PDA

View Full Version : Obama I would like someone to refute this claim.


Norman Einstein
09-28-2009, 02:05 PM
I FEEL AS THOUGH THE BATTLE AGAINS THIS HEALTH CARE BILL IS DYING. PLEASE, DO ALL YOU CAN TO KEEP THE PRESSURE ON THE POLITICIANS TO REJECT THIS THING.

The following comment is from Michael Connelly of Carrollton , Texas , a
retired attorney and constitutional law instructor who states he has read
the entire health care bill and has some comments, not about the bill, but
about the impact upon our Constitution. It's a broader picture than just
health care reform.

Looks like something to sit up and pay attention to; once this sort of thing
happens, it will be irreversible.


THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HEALTHCARE 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 it, 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 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
<http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_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

Direckshun
09-28-2009, 04:44 PM
I have a feeling, call me crazy, that this is a chain email.

Direckshun
09-28-2009, 04:46 PM
What's the claim you want refuted, by the way?

Saul Good
09-28-2009, 06:44 PM
I have a feeling, call me crazy, that this is a chain email.

Chain e-mails are interesting. They just randomly generate themselves. There is no originator to them. You can and should completely discount anything that goes viral regardless of how well researched.

banyon
09-28-2009, 06:49 PM
Chain e-mails are interesting. They just randomly generate themselves. There is no originator to them. You can and should completely discount anything that goes viral regardless of how well researched.

Where do you think the conversation should start with this thread?

RJ
09-28-2009, 06:51 PM
I'm glad this was posted. I didn't receive a single chain email today, which was a little disappointing.

Saul Good
09-28-2009, 06:55 PM
Where do you think the conversation should start with this thread?

I think that bitching about it is a great place to begin. Really, I would be okay with anything that doesn't involve responding to the substance of the criticisms.

banyon
09-28-2009, 07:10 PM
I think that bitching about it is a great place to begin. Really, I would be okay with anything that doesn't involve responding to the substance of the criticisms.

Well it's pretty vaguely written. The author assures us that he has read the bill and then makes some pretty general statements about it without referring to the bill.

I'm not even sure where you would start. "No it's not?"

Norman Einstein
09-28-2009, 07:16 PM
For those of you that have dissed the content I have but one question:

Have you read HR3200 (http://peters.house.gov/uploads/HR3200%20Full%20Text.pdf)?

I invite you to read it and find your 'vague' references.

banyon
09-28-2009, 07:19 PM
For those of you that have dissed the content I have but one question:

Have you read HR3200 (http://peters.house.gov/uploads/HR3200%20Full%20Text.pdf)?

Have you?

If so what did you wish to discuss?

Norman Einstein
09-28-2009, 07:22 PM
Have you?

If so what did you wish to discuss?

I don't want to discuss it, I read it and found several things I feel are not following the intent of the Constitution. Once you read it I'd just like to hear what you have to say about it. That's all this thread is really about, common Americans reading what I consider a very partisan bill which, as written, would do more to destroy health care in America than reform it.

banyon
09-28-2009, 07:29 PM
I don't want to discuss it, I read it and found several things I feel are not following the intent of the Constitution. Once you read it I'd just like to hear what you have to say about it. That's all this thread is really about, common Americans reading what I consider a very partisan bill which, as written, would do more to destroy health care in America than reform it.

Common Americans? It was a legally trained eye reading complex legislation and summarizing it with vague and partisan paraphrases, it wasn't common Americans reading the bill.

I guess that's what I thought about it. There are any number of more usefel and well-informed summaries out there than this chain email, if that's what you wanted to know of my thoughts about it.

Yet, you didn't ask for general thoughts, you asked for someone to "refute this claim", which you would not specify and now act dumb as if you didn't know what you had typed.

Norman Einstein
09-28-2009, 07:35 PM
Common Americans? It was a legally trained eye reading complex legislation and summarizing it with vague and partisan paraphrases, it wasn't common Americans reading the bill.

I guess that's what I thought about it. There are any number of more usefel and well-informed summaries out there than this chain email, if that's what you wanted to know of my thoughts about it.

Yet, you didn't ask for general thoughts, you asked for someone to "refute this claim", which you would not specify and now act dumb as if you didn't know what you had typed.

I guess you misunderstood my last post. Forget the OP, read HR3200 and explain what you feel is it's merits would be. I see too many vague comments that can infringe on our Constitutional rights.

banyon
09-28-2009, 07:37 PM
I guess you misunderstood my last post. Forget the OP, read HR3200 and explain what you feel is it's merits would be. I see too many vague comments that can infringe on our Constitutional rights.

What vague comments in particular do you see in the bill?

Norman Einstein
09-28-2009, 07:50 PM
What vague comments in particular do you see in the bill?

I'm not interested in you arguing what I feel about the bill, it's something that each of us have to develop our own position on. It's obvious we stand on opposite sides of the fence, this isn't a place to argue the point.

What I want from you is to see your opinion, not your reaction to my opinion. There has been plenty of argument about the bill with very few people actually taking the time to read it.

If you have read the bill and don't have any heatburn about it there is absolutely no middle ground for discussion. I'll give you a few days to read the bill.

banyon
09-28-2009, 07:52 PM
I'm not interested in you arguing what I feel about the bill, it's something that each of us have to develop our own position on. It's obvious we stand on opposite sides of the fence, this isn't a place to argue the point.

What I want from you is to see your opinion, not your reaction to my opinion. There has been plenty of argument about the bill with very few people actually taking the time to read it.

If you have read the bill and don't have any heatburn about it there is absolutely no middle ground for discussion. I'll give you a few days to read the bill.

I've already read the bill. You however wanted someone to refute a claim. Did you misspeak, or have you abandoned that demand?

Norman Einstein
09-28-2009, 08:14 PM
I've already read the bill. You however wanted someone to refute a claim. Did you misspeak, or have you abandoned that demand?

This has been covered. All you seem to want to do is argue. There is no use to continue. When you post something regarding the bill I'll respond.

My first point of comment in the bill is the seemingly unbounded authority of the commissioner. In the first 100 pages the commissioner seems to have nearly 250 opportunities that gives him/her full authority to alter any section or determination of insurance for the people.

such as:
as determined by the Commissioner;

but only if the coverage for the individual involved is determined by the Commissioner

in such other circumstances as the Commissioner may provide.

the Commissioner may phase-in the application of such subparagraph based on the number of full-time employees of an employer and such other considerations as the Commissioner deems appropriate.

All such plans may be offered under a single contract with the Commissioner.

The Commissioner shall establish a permissible range of variation of cost-sharing for each basic, enhanced, and premium plan, except with respect to any benefit for which there is no cost sharing permitted under the essential benefits package


And it goes on and on and on. This not only creates a problem with a liberal in office but then when a conservative, or other, gets into office the comissioner has a free reign to change the policy as he sees fit.

banyon
09-28-2009, 08:38 PM
This has been covered. All you seem to want to do is argue. There is no use to continue. When you post something regarding the bill I'll respond.

No, actually you didn't cover it at all. Whatsoever. That's been the entire thread, people just asking you what claim you wanted refuted and you refusing to clarify that in the least.

My first point of comment in the bill is the seemingly unbounded authority of the commissioner. In the first 100 pages the commissioner seems to have nearly 250 opportunities that gives him/her full authority to alter any section or determination of insurance for the people.

such as:
as determined by the Commissioner;

but only if the coverage for the individual involved is determined by the Commissioner

in such other circumstances as the Commissioner may provide.

the Commissioner may phase-in the application of such subparagraph based on the number of full-time employees of an employer and such other considerations as the Commissioner deems appropriate.

All such plans may be offered under a single contract with the Commissioner.

The Commissioner shall establish a permissible range of variation of cost-sharing for each basic, enhanced, and premium plan, except with respect to any benefit for which there is no cost sharing permitted under the essential benefits package


And it goes on and on and on. This not only creates a problem with a liberal in office but then when a conservative, or other, gets into office the comissioner has a free reign to change the policy as he sees fit.

I thought you had read the bill. The powers of the Health Choices Commissioner are not unlimited. This is despite the fact that the title is mentioned more than once in the bill (as if that was a basis for power).

In fact, the Commissioner's authority is clearly spelled out in section 142 of the Bill, to wit:

SEC. 142. DUTIES AND AUTHORITY OF COMMISSIONER.
(a) DUTIES.—The Commissioner is responsible for
carrying out the following functions under this division:
(1) QUALIFIED PLAN STANDARDS.—The estab
lishment of qualified health benefits plan standards
under this title, including the enforcement of such
standards in coordination with State insurance regu
lators and the Secretaries of Labor and the Treas
ury.
(2) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—The es
tablishment and operation of a Health Insurance
Exchange under subtitle A of title II.
(3) INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABILITY CREDITS.—
The administration of individual affordability credits
under subtitle C of title II, including determination
of eligibility for such credits.
(4) ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS.—Such additional
functions as may be specified in this division.
(b) PROMOTING ACCOUNTABILITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall un
dertake activities in accordance with this subtitle to
promote accountability of QHBP offering entities in
meeting Federal health insurance requirements, regardless of whether such accountability is with re
spect to qualified health benefits plans offered
through the Health Insurance Exchange or outside
of such Exchange.
(2) COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION AND AUDITS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The commissioner
shall, in coordination with States, conduct au
dits of qualified health benefits plan compliance
with Federal requirements. Such audits may in
clude random compliance audits and targeted
audits in response to complaints or other sus
pected non-compliance.
(B) RECOUPMENT OF COSTS IN CONNEC
TION WITH EXAMINATION AND AUDITS.—The
Commissioner is authorized to recoup from
qualified health benefits plans reimbursement
for the costs of such examinations and audit of
such QHBP offering entities.
(c) DATA COLLECTION.—The Commissioner shall
collect data for purposes of carrying out the Commis
sioner’s duties, including for purposes of promoting qual
ity and value, protecting consumers, and addressing dis
parities in health and health care and may share such data
with the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
d) SANCTIONS AUTHORITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case that the Com
missioner determines that a QHBP offering entity
violates a requirement of this title, the Commis
sioner may, in coordination with State insurance
and the Secretary of Labor, provide, in
addition to any other remedies authorized by law,
for any of the remedies described in paragraph (2).
(2) REMEDIES.—The remedies described in this
paragraph, with respect to a qualified health benefits
plan offered by a QHBP offering entity, are—
(A) civil money penalties of not more than
the amount that would be applicable under
similar circumstances for similar violations
under section 1857(g) of the Social Security
Act;
(B) suspension of enrollment of individuals
under such plan after the date the Commis
sioner notifies the entity of a determination
under paragraph (1) and until the Commissioner is satisfied that the basis for such deter
mination has been corrected and is not likely to
recur;
(C) in the case of an Exchange-partici
pating health benefits plan, suspension of pay
ment to the entity under the Health Insurance

Exchange for individuals enrolled in such plan
after the date the Commissioner notifies the en
tity of a determination under paragraph (1)
and until the Secretary is satisfied that the
basis for such determination has been corrected
and is not likely to recur; or
(D) working with State insurance regu
lators to terminate plans for repeated failure by
the offering entity to meet the requirements of
this title.
(e) STANDARD DEFINITIONS OF INSURANCE AND
MEDICAL TERMS.—The Commissioner shall provide for
the development of standards for the definitions of terms
used in health insurance coverage, including insurance-re
lated terms.
(f) EFFICIENCY IN ADMINISTRATION.—The Commis
sioner shall issue regulations for the effective and efficient
administration of the Health Insurance Exchange and af
fordability credits under subtitle C, including, with respect
to the determination of eligibility for affordability credits,
the use of personnel who are employed in accordance with
the requirements of title 5, United States Code, to carry
out the duties of the Commissioner or, in the case of sec
tions 208 and 241(b)(2), the use of State personnel who
are employed in accordance with standards prescribed by
the Office of Personnel Management pursuant to section
208 of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (42
U.S.C. 4728).

Taco John
09-28-2009, 08:52 PM
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.


That explains a lot, and puts a lot of egg on some faces around here - they know who they are.

banyon
09-28-2009, 09:00 PM
That explains a lot, and puts a lot of egg on some faces around here - they know who they are.

Taxation involves the Due Process clause as well. You can review any administrative action Health, taxation, or otherwise, so it makes me wonder about whether this was truly reviewed by a "constitutional law" scholar.

Norman Einstein
09-28-2009, 09:15 PM
No, actually you didn't cover it at all. Whatsoever. That's been the entire thread, people just asking you what claim you wanted refuted and you refusing to clarify that in the least.



I thought you had read the bill. The powers of the Health Choices Commissioner are not unlimited. This is despite the fact that the title is mentioned more than once in the bill (as if that was a basis for power).

In fact, the Commissioner's authority is clearly spelled out in section 142 of the Bill, to wit:

SEC. 142. DUTIES AND AUTHORITY OF COMMISSIONER.
(a) DUTIES.—The Commissioner is responsible for
carrying out the following functions under this division:
(1) QUALIFIED PLAN STANDARDS.—The estab
lishment of qualified health benefits plan standards
under this title, including the enforcement of such
standards in coordination with State insurance regu
lators and the Secretaries of Labor and the Treas
ury.
(2) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—The es
tablishment and operation of a Health Insurance
Exchange under subtitle A of title II.
(3) INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABILITY CREDITS.—
The administration of individual affordability credits
under subtitle C of title II, including determination
of eligibility for such credits.
(4) ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS.—Such additional
functions as may be specified in this division.
(b) PROMOTING ACCOUNTABILITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall un
dertake activities in accordance with this subtitle to
promote accountability of QHBP offering entities in
meeting Federal health insurance requirements, regardless of whether such accountability is with re
spect to qualified health benefits plans offered
through the Health Insurance Exchange or outside
of such Exchange.
(2) COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION AND AUDITS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The commissioner
shall, in coordination with States, conduct au
dits of qualified health benefits plan compliance
with Federal requirements. Such audits may in
clude random compliance audits and targeted
audits in response to complaints or other sus
pected non-compliance.
(B) RECOUPMENT OF COSTS IN CONNEC
TION WITH EXAMINATION AND AUDITS.—The
Commissioner is authorized to recoup from
qualified health benefits plans reimbursement
for the costs of such examinations and audit of
such QHBP offering entities.
(c) DATA COLLECTION.—The Commissioner shall
collect data for purposes of carrying out the Commis
sioner’s duties, including for purposes of promoting qual
ity and value, protecting consumers, and addressing dis
parities in health and health care and may share such data
with the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
d) SANCTIONS AUTHORITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case that the Com
missioner determines that a QHBP offering entity
violates a requirement of this title, the Commis
sioner may, in coordination with State insurance
and the Secretary of Labor, provide, in
addition to any other remedies authorized by law,
for any of the remedies described in paragraph (2).
(2) REMEDIES.—The remedies described in this
paragraph, with respect to a qualified health benefits
plan offered by a QHBP offering entity, are—
(A) civil money penalties of not more than
the amount that would be applicable under
similar circumstances for similar violations
under section 1857(g) of the Social Security
Act;
(B) suspension of enrollment of individuals
under such plan after the date the Commis
sioner notifies the entity of a determination
under paragraph (1) and until the Commissioner is satisfied that the basis for such deter
mination has been corrected and is not likely to
recur;
(C) in the case of an Exchange-partici
pating health benefits plan, suspension of pay
ment to the entity under the Health Insurance

Exchange for individuals enrolled in such plan
after the date the Commissioner notifies the en
tity of a determination under paragraph (1)
and until the Secretary is satisfied that the
basis for such determination has been corrected
and is not likely to recur; or
(D) working with State insurance regu
lators to terminate plans for repeated failure by
the offering entity to meet the requirements of
this title.
(e) STANDARD DEFINITIONS OF INSURANCE AND
MEDICAL TERMS.—The Commissioner shall provide for
the development of standards for the definitions of terms
used in health insurance coverage, including insurance-re
lated terms.
(f) EFFICIENCY IN ADMINISTRATION.—The Commis
sioner shall issue regulations for the effective and efficient
administration of the Health Insurance Exchange and af
fordability credits under subtitle C, including, with respect
to the determination of eligibility for affordability credits,
the use of personnel who are employed in accordance with
the requirements of title 5, United States Code, to carry
out the duties of the Commissioner or, in the case of sec
tions 208 and 241(b)(2), the use of State personnel who
are employed in accordance with standards prescribed by
the Office of Personnel Management pursuant to section
208 of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (42
U.S.C. 4728).

I clearly said I wasn't in this to argue, your only game plan is to waste your time trying to convince others to be liberal. You fail.

Have fun with your adolesent attacks on the right or whom ever it is you want to insult or intimidate.

The commissioner clearly has more power than you are willing to admit. Enjoy your kool aid.

banyon
09-28-2009, 09:24 PM
I clearly said I wasn't in this to argue, your only game plan is to waste your time trying to convince others to be liberal. You fail.

Have fun with your adolesent attacks on the right or whom ever it is you want to insult or intimidate.

The commissioner clearly has more power than you are willing to admit. Enjoy your kool aid.

Man, that's really a great point you made. You clearly demonstrated how you were interested in an enlightened discussion about the facts.

Norman Einstein
09-28-2009, 09:26 PM
Man, that's really a great point you made. You clearly demonstrated how you were interested in an enlightened discussion about the facts.

Your definition of enlightened isn't quite on the up and up. You continually prove all you want to do is argue. Do it with yourself.

Direckshun
09-28-2009, 09:28 PM
I guess you misunderstood my last post. Forget the OP, read HR3200 and explain what you feel is it's merits would be.

Ah, okay. So instead of us really reading anything you've posted or responding to your claim, this is just another "why should we have univeral healthcare" thread.

Pass. I've had that conversation about a thousand times in this forum. If you want to address the bill from a specific angle or, I don't know, with anything, I'll probably be there.

Until then, this thread kind of died.

banyon
09-28-2009, 09:31 PM
Your definition of enlightened isn't quite on the up and up. You continually prove all you want to do is argue. Do it with yourself.

You made a request in your thread title and then wouldn't clarify it. Now you make a vague claim and back away when confronted with the actual text of the legislation, despite your claim that you'd read it.

Color me surprised Tom.

Direckshun
09-28-2009, 09:33 PM
Ah, is this Programmer?

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeexcellent.

Clearly I am quite the loser!

banyon
09-28-2009, 09:44 PM
Ah, is this Programmer?

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeexcellent.

Clearly I am quite the loser!

just an educated guess, it's been about the right amount of time

Pioli Zombie
09-28-2009, 10:25 PM
What are we supposed to refute?
Posted via Mobile Device

banyon
09-28-2009, 10:35 PM
What are we supposed to refute?
Posted via Mobile Device

Don't ask, you'll be accused of ""arguing".

|Zach|
09-28-2009, 10:51 PM
http://www.movementarian.com/wp-content/spaceballs_large_15.jpg

alnorth
09-28-2009, 10:54 PM
What are we supposed to refute?
Posted via Mobile Device

I was a bit confused too. I thought this thread would have some sort of concise specific accusation which the OP would want someone to research to disprove or come up with some sort of counter. Instead I see a bunch of vague yammering.

|Zach|
09-28-2009, 11:01 PM
I was a bit confused too. I thought this thread would have some sort of concise specific accusation which the OP would want someone to research to disprove or come up with some sort of counter. Instead I see a bunch of vague yammering.

Refute it.

Reaper16
09-28-2009, 11:31 PM
Ah, is this Programmer?

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeexcellent.

Clearly I am quite the loser!
I first thought so like a month ago. Its the Navy reference in the username. So far, the user has done a good job of not melting down.

Direckshun
09-29-2009, 01:04 AM
I first thought so like a month ago. Its the Navy reference in the username. So far, the user has done a good job of not melting down.

So did Programmer for a while there.

Then, he melted down. Thread after thread after thread.

Calling us all quite the losers!

|Zach|
09-29-2009, 01:59 PM
So did Programmer for a while there.

Then, he melted down. Thread after thread after thread.

Calling us all quite the losers!

I am still waiting for a letter from his lawyer.

Brock
09-29-2009, 02:02 PM
HA! Yep, it certainly sounds like him. It won't take long to figure it out for sure.