulled apart. We need unity and solutions if we are to survive and thrive."
Response:
I might say that I also read HR3200 and can tell you that everything posted is true. I am not an attorney, but did not find the bill that difficult to understand nor did I have a problem understanding the over reach being done by this very socialist/marxist group of morons in Washington.
As far as anyone having to have solutions. Many other solutions were offered, and the only folks involved in this were the democrats with all others being locked out. The other ideas and solutions were ignored and the press gave them no coverage (nice try though...you listen to the commandant very well as his thing was listening to solutions but none were presented. In case you haven't figured it out yet, many folks in Washington right now are accomplished liars).
Now for something Mr. Connelly didn't mention. We have been told this bill will cost less than 1 trillion and the latest word is 5 trillion and the democrats move forward cause they are pushing it off on the states and taking from the elderly (heah, they really want to kill us off anyway).
I WONDER IF THOSE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE WILL ADAPT THIS PLAN FOR THEMSELVES ? IF SO, I WOULD BE FOR IT THEN, TOO.
OTHERWISE, SCRATCH IT.
Thank You Sir, For your truthfulness. Your bravery.
God help us all.We the people need to vote them all out next year. I cut and pasted your letter and sent it on its way to my congressman and my senator. They need to know that we know the truth. God Bless You and Yours!
Is it possible to impeach all these who are doing us in. They are voting in raises and then denying COLA. Its pathetic. They need to know (as if they care) people don't plan to vote them back in.
But what do they care , they have a lifetime retirement , which by the way SHOULD be against the law to vote themselves raises all the time. And handsome raises they are at that.
Why can't they get by on the same allowances the "regular" people are given??????
I have worked for the government for 23 years and I have never seen anything managed by them that has ever worked properly. I have been from the bottom of the pile to Washington D.C. and it's always the same answer, we aren't in business to make money just to spend it . From the $200.00 hammer to the $300.00 toilet seat it seems never ending. How can we possibly expect our government to possibly handle a 870 billion dollar health care plan when the Postal Service and Social Security System are such a catastrophy. I watched Harry Reid say on C-Span when the last Senator was holding out to get everything free for his state that this is what politics is all about, give and take. I call it blackmail. On the federal level our Senators and Congressmen are there to make sure our government is run efficiently and properly, not to see what they can possibly blackmail each other for. It is nothing more than a power struggle. "I have more seniority", give me what I want. What a way to run a country.
Why is it manditory at age 65 that everyone has to receive Medicare part A. I can give you 500 names of people that have exceptional health care and they don't need the Federal government to pay for part A. Why should the taxpayer pay for this? So Insurance Companies can make more money. Who mandated this, our Senators and Congressmen. Where does it end? Through our Judicial System. What we need are people like Mr. Connelly to standup and be heard so this country isn't completely destroyed.
Semper Fi.
Working for the government is a priviledge. The Veterans that are stiting in the hospitals with no legs, etc. have given to this country while this government will not support its people! We have given over 40 yrs to this country and the people spending our money should be treating it with extremely tender care! They who pay the least are spending others' money and that is a sacred trust! The people need a voice! We need to clean house, not just vote them out. Who wrote this Bill that is taken up as a banner masquerading as "Care"? What do WE do before this country sinks? Mr. Connelly has the spark of a leader. A good leader is hard to find! Mr. Connelly, thank you for your perspective. God Bless Us All!!!
I just hope the Supreme Court wakes up and realizes the consequences this legislation will have on keeping the powers of the three branches of government separate.
Since we know all this.
Why is there no action to prosecute them on violating the US Constitution.
Do we as citizens have to hire lawyer(s) to protect our Continutional rights.
Where are the check & balances promised in our U.S. Contitution?
I strongly agree with impeaching Obama and anyone/everyone who violates the constitution they promised to uphold.
Who is watching the store???
Pat Corrao
I thought it was appropriate to repost your blog in it's entirety for the new year. I received an email with an abridged version, checked Snopes, and found your website. I wrote an article and re-shared your words with world, properly cited. http://www.examiner.com/x-34473-Houston-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m1d3-Michael-Connelly-actually-read-the-entire-Health-Care-Bill-3200
What's REALLY interesting is that some of these commenters want Michael Connelly to explain himself further and offer proof, etc. From what I see, he's a private citizen with Constitutional law experience offering an opinion. I wonder if these same people are demanding explanations from their own representatives to clarify all sections of the Bill or just trusting them to do "the right thing."
Meanwhile, we the American people can't get our ELECTED representatives to compose the bill (SEIU did that), read the entire bill (not enough time cuz it's an EMERGENCY!!), comprehend the bill and/or explain the bill to the very people who elected them and to whom they have an obligation to answer.
Hope young people are paying attention to these issues because they effect you and your children very much. As of today, each U.S. citizen (adults & children) has a debt liability of $346,362 and it's climbing. http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Have also read portions of the bill and everything you have said is pretty acurate. For thos who want specific passages chapter and verse as we say in the church, I suggest you go to tulsa912project.com and you will find a considerabel listing of the bill language by section, subsection, and line to back up what is being said. However, that being said and supplied I say to those who think the Constitution is dead to get off their dead ass and leave the country or study the Constitution and the foundeers principles and discussions about how it is to be applied especially the general welfare clause. George Washington was very specific on that issue. Any congressman who votes for this bill needs to be eliminated hands down. They all know it is unconstitutional and don't really give a damn because they are there for their own greed and position in the new society that has been being built at high speed since the 1880's. This society is to change from individual self governance in freedom and respect to corporate covernance. A government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations. Pay attention to history and you will see the entire pattern in fron of your face. They have almost completed the take over again. We must each rise up and re-establish the Constitution by using it as jurors, voters, and political activists, from a place of constitutional education and understanding. Get up, get busy, or get the hell out. The free ride is over because freedom isn't free.
It seems to me that three things need to be done for healthcare. Each item being a separate item not glommed together into a bunch of politispeak.
One: Look over the Medicaid system in each state and fill in the gaps, without becoming big brother. There already is healthcare in place, make it work. Help people get on it, especially children. I don't think the Medicare program needs repair, but if it does fix it.
Two: Subsidize families, based on their family size and income, for high insurance rates. Simplified and to the point with out any gobbledy goop included.
Three: insure that insurance companies, doctor's, hospitals and drug companies aren't scalping us, at least not any more than the government is. Not to big brother it to death, but perhaps an annual report of expense and revenue filed at tax time could go a long way toward insuring that. For the most part laws that are already in place should be protecting the consumer. No I am not recommending another czar.
For the most part I don't think we are being over-charged, I see the reports Blue Shield and Medicare send me and believe me they are not getting over paid. Inflation, deflation,reflation & flatuation is getting us all.
Maybe I'm over simplifying, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. But it is clear to me that we don't need another 500 page law to control us. That is what is wrong with out country and others as well, when Jefferson said everyone should know how to read, subsequent congresses, senates, etc. had to do something about it. What they did was take the simple to the point Constitution and cover it up and bury it in complex language that very few, if any, could understand all at once, or read in a single setting or even in a year of setting there trying to read it every day. If you have other interests, well . . .
Your purported constituional and factual analysisl citing no case law or actual language of the bill is a pathetic joke. Legitmae and responsible debate is welcome and healthy, you are a certifiable crackpot.
The federal government has enumerated power to regulate healthcare under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
Same thing that allows them to regulate the banking and financial institutions, securities markets, food safety, pharmaceuticals. Congress has used these powers to our great benefit (e.g in outlawing price fixing and monopolies, securities fraud, dangerous pharmaceuticals) to our very great benefit. It is one of the reasons our Country has had such success. The fact that you post puported comments on constitutionality without mentioning the Commerce Clause and related U.S. Supreme Court authority is conclusive proof that you are a crackpot of the highest order.
I appreciated your article on the so called Health Reform Bill, as it was in August.
Having moved from Texas to Georgia many years ago, and currently taking notice of Texas moving closer to taking a stand as it relates to the 10th Amenment, would it be possible for you to provide a primer on the subject. Also, what actions would a State need to take to stand it's ground vs the Federal Government? It seems to me that this is the means to regain the liberties eroaded through years of neglectd and mistrust.
I am encouraged in reading about the power of the local sheriff in each county. A real power in the community, if they choose to be.
The progressives will not take the liberties and God given rights from the hard working core of loyal Americans.
There is a "line in the sand".
Respectfully,
TheDutchman
Thank you. True Americans ARE behind you. Keep up the fight!
"Greetings!
I am writing to you today because I am outraged by what's happening with Health care legislation in Washington. As co-chair of the Republicans for Action organization, I have closely followed this debate.
I'm incredibly thankful that Attorney General Tom Corbett is actively working with his counterparts nationwide to determine the constitutionality of the Nelson Amendment, which exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid expenses, and places that burden on states like Pennsylvania. Please, share this email with friends and family, this is an important story that must get out.
Tom sees the inequity of this exemption and the financial burden that it represents to all of us. Pennsylvanians pay close to 15 billion dollars per year for Medicaid; should we now be responsible for Nebraska's costs as well?
Tom's commitment to protecting Pennsylvania's taxpayers is exactly the type of leadership we need and deserve. That's why I am supporting Tom Corbett to be the next Governor of Pennsylvania. I hope you'll take a moment and share my email with your friends, lets make sure Pennsylvania's taxpayers know that Tom Corbett is standing up for them.
Sincerely,
Carol Ann Sasso
Co-Chair
Republicans for Action
carolann@republicansforaction.org"
PS Mr. Connelly-you should send your article to the ~13 State DA's who are planning to challenge the constitutionality of certain sections of the latest version of the Senate bill.
Some of you people are so stupid! The Dem's want control!!!!!! It's not health-care at all!!!! They want to control EVERTHING!!!!
Mr. Connlley's statements is just a bunch of Republican lies/propaganda. You lost the last election because of Repub blunders and "Smirk-face" (GWB) lies. We have the worst economy since the "Great Depression, so all the propaganda has run amuck lately and all the Repubs are mad at the Dems because of what happened in the last 8 years that was in Repub control. Talk about hypocrits.
Any bill that takes 2000 pages to write for health care is not put together correctly. There is not a single health care insurance policy that takes even 100 pages to write. They need to scrap this mess and start over. God help us if they get this thru. If the do then we need to vote every one of them, or their same-party replacements out.
Hi Michael Thanks for helping out, I have been wondering how my socialized wellfare works til now. (I am an American but live now in Europe)... I understand that its difficult for many americans who enjoy things how they are in the US to change... but I think there is something that needs fixed in the system there. and there isnt an easy solution. I think shaking it up is scary but I think there is alot of misiformation out there to scare people to work against it.
I have to say in ten years of living in Europe, I pay higher taxes but I really never worry about health care. I get what I need when I need it, free no strings attached.. and for an extra 800 USD a year I get private care and can have faster service private hospitals and overall a little better care than normally.
the more people are encited and the more people reisit the change in the status quo the harder the bill will be one everyone, therefore the longer it will take to become a solid and good thing for America...After all everyone should have healthcare... even those who cant afford it. including immigrants... after all I am one too, a white male anglo one.
Mike, I appreciate your view of how socialized medicine actually works rather than here it from talk shows. However, I think there are a few points I would need to make.
1. ) What country are you in? Europe is fairly vague.
2.) What is the worst problem you have had medically and how was it handled?
3.) Can you say that the care given for more serious problems or geriatric needs are as advanced and optional like they are here?
4.) Unlike most European countries - the US Constitution does not allow reform (needed or not) to be implemented in such a manner as this. We do not get to ignore the constitution whenever we wish - it is absolute. If it needs to be changed - there are ways to do that.
5.) What so many supporters fail to grasp is that there are many better ways to IMPROVE healthcare and make it more affordable and available to citizens...but that is not what this bill is offering. Those proposals have been ignored by this one party government we have today.
I often theorize that many Americans truly feel that if the US adopts a socialist government that somehow we will also get a European culture. That is not the case...a Socialist government in a country of this size would resemble the USSR - not France.
I agree, everyone should have healthcare...but this Bill is not the way to do it. If it is so good, then why will there still be 8 Million (instead of the 11 million currently) Americans still without insurance ? Sorry, Immigrants (legal) should get access to healthcare...those here ILLEGALLY that do not pay any taxes - NO.
Rick.
I don't even know where to begin. You say this is just propaganda and then go into an emotional diatribe that is only a regurgitation of liberal propaganda. If this is just garbage then please feel free to challenge Mr. Connelly's post in a factual and logical manner.
Just to correct you. Democrats controlled both houses the last 2 years of Pres. Bush's 2nd term. During the prior six years Democrats did nothing to help the country as they were too busy not cooperating, being disrespectful to his office, and using filibusters as often as possible to slow any type of real progress. As far as his "lies" go...please prove that statement as well - and remember - in order for something to be a lie you must know it to be false when you state it.
Finally, there is a global recession - but the current administration could have done much more to slow and turn this economy around - but instead - used it to create the largest US deficit in all of history, give more power to the government and barely make a dent in the recession (I am referring to the Stimulus Bill). Let's not forget - that this recession started with the SAME Democrat controlled congress that was there when Bush was in office. The president has changed and yet we still have a bad economy. The pendulum of power will swing the other way.
Mike, I am an alternative physician and have watched in horror as government has destroyed many alternative health choices. This legislation is the final takeover. I have had to jump into a study of law with the most brilliant legal mind I have ever known to discover how the government has done these things.
Indeed, the alleged government does have the power to do it, unbeknownst to the public and even constitutional attorneys, but via a stealth means no one heretofore has figured out.
The government has encroached on all our freedoms and is regulating us from cradle to grave. How? Through the lifeblood of the nation: the currency. Federal Reserve Notes are the privately owned property of the private institution known as the FRB, which notes are in international commerce. (Title 12 section 411) They are loaned to the Federal Government and forced upon us. As liened property of the government, they are subject to regulation under the commerce clause and Article 4 respecting the territory or "other Property" of the United States. Hence, everything the Feds are doing is perfectly legal in this scheme, though the Achilles heel is fraud or fraudulent concealment, in that we have not been informed that our use of the fiat currency has compelled us into a foreign Admiralty jurisdiction, which jurisdiction is the basis of all Federal dictates from taxation to now a disease maintenance takeover.
My co-author and I have published a book called "They Own It All (Including You!)" available at Amazon. We have revealed new heretofore never seen information and recent court case that has enabled us to connect the dots that the loss of our freedoms is connected to one common denominator: toxic currency and removal of lawful money from circulation. There is no conjecture. Everything is proven, including a letter from a major taxing agency returning a lawful gold coin tendered for payment of an alleged tax. They refused the payment calling it an invalid financial instrument. Yes, as long as we continue to voluntarily use FRNs, we will be subject to what appears to be unconstitutional laws, not understanding that Pelosi told us the truth about how they are doing this. It is all through the commerce clause and through our use of their property called Federal Reserve Notes.
They can only "see" debt instruments. They cannot see nor do they have any jurisdiction over lawful money. We prove that without a doubt. They are a third party in ALL transactions using their property (FRNs).
CB.
You state that the Dems controled both houses. Your info is totally wrong. It was 49-49 with 2 independents. You are as dumb as smirk-face and shoot--in-the-face.
As to overturning Obamacare with fuuture congresses, please comment on this:
Harry Reid slips in a bombshell for Obamacare foes
Rick Moran
What did we ever do to deserve Harry Reid?
When the "manager's amendment" was passed in the dead of night, I pointed out that the wonks had yet to give it a good going over to discern what other surprises might lurk in the convoluted language used to obscure so much in the bill.
I'm sure you'll be happy to know that the wonks have not disappointed us.
Buried in the amendment is a bombshell; there will be no way to amend parts of Obamacare. Apparently, Reid wants to make this bill something like a royal decree where no one can change what has already been wrought.
The Weekly Standard blog has the story:
Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:
There's one provision that I found particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection."
And I quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
This is not legislation. It's not law. This is a rule change. It's a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.
I'm not even sure that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.
I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: To prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.
Get that? No repeal, no amendments, no nothing. That part of Obamacare is as set in stone as the idea that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It is unalterable - which, of course, means the entire bill is off limits.
The goal is to guard against the possibility that the GOP may win back the House and Senate some day and may wish to repeal or drastically alter Obamacare. In the dead of night, Harry Reid has turned the United States from a constitutional republic into a banana republic monarchy.
Let's all hope and pray that we will be able to read and understand the bill, l in it's final form, (as promised by Obama) before they vote on it.
Rick would make a great LIBERALPolitician. He has no idea what he is talking about when he states that the recession was caused be republicans policies. The first 6 years of George Bush the Republicans did not have 60 members of the senate like the Democrats have now. and also things were good until the Democrats took over in the last 2 years of his Presidency. Democrats were receiving sweet deals from AIG and the other financial institutions and they forced them to make loan to people that had no jobs and people that were low income. yOU WILL SEE THE INSURANCE IS A SHAM WHEN YOU START PAYING FOR IT THIS YEAR AND NO BENEFITS TILL 2013. AND SENIORS WILL BE LEFT WITH NO MEDICARE, WHICH I PAID FOR FOR 45 YEARS BEFORE I BECAME ELGIBLE FOR IT.
I find most interesting that the ones trashing this man's hardwork are the same ones believing totally in out Govt as to be trusted! You all prove one thing, its interpretation of what you read or better yet "What the govt wants you to BELIEVE" This is exactly why you should have one thought....why are laws written and bills adopted with so many possible meanings? Is this the way Lawmakers assure themselves of never being out of work? Why is it they cant be SPECIFIC enough so us regular folks can truely understand a Bill thats is actually a benefit to the masses? That is my biggest beef with all the said arguments and trash talking here! NO ONE can say what any of this 2,700+ page bill means! Its nothing but a maze of confussion, and it is written that way for a purpose! Why did this Bill start with 900+ pages and now is over 2,700+ pages? Why cant lawmakers say in fact, Abortions will not be covered in this health bill? Why cant lawmakers say anyone illeagally in this country gets no coverage until they go through the process of being a legal citizen? Why doesn't the bill state in FACT that if you are happy with your insurer, then you may keep them, or shop with someone else and not ever forced on a Govt run health care policy? And lastly, DONT ADD to a bill that pays off 4 Democrats just to get a YES VOTE!
I too find it all too confusing. I thank you Michael for taking the time to read the whole bill. I, like some other readers, tried to read the entire bill and as stated, it is nebulous. One issue that you mentioned....the tax vs fine....I have a relative living in Massachusettes where they have implemented mandatory health care reform. This person has to buy his own insurance. Based on the govt. calculations, anyone making over $32,000 can afford their own ins. (not govt subsidized). In looking at the cost of the plans he would have to pay 10% of his income to provide health care. Since he did not "buy" health care last year (2009) he will thus be penalized $1068.00 on his income tax return this year. It's forced cooperation. buy insurance at a cost "we" think you can afford, or pay us a fine/tax for not doing so. If this is the way of the future, then let it fall on the states to legislate. If we look at the number of people we are calling "uninsured" how many of them are illegal immigrants? Not wanting our healthcare dollars spent on illegal immigrants is quickly being dubbed intolerant. That's another issue that needs to be addressed. Many of the illegal immigrants use the hospitals and walk in centers for "free" care that the rest of us can't access. We all pay for that which adds to the high cost of health care. I am not being intolerant when I expect that the laws under which immigrants come into this country should be upheld. If we're not going to uphold the laws then why make them in the first place. If that's the case then those immigrants who are here legally and stuck in the hopeless bureaucracy of visas, green cards, deportations and other equally humiliating and frustrating laws, should just be let in, given health insurance, social security and education similar to those benefits now enjoyed by the "illegal" immigrant. Why have the immigration laws? I'm not intolerant (our country is founded on immigrants) but "illegal" used to mean something.
A recommendation for a 28th Amendment is being circulated around the internet....it says, "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United
States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives,
and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or
Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the
United States ."
For all those out there who think this bill is so great and that they are acting in our best interests....please, please explain to me why they don't think it's good enough for them. That is in fact truth, that they have voted themselves an exception to any health care reform they pass. Hmmmmm!!!!!! Makes you kind of wonder doesn't it?
Thank you !!!
I can tell the libs by the name calling they are doing when they comment. pretty normal.
The facts are simple; the current administration, much of congress, and especially the president do not care if any new health-care bill actually works. They really don't care if the stimulus plan, the bank bailout, etc. actually do any good. They just want enough change to the political landscape and economic power structure to shift to the government, so they have much more control.....leading to socialism.
The majority may not want this, but these people don't care because they know what's best. Plus they will remain in charge of things long enough to not have to worry about these changes adversely affecting them. They are the narcissists, the rich socialists. (oxymoron)
I just read this entire blog start to finish... took over an hour and a half. I have also read the healthcare bill as well (as it stood before)... it took me several days.
The best posts on here are 1- The original post by Mr. Connelly (great, insightful opinion)... and 2- the posts that talk about "progressives" and the "Cloward-Piven Strategy".
I believe the most important thing to take away from this suppossed "Health Care Crisis" (I think Haiti has a crisis - we do not) would be "what is underneath/behind this effort". And I think that can be summed up best with a quote from the man himself... "We are on our way to "fundamentally" changing this nation"... B. H. Obama (Head Czar and Progressive in Charge) and now President of the United States.
What was so wrong that we need to fundamentally change the country? And what does that really mean? Now go back and re-read all the posts about this "attack" on our Constitution... and about where this country is really headed? IF THE PEOPLE DON'T STAND UP AND STOP THIS OFFENSIVE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND THE REPUBLIC - THIS COUNTRY WILL "FUNDAMENTALLY BE CHANGED".
Thank you for writing the truth about the health care bill & our government. America needs help if we are going to stay a democracy. Please tell us what we can do to fight for our nation.
Eleanor Shepherd
To those in favor of this bill who critisize those who oppose it as being ill informed, spreading "scare tactics", citing the cost of our current health care policies and America's current world ranking ranking in quality of health care:
1) I would propose that it is the proponents of this bill who are ill informed. At least the opponents have made some attempt to educate themselves on it's content; in spite of the Obama administrations attempts to keep it secret and hidden. There are things in this bill that would scare the living daylights out of any freedom loving Ameriacan. Unless you honestly believe that the government knows more about how to run your life than you do, in which case you shouldn't be making that decision for me, you would at least want to know what you're buying into.
2) The cost of health care has risen dramatically in the last 20 or so years. Irrefutable! But it's no coincidence that these increases correspond to government invovlement in health care. Medicare and Medicaid are a disaster that has reeked havoc through the medical industry. Obama says there are BILLIONS of dollars of waste and fraud in these programs, but of course nothing will be done about that waste and fraud until the government gains control of the entire health care system. People, these are government programs! If they can't make these work how in the world will they be more efficient by expanding their control? Name one government program that isnt wasteful and ineffective. There aren't any. We should be looking at ways to get government OUT OF health care instead of seeking more invovlement.
3) The UN says America ranks 23rd in health care quality. That august body with no ulterior motives except for wanting the world to be a better place. Please. If you're going to cite a source at least use one with some credibility.
3) The Republicans have offered no alternatives so they can't complain. When was the last time a Republican has been invited to participate in this power grab by the Democrats? This has been a closed process from day one. The breakneck pace to shove this thing through should tell you there's something there that King Obama doesn't want the American people to know about. Where theres smoke, theres a "progressive" Democrat.
4) If opponents are using scare tactics by citing misrepresenting the wording in the bill then quote the actual verbage that refutes their interpretation. When opponents quote from the bill those in favor of socialized health care can only say "stop using scare tactics". Well, if the wording of the bill is darned scary maybe the bill should be dropped.
5) The statistic so often used of how many people in this country don't have health care is intentionally misleading. Most of those in that number have access to health care they just choose not to pay for it. They're young and figure the cost of going to a doctor once or twice a year for a minor issue is less than the cost of a comprehensive medical plan so they take a pass. But that's not good enough for the socialists. We all have to be the same. If you insist on paying for something they don't want to pay for then set up a pool that you can send your money to and give it away from that. For the truly needy there is already Medicaid, that well oiled machine of a government run program. Count me out. I like what I've got. I've worked hard for it and so has everyone in my family.
What this all comes down to is this; the government has nothing to give away. Anything it gives one person it has to take away from someone else. If they're going to take something from me to give to you then I should at least have something to say about it. The majority of the people in this country, and this too is irrefutable, do not want this program. What gives you the right to tell the majority of us that we have to have it whether we want it or not.
GOD bless America.
Mr. Connelly,
Do you think that there will be lawsuits filed to challenge the points that you made about the legislation being unconstitutional if it passes?
How in God's name do we stop it and how quickly can we stop it?
Thank you for attempting to use some common sense with a complicated issue. I happened to pull up a study that was done by Johns Hopkins in 2004. Not related to healthcare but to the fact that there were so few Doctors represented in the Legislatures. They had studied the background of all Legislators from 1960 to 2004. OMG...44% were lawyers and only 13% were of Business backgrounds, the rest were various occupations. Now wonder we are in a mess. I know these people mean well. But you can't run a Free Enterprise Society with only 13% of the people having a Business Management background. So our country is being run by Lawyers...therein lies the problem. I don't hire an electrician to do my plumbing, right? Citizens with Business Management background can't afford to serve...but we need them. England lost it's Free Enterprise system quickly after the Industrial Revolution. Farmers and Business people could not serve in order to provide for the masses--in came the Lawyers with not enough Business background. So there is our problem. But I see a solution. That is to encourage more business people to serve and look at the qualifications of the current people (can they even balance their own checkbooks).. Personally I would like to vote them all out and start fresh. I do not want to leave this mess to our kids. Free Enterprise is an awesome idea we have been screwing it up big time. Our forefathers did not foresee the Industrial Revolution.
Why can't the healthcare bill be discussed on cspan as the president promised? Is he afraid that we will not approve.? This is not transparency. I want the whole truth and so does every citizen of the USA.
Just curious... are there any US code which would would restrict Congress from enacting "kitchen sink" legislation like there are in certain states whose constitutions restrict legislative acts to one object or declared objects in the act?
From one state's constitution:
6-30. Acts to embrace but one object -- Time of effect.
No act hereafter passed shall embrace more than one object, and that shall be expressed in the title. But if any object shall be embraced in an act which is not so expressed, the act shall be void only as to so much thereof, as shall not be so expressed, and no law shall be revived, or amended, by reference to its title only; but the law revived, or the section amended, shall be inserted at large, in the new act.
Thank You for pointing out such important issues and taking the time to do so. I must admit, there are certain items I don't grasp and then there are ones that jump out like a poisonous snake attacking their prey. Reading this bill makes me feel like that "HELPLESS PREY" which we are all going to feel if this bill passes. In short the way I feel is this!
IF THIS BILL PASSES, WE MIGHT AS WELL PACK OLD GLORY UP & STORE HER IN AN ATTIC SOMEWHERE.
SHE WOULD NOT WANT TO FLY AGAIN IN SUCH DARK, GREY, & DECEITFUL SKIES!!!
It is truly amazing how many kitchen Lawyers are available to attack someone who may just know more than they do. Americans should learn to read , listen and crically question the agendas of those who attack , especially those who use personal affronts in the attempt to discredit an opinion. If the healthcare legislation being foiste on America is so wonderful why does it have to be conceived behind closed doors and with bribes and special deals?
We have to stop Obama soon.
Hi MIchael - Thank you for your summary. However, Michael (response number 1 dated August 19) brings up a good point. Could you identify the sections of the bill you describe? I would like to read these sections to determine whether I agree or disagree. Thanks again for your comments.
It was difficult to cite specific sections of HR 3200 for several reasons. First, much of what I refer to as being done by the bill may not be in just one particular section. Instead the preparers attempt to hide their actual intent by spreading things throughout the bill in different sections. Second, any specific section I referred to by number in the original article would change since the Congress had returned from recess and started trying to rework the bill to make it seem more reasonable to the American people. In fact the new bill, HR 3962 contains the same provisions but on different pages with different section numbers. In other words, what was contained in Section 1173A of the original bill that provides for government electronic access to private information may be renumbered and contain something totally different tomorrow.
However, here are some of the most pertinent sections of the original bill dealing with some of the areas you are asking about. Section 113 gives the government control over all health insurance, private and public. Section 141 authorizes the appointment of the Health Choices Administrator. He or she will answer to no one other than the President. Sections 201 and 203 give this person the power to decide what benefits you can get in your insurance, whether public or private. This opens the door for health care rationing. This is further mandated by Section 225 that gives the administrator complete control over hospitals and doctors. It sets the fees that can be charged and the services that can be provided.
If the Administrator decides you didn’t need to be hospitalized the hospital can be fined for “breaking the government rules.” This also opens the door for the Administrator to force hospitals and physicians to perform abortions. All health procedures will mandated by the government. There is also no provision for services to be provided only to citizens or legal residents of the United States. Supposedly they can’t get credits for the insurance, but there is no way to enforce this. This means that since illegal aliens get the services now, they will continue to do so. In fact, the newest house version only requires proof of residence, not legal residency.
Here is a link to the entire new version of the House bill and the new Senate version where you can look up these and other provisions: http://thomas.loc.gov/. You might also want to read the other posts on my blog where I discuss much of this.
To Sarah Katz, author of comment 11 - GET REAL! I mean: what is it that you TRULY believe in??? You said: "Ultimately, who will pay the cost of care for people who cannot pay for it themselves?" Than you say: "That is what true American independence means; standing on one’s own two feet and paying one’s own way." AND: "Unlike Republicans, I don’t believe in free lunches or free-loading. I am far from being in that 2%-3% likely to see my taxes increased. However ..."
What do I say??? Typical DOUBLETALK from the left -- and windy too!
You quote your percentages and factors to sound the self-professed "Educated-Left," all the while ignoring the underlying facts (which is common sense): Of course the percentage of uninsured will increase along with the increase in population. ESPECIALLY when our population increase is widely of immigrant nature.
THINK - - - PLEASE.
Mr. Connelly should run for office.
Dear Michael,
I applaud your fortitude in actually reading the entire bill. I attempted it myself but aside from digesting large sections of it I don’t think I made it through half. My eyes glazed over. But I read the sections about the powers of the Health Choices Administrator (Czar?) and the powers to not only access one’s financial info but also to just take what monies they please. Scary stuff.
I discovered your article by sheer accident while visiting Snopes. I was checking the pedigree of an article that ostensibly appeared in Pravda when I spotted “Health Care Bill” in a link and decided to look into it. I’m glad I did and I will be forwarding your article on to everyone I know.
You have correctly identified the threat this legislation contains, something I only sensed but couldn’t verbalize. I’m grateful to you for that as well. I never thought much about political organizations except to be instinctively suspicious of them but I also know that one voice won’t accomplish anything. I know that in order to decisively stop this from happening it will require an organized effort, to achieve the “critical mass” that Gandhi described. So the organizations that have been forming, the “Tea Party”, the “We The People Foundation” and the like, suddenly seem to have a place and purpose I didn’t see before. I think it’s time I got off the sidelines and added my voice, to stop being an observer and become a participant, else what kind of world am I leaving my children?
My Representative (Greg Walden) said in a talk in my home town that he had SIXTEEN HOURS to read through the over-2000 pages before being required to vote. SIXTEEN HOURS FOR 2OOO+ PAGES!
HR3200 is long gone. An even more complex and dense document is now in its place, purposely made so in hopes that legislators will just give up and vote "aye" so they can look like they're showing "compassion" and "care". "Trust us! Just vote "aye" and everything will be OK" say the Obama minions.
The sheer number of iterations of Health Care legislation right now is ON PURPOSE. The whole effort is intended to confuse and delude. Most Americans are now wise to this tactic and are now against it completely.
A major revision and improvement of American health care can be contained in less than 200 pages. The Republicans have already done this! It consists of Tort Reform and allowing the purchase of insurance across State lines to improve competition.
The current efforts in Washington have nothing to do with improving and increasing health care. It is only about usurpation of power and gathering it in one place, the White House, with the intention of creating America's first and final dictatorship.
The entire "Progressive" movement began when some egg-head decided that the American people are to stupid to run their own lives around the turn of the last century. "Pwogs" have been pushing this idea in one iteration or another ever since.
It is not Government's obligation or duty to provide health care. It is the responsibilty of every citizen to take care of his own health, just as it is every citizen's responsibility to defend himself.
"It is the responsibilty of every citizen to take care of his own health"
How can we do this when the insurance companies price insurance so high that we can't afford it?
Someone making $10 / hour (in my town that's about the average) can't afford to pay $250 / month for his/her own insurance, much less $500 / month for family. Get real...
It just goes to show you that an even knowledgeable person can be downright obnoxious when they have a liberal bias.
The problem with the healthcare plan isn't that we don't want to offer everyone healthcare, but it is more that people should be responsible for their own actions and their own healthcare. People should have the option NOT to participate in healthcare; it shouldn't be run by the government and the unions, it should be instead be run by a competitive market where we DEREGULATE the means of competition. We should have a rule that someone who has had a preexisting condition should have to wait 2 years before they can apply for coverage. If that means needing to claim bankruptcy, than that's what is needed. I want something that's actually constitutional and is not an inhibitor to wealth, such as HSA plans. Hmmm, I think I can budget for my own healthcare costs. The only plan that's acceptable by the Congress is one in which the government has control, not one that has options and where companies compete across state lines. I think regulation is necessary to make sure that a company cannot manipulate the 2 year rule and whereby people can read a master plan contract that they signup for.
I think liberal people mean well, but they don't understand who they are putting in office. The people who run the Congress are probably the most stupid people who have ever roamed the halls. GM was a foregone conclusion because if its really bad balance sheet and it was liberal thinking that crushed the company. Sometimes, it doesn't matter which policy you have, but whether it is responsible or irresponsible.
Liberals think that they do best by RAISING taxes, but conservatives seek at opportunities for raising revenue through marginal tax increases and broad-based tax-decreases. For instance, a conservative might say, I got a plot of 25 acres of land that can be developed. The lot is currently abandoned and we need to bulldoze the area. The conservative won't give the company money to build or won't build for them, but may say, hey, I can cut your property taxes by 70% if you build here knowing that will be money coming into the town's profits even though it would technically be a loss in terms of revenue, it is a smaller loss than leaving them abandoned.
I think liberals need to pick people more like JFK and people that are responsible for the country. We need leaders, on both sides, that are fiscally intelligent and who really look at how tax increases result in reduced tax revenues and fewer jobs.
I add that unions are not what they used to be; they don't look out for the little guy anymore and have long ceased their usefulness.
Also, I want to add that if the healthcare bill doesn't pass, all we can do is blame those who should have been responsible and willing to negotiate and those are the Democrats.
Lastly, to answer Bob Brinker's question, I'd raise Fed Funds to 2% in the current term and if the economy really started to turn around, only then would I raise it to 3.75% to 4.25% such as in 2012.
I wonder if Bush would have tried or attempted to pass some type of health care bill, instead of taking vacations, would Republicans have opened their arms to it. Let's try to do everything we can to not make it work!!! Forget about us middle class folks that were layed off and can't afford cobra rates. THE SAME PEOPLE YOU MEET GOING UP ARE THE SAME PEOPLE YOU'RE GOING TO MEET GOING DOWN!!!
Michael, Thank you for taking the time to read analysis and report your findings.
@ Jane.
This is not a partisan issue. Continue to blame Bush all you want. His actions were based upon policies made by the previous administration and so on. Someone has to take control over this issue and it is our responsibility as the American populous to keep accountable the representatives we put into office. It is your country and your freedoms at stake.
This is all overtaken by events by I have to respond to the total drivel in your post.
I read House Bill 3200 as well and, unless they've changed the meaning of the English language when I wasn't looking, much of what you are saying is total nonsense.
On illegal immigrants - Section 345 contains a requirement that individuals be "lawfully present in a state in the United States" and illegal immigrants are not "lawfully present."
On abortion - What the bill does is require the government-run health plan to abide by whatever law is in place relating to what, if any, abortions may be funded by Federal funds. It places no requirements with respect to abortion on private health care plans nor does it place any restrictions with respect to abortions on private health care plans.
The Hyde Amendment restricts abortions that may be paid for via appropriations to Health and Human Services. Specifically it prohibits the use of Medicaid funds for abortion other than in the case of incest, rape and when the mother’s health is endangered. Section 222(e) of the House bill REQUIRES the Public Health Option (PHO) to support the services allowed by the Hyde Amendment but it does not prohibit the PHO from covering services disallowed by the Hyde Amendment.
Section 222(e) clearly prohibits the Health Benefits Advisory Committee (HBAC) from recommending ANY abortion service, including those that may be legally funded by Federal funds, and prohibits ANY abortion service as being required for a Qualified Health Benefit Plan (QHBP).
And by the way, the HBAC would NOT be federal bureaucrats but rather an expert advisory council that got per diem only (see section 223(c)).
I also see no provision for the rationing of health care for senior citizens or anyone else. Please provide citations as I have above.
As to whether the "Public Option" would have driven private insurance companies out of business, you cannot have it both ways sir. You cannot declare one day that government is so incompetent it would destroy health care if it got involved and the next day declare the "Public Option" provided by government would would be so good that it would drive private insurance companies out of business.
I could go on and on, but what's the point. The rising cost of health care is driving the federal deficit; the federal deficit is driving the federal debt and the federal debt, if we don't get it under control, will be the death of us.
ups sorry delete plz [url=http://duhum.com].[/url]
I HAVEN'T READ IT AS YOU HAVE AND I APPLAUD YOUR DOING SO. AS PROBABLY MANY HAVE SAID, THIS IS MORE THAT PROBABLY 99 PERCENT OF THE IDIOTS VOTING ON IT HAVE DONE. I AGREE THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM NEEDS TWEEKIN, BUT NOT SUCH AS THIS. I AM 56 YEARS OF AGE, THAT IS IN EARTH YEARS FOR THOSE THAT MIGHT NOT UNDERSTAND IT AS THEY CAN'T UNDERSTAND, AND HISTORY PROVES THIS IF PEOPLE HAD THE SENSE AND INTELLIGENCE TO UNDERSTAND IT, THAT ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT THE GOVERNMENT GETS THEIR FINGERS INTO EVENTUALLY, AND MOST FROM THE START, IS TOTALLY SCREWED UP. AS YOU STATED ABOUT THE OATH OF AFFIRMATION, I BELEIVE THIS ALSO INCLUDES GOVERNMENT AND I QUOTE" FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE". I DON'T THINK THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED YET, IF IT HAS IT WAS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND KEPT SECRET AS MANY GOV'T THINGS ARE. THE FOLKS THAT GET VOTED INTO THESE ELITE POSITIONS, AND I SAY ELITE DUE TO THE FACT THAT WHEN THEY GET THEIR THEY AUTOMATICALLY BECOME BETTER THAN THE FOLKS THAT PUT THEM THERE, FORGET ALL THE FOLKS THAT CAST A VOTE ONE AT A TIME TO PUT THEM THEIR AND SEEM TO DEVELOP A THOUGHT PROCESS THAT TOTALLY DISMISSES THE PEOPLE AND WHAT THEY WANT. KINDA LIKE A KID GROWING UP, AT SOME POINT IN TIME THEY THINK THEY HAVE A MIND OF THEIR OWN AND GO AGAINST THE PARENTS. THE GOVERNMENT NITWITS NEED REPLACED FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER WITH WORKING CLASS FOLKS. PEOPLE THAT DO HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE REAL WORLD. MOST OF THE TWITS IN OFFICE COME FROM WEALTHY FAMILIES THAT NEVER WANT FOR ANYTHING AND FOR THIS REASON THEY HAVE NO CLUE WHAT IT IS TO LIVE DAY TO DAY AND DO WITHOUT THINGS THAT ARE NEEDED. ALL THIS IS A POWER AND CONTROL BILL. IF PEOPLE DON'T SEE THIS THEY DESERVE WHATEVER THEY GET. BAD THING IS IF THERE ARE MORE OF THESE IDIOTS THAN THERE ARE WISE PEOPLE ALL WILL SUFFER. POWER AND CONTROL. DOES THE NAME HITLER BRING ANYTHING TO MIND ??????????????????????????? YALL HAVE A GOOD DAY NOW!!!
Read most of all of these comments and I agree with Michael Connelly's treatise on the Constitutional non-justification of HB3200 OR any of it's morphs.
But none of these comments and discussions can refute that pretty much whatever Big Bro touches he defiles. Pure logic explains that middle-men raise the cost of the product/service being marketed.
Mr. Connelly,
While I appreciate the effort you took to read and reinterpret the house bill, I am deeply disappointed in the result of your "analysis". A more convincing post would have been a point-by-point commentary with references to specific sections and perhaps guides to other research and interpretations of the language in the bill. Nearly all of what you state sounds like a regurgitation of the latest Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh episode. It is clear your mentality is still entrenched in the cold-war ideology, mired in the fear and suspicion that generation bred. It's not the 80's any more. Welcome to the new century.
While I don't think government can do everything, it should do what it can to help, particularly when progress is stagnating in certain sectors of our society. That is why we elect our officials... for them to lead.
To those who constantly denigrate and insult our government officials, elected and appointed, and view them with disdain and suspicion I ask: do you actually know any of them personally? Could you do any better? They are real human beings, just like you and me, the vast majority of them are trying to do a good job when the go to work every day, just like you and me. And in most cases the job is complicated and difficult. They have families, the want to do the right thing, they are proud of America, just like us. And I believe that Barack Hussien Obama, is one of them. One of us. To heap all of your irrational fears and anger onto one man or one administration is... well... irrational. Stop the fear. Stop the hate.
I will conclude by saying we ("progressives") are more than willing to do the heavy lifting to bring us kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century, for those too weak or frightened to do so. All we ask is that they please stop all the whining. It is very distracting.
"It is clear your mentality is still entrenched in the cold-war ideology, mired in the fear and suspicion that generation bred. It's not the 80's any more. Welcome to the new century."
Brian...
So you're saying that it is ok to to use veiled name calling and to insult anyone who disagrees with your view, but nobody should go and criticize the progressives or their agenda? Instead of offering logical well thought out points of rebuttal (as you suggested in your post), you offer only emotional plea and rhetoric. Such a common theme from that side...
To Brian, #257; I disagree with your characterization of our elected officials. Looking at major cities and Congress in general, I see many people who enter government for it's life-style.
You are mistaken if you think most of these people are in it because they just want to help us all. In some cases they want to force feed every man women and child a new way of life; a life with a new constitution. Yes, it's those pesky Progressives again. They also love the recognition, the power, the status and in some cases the money and benefits.
You may ask what is wrong with that? Well, I guess we need to go back to the original constitution; the one that should be the country's backbone, forever. It is specific about limited government and the need to step aside after a reasonable amount of time serving the people. The Progressives have been saying that people in business need to step aside and let those who are not making our decisions, start. I say that applies to our politicians, as well.....all of them!!
Thank you.
To the people who are reading this post thinking that it is still relevant, and that it accurately depicts the healthcare reform that the House passed on November 7th, 2009, you are mistaken. I have not read HR 3200, because there's no reason to. The House passed HR 3962- that I did read. Any discussion on what health care reform would have looked like if it had passed should be based on the actual bills that would have been conferenced, and HR 3962 looks nothing like the "analysis" of HR 3200. HR 3962 included extremely strick language preventing any federal money going towards abortions, it included a public option that would have covered roughly 10% of Americans (hardly a government takeover) would've raised taxes ONLY only individuals making $500,000 a year and families making a million, and included language that banned any federal subsidies goign towards illegal immigrants. The only people who would be fined would be those who refused to buy health insurance, with a hardship exemption for the poorest americans and subsidies granted to individuals making up to 40k and couples making up to 58K (based on the most recent poverty levels). This bill did nothing but help the average non-millionaire american and would have been either defecit nuetral or pretty darn close to it over ten years. That is has been effectively killed due to massive misinformation campaigns is down right sad.
if this bill is just about health care, why is it so long? think about it
Mr. Connelly thanks for taking the time and trying to keep America informed with another view point. I'm not a fan of saying that the Gov't can do a better job than the private sector.
To Dennis Rockow....Thomas Jefferson didn't say : "A GOVERNMENT BIG ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING YOU WANT IS STRONG ENOUGH TO TAKE EVERY THING YOU HAVE".
The actual quote came from President Gerald R. Ford and is, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” and he said it while addressing a joint session of Congress.
R
