Jump to content






Photo

Health Care Bill Passed


  • Please log in to reply
188 replies to this topic

#166 rpo

rpo

    Hall Of Famer

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,336 posts

Posted 03 April 2010 - 07:14 AM

QUOTE (Chris @ Apr 2 2010, 07:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So you are biased....? Glad to see you finally come clean....! Drudge is good as he has lots of links to news from the left and the right. Please keep that open mind you libs are so fond of saying you have.....! Check out all the links on Drudge and you will be able to form your own opinion. After all if he posts links up to the NY newspapers so he must have a sense of humor to say the least....! Chris



Wow......did you not see the part where I said I had found that article earlier after reading Drudge? You jump to conclusions in an attempt to put down anyone you deem to be more liberal than you that you ignore the facts.

#167 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 04 April 2010 - 10:44 AM

QUOTE (rpo @ Apr 3 2010, 08:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Wow......did you not see the part where I said I had found that article earlier after reading Drudge? You jump to conclusions in an attempt to put down anyone you deem to be more liberal than you that you ignore the facts.


Sorry for the long read, but here is a letter written by a retired attorney and constitutional law professor.

Snopes verified

QUOTE
The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney

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 by the government.

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 direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a 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, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas

The parts in red were in red in the email that was forwarded to me.

Snopes does acknowledge this letter was written in the summer, so it's hard to know if everything he mentioned is in the final version signed into law by Obama.
I would rather be Backpacking


#168 bordercolliefan

bordercolliefan

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,596 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Natoma Station

Posted 04 April 2010 - 01:31 PM

QUOTE (Bill Z @ Apr 4 2010, 11:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Sorry for the long read, but here is a letter written by a retired attorney and constitutional law professor.


I suspect what this proves is that pretty much anyone can become a "constitutional law instructor" somewhere.

I think it is no accident that he doesn't identify the institution of higher learning where he peddles his fear-mongering-- er, I mean, scholarship.

As far as I've read, nearly every legal expert who has looked at the precedents has concluded that the state lawsuits claiming the law is unconstitutional will almost surely fail. They say the Supreme Court would have to throw out decades of precedents in order to rule this bill unconstitutional. We'll see... we have a far more conservative court now than at any time in the last half-century, so maybe these justices will be willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater...

#169 Inwit

Inwit

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 854 posts

Posted 05 April 2010 - 10:35 AM

QUOTE (bordercolliefan @ Apr 4 2010, 02:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I suspect what this proves is that pretty much anyone can become a "constitutional law instructor" somewhere. Wow, one lawyer so easily dissing another.

I think it is no accident that he doesn't identify the institution of higher learning where he peddles his fear-mongering-- er, I mean, scholarship. Ye of little effort in searching for the truth, please see below

As far as I've read, nearly every legal expert who has looked at the precedents has concluded that the state lawsuits claiming the law is unconstitutional will almost surely fail. They say the Supreme Court would have to throw out decades of precedents in order to rule this bill unconstitutional. We'll see... we have a far more conservative court now than at any time in the last half-century, so maybe these justices will be willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater...



his online resume reads:

QUOTE
MICHAEL R. CONNELLY

EDUCATION
· 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.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
MILITARY:
· 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.

LEGAL:
· 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.

n. 1. Inward sense; mind; understanding; conscience.

#170 bordercolliefan

bordercolliefan

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,596 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Natoma Station

Posted 05 April 2010 - 11:23 AM

Exactly.

Sorry, but these are very unimpressive credentials. I'm not being snobby, I'm just saying, this guy is not some powerhouse thinker.

You might as well ask any lawyer in Folsom his or her opinion of the new law.

The fact that this guy's opinions are at odds with so many renowned scholars should give one pause.

But hey... maybe he's a closet genius and all those Harvard types are wrong. Who knows.

#171 curiousity

curiousity

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 592 posts

Posted 05 April 2010 - 12:53 PM

QUOTE (bordercolliefan @ Apr 5 2010, 12:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Exactly.

Sorry, but these are very unimpressive credentials. I'm not being snobby, I'm just saying, this guy is not some powerhouse thinker.

You might as well ask any lawyer in Folsom his or her opinion of the new law.

The fact that this guy's opinions are at odds with so many renowned scholars should give one pause.

But hey... maybe he's a closet genius and all those Harvard types are wrong. Who knows.

lmao.gif

Thanks for the good laugh.

"I'm not being snobby" and "Harvard types" in the same breath.


#172 bordercolliefan

bordercolliefan

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,596 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Natoma Station

Posted 05 April 2010 - 01:08 PM

QUOTE (curiousity @ Apr 5 2010, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
lmao.gif

Thanks for the good laugh.

"I'm not being snobby" and "Harvard types" in the same breath.


Glad I made you laugh -- I don't claim to be a "Harvard type," so I'm not taking it personally!

Sigh, all I'm saying is, when I read a professor from Harvard or some-such being quoted in the New York Times, I give it a little more weight than Professor, oops I mean "Instructor Good ole boy" from Lousiana State.

If that makes me a snob, then so be it. That said, I do realize that sometimes great ideas come from unlikely sources.

#173 curiousity

curiousity

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 592 posts

Posted 05 April 2010 - 01:21 PM

QUOTE (bordercolliefan @ Apr 5 2010, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Glad I made you laugh -- I don't claim to be a "Harvard type," so I'm not taking it personally!

Sigh, all I'm saying is, when I read a professor from Harvard or some-such being quoted in the New York Times, I give it a little more weight than Professor, oops I mean "Instructor Good ole boy" from Lousiana State.

If that makes me a snob, then so be it. That said, I do realize that sometimes great ideas come from unlikely sources.

See, that is where we differ. If I hear the opinion is from some Harvard Grad, then I'm more likely to think it's from some "rich SOB, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, never worked a hard day in his life, doesn't know what the real world is like for the majority of this country" and I'm inclined to give his opinion less credence.

#174 bordercolliefan

bordercolliefan

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,596 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Natoma Station

Posted 05 April 2010 - 01:27 PM

QUOTE (curiousity @ Apr 5 2010, 02:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
See, that is where we differ. If I hear the opinion is from some Harvard Grad, then I'm more likely to think it's from some "rich SOB, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, never worked a hard day in his life, doesn't know what the real world is like for the majority of this country" and I'm inclined to give his opinion less credence.


You might be surprised to learn that 70% of Harvard students are on financial aid.

http://www.fas.harva...-03302009.shtml


Sounds like we each have our own stereotypes. smile.gif

#175 The Average Joe

The Average Joe

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,155 posts

Posted 05 April 2010 - 09:46 PM

here is the pertinent paragraph in your link...

In December 2007, Harvard announced a sweeping change in financial aid for middle and upper-middle income families, establishing a zero-to-10 percent of income contribution standard for families with incomes up to $180,000 a year and typical assets, removing home equity from financial aid calculations, and eliminating loans for all students. Nearly 25 percent of the admitted group are eligible for the original Harvard Financial Aid Initiative, which asks for no parental contribution from those with annual incomes under $60,000 and reduces contributions from families with incomes of $60,000 to $80,000.

70% of all students receive some aid

25% are eligible for aid in the "under 80k per year category"

Which means that 75% of all students families make over 80k a year, and 30% can afford to pay the 212k 4 year tuition outright. They are hardly paupers...

Count me with curiosity on the entitled Harvard class...

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive" -- C.S. Lewis

 

If the only way to combat "global warming" was to lower taxes, we would never hear of the issue again. - Anonymous

 

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" — Thomas Paine, 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 (1776)

 


#176 bordercolliefan

bordercolliefan

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,596 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Natoma Station

Posted 06 April 2010 - 06:13 AM

QUOTE (JBailey @ Apr 5 2010, 10:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Which means that 75% of all students families make over 80k a year,


Wouldn't you think that mirrors society as a whole? Don't you think that at least 75% of families with college age kids probably make at least 80k per year? These would be adult couples in their 50's...


#177 The Average Joe

The Average Joe

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,155 posts

Posted 06 April 2010 - 06:44 AM

ummm...no.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive" -- C.S. Lewis

 

If the only way to combat "global warming" was to lower taxes, we would never hear of the issue again. - Anonymous

 

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" — Thomas Paine, 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 (1776)

 


#178 curiousity

curiousity

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 592 posts

Posted 06 April 2010 - 07:45 AM

QUOTE (bordercolliefan @ Apr 6 2010, 07:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Wouldn't you think that mirrors society as a whole? Don't you think that at least 75% of families with college age kids probably make at least 80k per year? These would be adult couples in their 50's...

As Jbailey said, "Um, NO".

QUOTE
In 2007, the "real" (adjusted for inflation) median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00


median, that means 50% of our nation made $50K or less. That's a far cry from 75% or more make >$80K.

Your view may reflect Folsom Demographics, but that's a far cry from most of our nation.

#179 bordercolliefan

bordercolliefan

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,596 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Natoma Station

Posted 06 April 2010 - 09:10 AM

QUOTE (curiousity @ Apr 6 2010, 08:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As Jbailey said, "Um, NO".



median, that means 50% of our nation made $50K or less. That's a far cry from 75% or more make >$80K.

Your view may reflect Folsom Demographics, but that's a far cry from most of our nation.


But remember, your household income figure includes couples in their 20's who are just starting out.

By the time a couple has kids in college, they are usually in their late 40's or early 50's -- i.e., near their highest lifetime earning level. So, on average they would be well above the median.

#180 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 06 April 2010 - 11:26 AM

QUOTE (bordercolliefan @ Apr 6 2010, 10:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But remember, your household income figure includes couples in their 20's who are just starting out.

By the time a couple has kids in college, they are usually in their late 40's or early 50's -- i.e., near their highest lifetime earning level. So, on average they would be well above the median.

Maybe you would like to present some evidence in support of that. $50K per year translates into a $24/hour pay scale. I don't know the percentage of dual income to single income households, but I do know that for single income households, no college degrees, earning >$24/hour isn't as common as you might think. Heck, average age of workers at my facility is >40 years. The majority of the staff do not have college. And I don't think any of the non-educated make $20/hour. I know the average technician wage is ~ $26/hour and that's for a 2 year degree or equivalent type job. Oh yeah, and most of these guys are 20+ years in the industry, aka highly experienced technicians.
I would rather be Backpacking





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users