Michael Connelly is a retired attorney, constitutional law instructor, Army veteran, and author.
When I first read HR 3200 in its entirety several months ago I was appalled at the blatant disregard in the bill of the basic tenets of our Constitutional form of government. However, I underestimated what is actually being done to us. The newest version of HR 3200 that has been labeled the Pelosi Bill is the original bill on steroids. It is the most “in your face” challenge to the American people as a whole that has ever occurred. While Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama continue to reassure the American people about what the bill will do, the proof is there in black and white.
We are about to lose our Republic because this latest version of HR 3200 takes away our freedom to make our own choices in areas such as what type of insurance we want to have, (if any), how much we are willing and able to pay for insurance, which doctors we choose to take care of us, and what type of treatment we can choose based on our doctor’s recommendations. All of these decisions will now be made by federal bureaucrats in Washington who don’t know us and don’t care about us as individuals.
These decisions will be made by the Secretary of Health and Human Services based on the recommendations of an advisory panel chaired by the Surgeon General, who is appointed by the President, and made up of nine members who are not Federal employees or officers that are also appointed by the President. There are nine more members who are not Federal employees or officers who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States and there will also be up to eight more members who are Federal employees or officers and are appointed by Obama.
In addition, everything I mentioned in my first article on HR 3200 is still there although additional attempts have been made to hide them. For example, there will be rationing of health care, programs for seniors will be drastically cut, and there will be programs available for illegal aliens since all they have to show is that they are “residents” of the United States. There will also be instant access available to your medical and financial records under the provisions of Section 1173A on page 76.
There are also numerous new taxes being imposed to pay for all of this and of course there are the fines that are imposed on people who don’t get health either health insurance or government approved health insurance.
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 9 that grants the Congress the right to strip the states and individuals of the United States of their rights and powers in this area. There are no Supreme Court decisions that authorize it either under the commerce clause or the General Welfare Clause of that article.
[T]his alleged health care bill and a number of other bills in Congress are designed to establish a form of government that is even worse than the one the Constitution was designed to protect us from.
Question: Why won’t the left — that same left that raged about constitutionality all these past eight years — call HR3200 what it is?
And those who wrote it what they are.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector on 11/15 @ 4:43 pm #
He’s read all of HR 3200.
That qualifies him for higher office right there.
Comment by Jeffersonian on 11/15 @ 4:49 pm #
Why won’t the left — that same left that raged about constitutionality all these past eight years — call HR3200 what it is?
I don’t know which Constitution you’re talking about, but the one the Left works off of guarantees little more than being able to take a blood-gorged crank up the ass, slaughter the unborn and to smash Starbucks windows with impunity, all surely what the Founders intended. Other than that, you can be told what to buy from whomever Congress mandates.
Comment by Pablo on 11/15 @ 5:07 pm #
Everyone should call both of their Senators and explain to them that, under ObamaCare, all of the irate phone calls that are currently placed to recalcitrant insurers will soon be directed to their offices.
Comment by humanity's patriot on 11/15 @ 5:13 pm #
What ever happened to the benevolence of the US?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/falluja-cancer-children-birth-defects
Comment by Darleen on 11/15 @ 5:14 pm #
Why won’t the left — that same left that raged about constitutionality all these past eight years — call HR3200 what it is?
Because re-writing the Constitution as an instrument of fascism is a feature, not a bug, of the Left.
Comment by Darleen on 11/15 @ 5:17 pm #
4.Comment by humanity’s patriot on 11/15 @ 5:13 pm
oh cool, a Saddamite!
Comment by JHo on 11/15 @ 5:18 pm #
humanity’s patriot could ask Saddam about saved lives but he’s kinda quiet lately, Darleen.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector on 11/15 @ 5:37 pm #
I wonder if it really matters what the bill says. I suspect it will expand, like a gas, to fill every unguarded nook and cranny in public life.
Comment by humanity's patriot on 11/15 @ 6:02 pm #
Oh, leaving the children of Iraq deformed is not really any big deal, huh? After all we brought them liberty, right?
Comment by sdferr on 11/15 @ 6:08 pm #
I thought you were shipping out tomorrow to urgently get to Iraq to take care of the deformed children HP? What, you’re not? How is that?
Comment by JHo on 11/15 @ 6:11 pm #
You’re right. The Democrat Supermajority™ should be ashamed.
Comment by alppuccino on 11/15 @ 6:14 pm #
It’s kind of like getting massive funding from the Annenberg Challenge and still letting old people and children freeze to death in their run down tenements. That’s Obama-style compassion, isn’t it hp?
Comment by Darleen on 11/15 @ 6:20 pm #
al
how about the Mrs’s $350,000 non-job to dump patients on the street?
Comment by Plasmodium Pete on 11/15 @ 6:23 pm #
“Falluja’s frontline doctors are reluctant to draw a direct link with the fighting. They instead cite multiple factors that could be contributors.
“These include air pollution, radiation, chemicals, drug use during pregnancy, malnutrition, or the psychological status of the mother,” said Dr Qais. “We simply don’t have the answers yet.”"
IOW, “Humanity’s Patriot” is making shit up trying to blame this on the US.
Comment by AJB on 11/15 @ 6:23 pm #
I have yet to hear a single conservative explain why bureaucrats who work at private insurance companies are intrinsically superior to federal bureaucrats. I can’t help but doubt that Blue Cross executives and employees somehow “know” and “care” about us more as individuals.
Comment by sdferr on 11/15 @ 6:25 pm #
You do have a point there AJB. Nobody gives a shit about you. Why should they after all?
Comment by Salt Lick on 11/15 @ 6:32 pm #
I have yet to hear a single conservative explain why bureaucrats who work at private insurance companies are intrinsically superior to federal bureaucrats.
How often do you change governments, retardo?
Comment by JHo on 11/15 @ 6:34 pm #
All men are created equal, BJ. That said, I’d love to debate your alternative. Might it involve involuntary compliance of some sort? Let’s get started.
I’m betting you could afford that one-way to the EU if you really tried. Maybe take it out of your grant.
Comment by Kresh on 11/15 @ 6:41 pm #
It’s not a matter of care. You can sue BC/Bs. You cannot sue the government. We have methods of redress with corporations. Your buddy and lord, Super Captain Awesome O!, and his superfriends will make sure we have no redress against the govt insurance. It’s how those only interested in power do things. They control us, and we can fuck off.
I’m waiting for a socialist to explain when they’re going to drop the pretense of actually caring about people. A bill this size is nothing more than a naked powergrab. I could reform the medical industry better with a 3-page bill, and two of those pages would be shout-outs to my PW homies.
When you socialist turds actually start to care about people, you’ll find that your bills are much smaller, more consise, and consist of far less fellatio of special interest groups. Of course, you’d actually have to care about people, and we know that ain’t happening.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector on 11/15 @ 6:41 pm #
IOW, “Humanity’s Patriot” is making shit up trying to blame this on the US.
Just as sure as he wasn’t bothering to suppress a yawn back when it was Saddam putting the screws to those people.
Comment by SGT Ted on 11/15 @ 6:43 pm #
The private employees of an private insurance firm are inherently superior because they won’t attempt to put you in jail if you decide to not purchase their product. Also, theres a better chance of a private employee actually being fired if they are incompetent.
There. That was easy. NEXT!
What makes you think that any Government employee will actually give a shit about you? Are you really stupid enough to think that they will?
Comment by newrouter on 11/15 @ 6:43 pm #
“why bureaucrats who work at private insurance companies are intrinsically superior to federal bureaucrats.”
cleveland clinic vs the vets administration
fedex vs the post office
amtrak vs bnsf
allegheny power vs tva
blue cross vs medicare
Comment by The Sanity Inspector on 11/15 @ 6:49 pm #
Over the years, I’ve had to leg-wrestle with both my health insurance company and with the IRS. It took persistence but I was able to get through to someone at the insurance company who a) knew what was going on outside their cubicle, b) had authority to fix my problem, and c) gave enough of a damn to do so. In my mercifully minor dealings with the IRS, they didn’t lack customer service skills, but no one would take ownership of my problem. It’s hard for me to see how Pelosi-care would pan out any differently. There are good, conscientious workers in every department of the public sector, of course. But somehow I doubt they will be the ones setting the tone of this new government entity.
Comment by happyfeet on 11/15 @ 6:58 pm #
Peter Galbraith is something of a corrupt cocksucking dirty socialist whore it seems.
Comment by Snowcone on 11/15 @ 7:42 pm #
Another fact-free wingnut “expert” post to wee wee yourselves to?
The wingnut says:
By the way, if you are wondering how many medical professionals are required to be members of this advisory panel that will decide on the type of healthcare you can get, the answer is none.
The section he cites says:
at least one practicing physician or other health professional
Wee wee!!!11!11!!
Comment by geoffb on 11/15 @ 7:45 pm #
We are the Progressives and we approve this (HR 3200) message.
That is why. It was never about “constitutionality”. It has always been about who controls, orders who. Powah, seductive, addictive, the drug of their choice.
Comment by Jeffersonian on 11/15 @ 7:45 pm #
I have yet to hear a single conservative explain why bureaucrats who work at private insurance companies are intrinsically superior to federal bureaucrats.
Because they have to be. When bureaucrats fuck up, they get more funding.
Comment by Jeffersonian on 11/15 @ 7:49 pm #
The Deceiver has an interesting comment about Teleprompter Jesus and what he considered, during the campaign, to be the most important policy difference between himself and Hillary:
“Uh, uh, Senator Clinton has a different approach. She believes that we have to, uh, force people who don’t have health insurance to buy it. Otherwise, there will be a lot of people who don’t get it. I don’t see those folks, and I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you’re gonna mandate, uh, the purchase of insurance and it’s not affordable, then there’s gonna have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses, and they may charge people who already don’t have health care fines, or have to take it out of their paychecks. And that, I don’t think is helping those without health insurance. That is a genuine difference.”
To which The Deciver adds:
“Remember, this was the most important policy difference between him and Hillary. Out of everything they didn’t agree on, that’s the one thing he wanted you to know about.
That’s why ObamaCare will charge you fines for not having health care. The purchase of insurance will be mandated. Uh, people who don’t have health insurance will be forced to buy it.
And our leaders couldn’t be happier about it…”
Comment by Mr. Pink on 11/15 @ 7:50 pm #
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDAq5tyfk9E
Comment by Mr. Pink on 11/15 @ 8:00 pm #
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_N1OjGhIFc&feature=related
dammit 29 didn’t work.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector on 11/15 @ 8:30 pm #
#25 Snowcone: You’re right this time. Guess he had a MEGO moment, reading that thing.
Comment by ThomasD on 11/15 @ 8:40 pm #
Look it’s snowclown!
Dance for us monkey, dance!
Comment by Jeffersonian on 11/15 @ 8:48 pm #
#25 Snowcone: You’re right this time. Guess he had a MEGO moment, reading that thing.
Not to mention it’s futile and stupid to argue chapter and verse of this monstrosity. It’s like The Blob: You can lop off a temporary pseudopod, but the beast still rages on and, anyway, the bit you’ve lopped off will rejoin the host in time. The real issue here is giving the Central State dominion over every American’s body (minus uteruses at certain times).
Comment by Darleen on 11/15 @ 9:18 pm #
Wait! Next up he’ll tell us he’s read the whole constitution!
at least he doesn’t consider it toilet paper, like you do, RD/meya
Comment by Hvy Mtl Hntr on 11/15 @ 9:25 pm #
HR3200 reads more like Nazi Pelosi’s “final solution” for the conservatives standing between her vision of Amerika, and life as we knew it.
Comment by Joe on 11/15 @ 9:36 pm #
Here is some good news, Lindsay Graham is imploding.
Comment by Snowcone's Battery Operated Vibrator on 11/15 @ 10:38 pm #
“Another fact-free wingnut “expert” post to wee wee yourselves to?”
Hey snotshit why haven’t you taken up the numerous suggestions here to kill yourself and make the world a better place? You are a useless sack of shit.
Comment by SBP on 11/15 @ 11:11 pm #
Why don’t you explain to us again about Obama’s AWESOME knowledge of Japanese protocol, SFAG?
Heh.
Comment by SBP on 11/15 @ 11:12 pm #
OT: another day, another FAIL for Obama.
Comment by ghost707 on 11/15 @ 11:57 pm #
Here is some good news, Lindsay Graham is imploding.
Good. He needs to go under the Obama bus, with the rest of the discarded ex-Obama flakey, fringe fuck supporters.
Comment by B Moe on 11/16 @ 1:56 am #
So typos are a sign of incompetence now? I don’t that is a precedent you want to establish here, meya.
Comment by JHo on 11/16 @ 6:09 am #
meya’s questioning anyone not a law-yer is noted, B Moe. We need our leaders and superiors, after all, especially when they help us understand our rights and, er, privileges.
Think of it as an ordained reader. With snark, which keeps it oh so entertaining.
I’m concluding that the Commerce Clause covers darn near
everythinganything, but I’m waiting for our resident expert to lay out just how that all works. Then we can be sure.Law-yers — and their budding versions, called law stoodents — are valuable members of productive society, B Moe. They rarely conflict interests, especially in Congresses and other, high-functioning, deliberative bodies of thought.
Pingback by Of, By, and For the People [JHoward] on 11/16 @ 6:18 am #
[...] It’s as good for us as they say it is! Posted by JHoward @ 6:14 am | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Of, By, and For the People [...]
Comment by Rusty on 11/16 @ 6:25 am #
339
More than you. At least her knows the history behind it.
Comment by B Moe on 11/16 @ 6:26 am #
In a series of running arguments I once had on another board with a real, honest-to-God lawyer he kept assuring me he was right because he was a real honest-to-God lawyer and had argued these things in court.
I kept asking him who he argued with in court. He wouldn’t answer.
Comment by B Moe on 11/16 @ 7:22 am #
…you wind up endlessy repeating things like this…
Preconceived notions, lol.
Comment by EJ D on 11/16 @ 8:41 am #
The fact of the matter is there is no case law covering mandated purchases of any product. For the Commerce Clause to apply there has to be, you know, actual commerce. If I chose not to spend my money there’s no actual commerce going on that needs regulating.
Unless, of course, you’re one of those Living Constitution wingnuts that can twist the clause into saying that in the absence of commerce the legislature can mandate it into existence, at the point of a gun.
Because, once you stipulate that, you give the feds the power to control every penny in your pocket. But I guess, in your eyes, that’s a feature, not a bug.
Comment by B Moe on 11/16 @ 9:09 am #
Wickard v. Filburn was a fucking atrocity that only a fascist would defend.
Comment by Squid on 11/16 @ 9:13 am #
You might consider that SFAG has “fascist” right there in her name, BMoe. It’s no secret.
Comment by EJ D on 11/16 @ 9:21 am #
I knew you’d bring up the atrocity that was Wickard v Filburn, but it’s practically irrelevant. It is not a mandate to purchase, which the current law is, it’s a restriction on production. If you can convince yourself that the current court will rule that the Commerce Clause permits the legislature to force you to purchase something, you can convince yourself of anything.
And then you’ll convince yourself that their next law mandating you submit your monthly budget for Fed approval to see if you’re spending the way that you should is a great thing.
Comment by B Moe on 11/16 @ 9:39 am #
It has nothing to do with whether you acknowledge its existence, it is whether you acknowledge its validity. If by recognizing its existence, you also grant it the validity to override the Constitution itself, then yes you are defending it. Don’t try to weasel out of it. The rest of us may recognize its existence, but deny its validity, and demand judges that take their oath to the Constitution enough to flush this shit where it belongs.
Comment by B Moe on 11/16 @ 9:42 am #
Unfortunately I am not as simple as you so that analogy makes no sense. Nobody is required to buy a house. Nobody has ever been arrested for not buying a house. That is what is being proposed right now.
Comment by EJ D on 11/16 @ 9:43 am #
Like I said, the simplest argument is to just look at the tax side of this. If they generally raise taxes on everyone, but then create a tax credit offsetting this for people who buy houses, is that a mandate to buy a house? Is it constitutional to have tax credits that match up with tax increases?
You’re willfully side-stepping what is being addressed, namely the mandate to buy coverage. This is not a tax or tax credit, it is a mandate to spend money they you would not otherwise spend with the penalty being a fine and/or imprisonment.
And it is not covered in any precedent.
Comment by BJTexs on 11/16 @ 9:48 am #
Didn’t Obama state emphatically during his interview with George Stef. that this mandaye wasn’t a tax but a fee?
Kinda kills your whole tap dancing argument there, meya.
Comment by JHo on 11/16 @ 9:53 am #
I appreciate your making #45’s point, meya: There’s a wholly unique and exclusive quality — I mean, there must be — to the constitutional expertise that life in the US demands. We’re indeed fortunate enough to have its uncharlatanizedable, um, penumbra here among us in the form of the anonymous and spare voice of unadulterated constitutional reason and experience.
Did you buy that coupon book of precedents or did the State foot the bill? Either way, that dispensation thing sure is swell! Thanks!
Comment by JD on 11/16 @ 10:06 am #
Meya/RD is only mendoucheous on days that end in “y”.
Comment by JHo on 11/16 @ 10:15 am #
But it’s not mendoucheous when it’s enlightened, JD. The trick is just the right combination of original intent and subsequent
blithering warpageruling. I’d like to see the 9th’s opinions, for example, factor much more forcefully on national constitutional opinion.The founders, contrary to their evident malice and deceit to the contrary, really wanted the Courts to make shit work.
Comment by JD on 11/16 @ 12:01 pm #
That is a lie and you are a liar, meya. Even Barcky says it is not a tax, but a fee. Get your mendacity points straight next time.
Comment by JHo on 11/16 @ 12:11 pm #
And meya would naturally ridicule any questioning of personal tax at this late national hour as lunatic-fringe, thereby demonstrating that such tax is indeed, constitutional.
Oops; silly me, so far behind the argument curve.
Question not the progress of these intervening 240 years, plebes. The ten commandments were decidedly progressive too.
Comment by JHo on 11/16 @ 12:14 pm #
Question for the socialists: Do you approve of a small band of elites determining your life choices?
Give that one some thought because that’s what you propose.
Comment by sdferr on 11/16 @ 12:14 pm #
It seems to me obvious on its face that the founders meant for taxes to be voluntary. Else why would they descry tyranny and proclaim:
Comment by Pablo on 11/16 @ 12:15 pm #
Ah, but Baracky is a liar. It is a tax. And it’s the first tax ever on NOT buying something. ecause of the interstate commerce that happens when you don’t buy something you can’t buy across state lines in the first place. Unless you buy it from Washington, DC.
Comment by B Moe on 11/16 @ 12:16 pm #
So what are waiting on, a cookie?
Comment by Pablo on 11/16 @ 12:18 pm #
And is it just the uterus that maintains sacred and inviolable sovereignty, or are other body parts covered by the right to choose?
Comment by JD on 11/16 @ 12:20 pm #
I concur, Pablo. I was just trying to point out her/its disconnect with Teh One’s message. Personally, I think they are both lying asshats.
Comment by EJ D on 11/16 @ 12:22 pm #
You can call it whatever you like, but it’s a mandate to purchase and is not covered by any legal precedent.
Comment by Pablo on 11/16 @ 12:26 pm #
I concur, JD. If something that isn’t bullshit emanates from meya’s keyboard, it’s an oversight.
Comment by Jeffersonian on 11/16 @ 1:14 pm #
If you know about Wickard, meya, you know about Lopez. The interstate commerce clause is not infinitely flexible.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 11/16 @ 1:58 pm #
I’m intrigued by the notion that arguing that a court is wrong is somehow illegitimate.
Wasn’t it the Supreme Court that stood up and said racial segregation was totally kosher, in spite of the Fourteenth Amendemnt?
Didn’t the Supreme Court later completely reverse itself and make a point of saying that Plessy was complete poppycock?
So why does “the court got it wrong” = Fail?
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 11/16 @ 2:20 pm #
Well that sounds like a handy dodge. Just call every penalty an “income tax” and you’re home free. An income tax which you can avoid by engaging in specially approved behavior. Awesome.
Comment by TM's Goat on 11/16 @ 2:23 pm #
So, either Barcky is lying or meya is lying. I vote both.
Everyone must go buy a GM car, or be punitively taxed, and go to jail if you do not.
Comment by BJTexs on 11/16 @ 2:36 pm #
Thanks, meya, for pointing out the Baracky beclowned himself with George S. on GMA. George was trying to pin him down on the dictionary definition of “taxes” while Baracky dismissed it all as mandated “fees.” Toh May ToH – Toh Mah Toh. Yet another lie.
Beyond that the mandates force individuals who for whatever reason choose not to carry health insurance to either buy a government approved plan or pay taxes and fines. The entire scheme costs way too much and the $700 billion in Medicare cuts (savings) have just been shown to cause, in the future, significant problems for seniors with regards to access, quality of care and availability of services. It is not deficit neutral in any manner, shape or form unless you are stupid enough to believe that the Government can actually achieve real health savings through Medicare fraud cleanup or with a clause that makes it impossible for states to implement anything resembling tort reform.
The rest is just noise.
Comment by SGT Ted on 11/16 @ 3:53 pm #
SO what if they call it a “tax” or a “fee”. What it really is is a fine; punishment for not submitting to the government. It is typical leftwing abuse of language.
Comment by JHo on 11/16 @ 4:19 pm #
What’s gone, meya?
Comment by B Moe on 11/16 @ 4:52 pm #
Yes. Proxies suck, huh meya?
Comment by Rusty on 11/16 @ 6:44 pm #
#73
Any time any form of government takes money from you, it is a tax.
Comment by EJ D on 11/16 @ 7:20 pm #
Preview of things to come: Feds: Breast Cancer Doesn’t Kill Enough Of You To Justify The Testing
In today’s awful system you can safely ignore this advice and proceed to get your mammogram any damn time you feel like it. After meya and her ilk get their hands on your health care these Breast Panels will be deciding what’s best for you peasants, based upon such wonderful things as percentages and costs.
Hell be damned sure, though, that the Feds, their families and the other new aristocrats will continue to ignore that advice as well…
Comment by JHo on 11/16 @ 7:24 pm #
All your missing posts I didn’t remove, Dishonest One.
Comment by SBP on 11/16 @ 7:38 pm #
Poor SFAG.
Comment by SBP on 11/16 @ 7:51 pm #
I mean, all those hours of incompetent crapweaseling just…gone.
She’s never won an argument on here, to the best of my recollection. In fact, she’s a laughingstock.
I think her time would have been better served at some sort of gainful employment, assuming that she’s capable of same (which is a big assumption, to be sure, but anything is possible).
Comment by Rusty on 11/17 @ 6:41 pm #
maya gone? Pity. Not.
Pingback by Pattaya Bars: How They Operate | Pattaya Escort Review ,Pataya Escort comment and Guideline on 11/28 @ 12:14 pm #
[...] A Few Good People to Operate One Good Tyranny. [JHoward] [...]