It doesn’t get much clearer than this from a Constitutional scholar. And now they are thinking of ways to slip it through without anyone, including the Senators and members of Congress having a chance to read it!
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.
via The Truth About the Health Care Bills – Connelly.
We must keep the pressure on the members of Congress and our Senators! We really need at least two weeks of public posting on the Internet to allow us to read it and to allow the people who are elected to vote on it to read it and to hear from we the people before they cast their vote. We cannot allow uninformed legislators to be voting on such important matters when we would advise any friend to read every document before they sign it! It is simple common sense.
yeah, I was wondering how the whole “buy health insurance or be fined” was constitutional.
yeah, I was wondering how the whole “buy health insurance or be fined” was constitutional.
What should be unconstitutional is letting your citizens die in disgrace.
MARTIN, that’s a pathetic excuse to socialize medicine. So, what’s next? Food? Will it be unconstitutional for you not to eat because YOU can’t force another to feed you? Laughable ill-logic!
I’ll keep this as simple as possible:
First of all, health care is not a ‘right’ and NO ONE is owed it. Each person must pay for it themselves. Like any other basic human need, there can be public assistance locally, starting with your family and going outward to your community, but absolutely no further than your State.
*For the small percentage of people who cannot pay: Americans, in general, are charitable people and many actually have a passion to help people in this way. Enacting federal laws that force people to pay for others FOR ANYTHING is criminal.
Secondly, government has no business running (in other words, *ruining*) businesses, of course.
This bill is incredibly unconstitutional… there is so much wrong with it if one actually reads and understands it. Have you and do you? It Doesn’t seem like it.
Also, if the 10th Amendment was followed, we would actually need to abolish all laws that violate it. This would help resolve other issues as well, such as our screwed-up gubment school system. Did you attend public school? Seems like it…
We need to strictly adhere to our Constitution. Get over your Marxist brainwashing, if it’s possible.
What should be unconstitutional is letting your citizens die in disgrace.
MARTIN, that’s a pathetic excuse to socialize medicine. So, what’s next? Food? Will it be unconstitutional for you not to eat because YOU can’t force another to feed you? Laughable ill-logic!
I’ll keep this as simple as possible:
First of all, health care is not a ‘right’ and NO ONE is owed it. Each person must pay for it themselves. Like any other basic human need, there can be public assistance locally, starting with your family and going outward to your community, but absolutely no further than your State.
*For the small percentage of people who cannot pay: Americans, in general, are charitable people and many actually have a passion to help people in this way. Enacting federal laws that force people to pay for others FOR ANYTHING is criminal.
Secondly, government has no business running (in other words, *ruining*) businesses, of course.
This bill is incredibly unconstitutional… there is so much wrong with it if one actually reads and understands it. Have you and do you? It Doesn’t seem like it.
Also, if the 10th Amendment was followed, we would actually need to abolish all laws that violate it. This would help resolve other issues as well, such as our screwed-up gubment school system. Did you attend public school? Seems like it…
We need to strictly adhere to our Constitution. Get over your Marxist brainwashing, if it’s possible.
… As this bill wants to happen. We agree on this! unfortunately, you still don’t know what I’m talking about here…
yay for death counseling. may everyone NOT get the health care they need, and they die feeling happy because they were counseled first.
^I’m talking about rationing… if you didn’t get that.
… As this bill wants to happen. We agree on this! unfortunately, you still don’t know what I’m talking about here…
yay for death counseling. may everyone NOT get the health care they need, and they die feeling happy because they were counseled first.
^I’m talking about rationing… if you didn’t get that.
We have a tenther everyone….use big words, scare small people. Are you a birther too?
If you really think the gov’t is going to tell you when you can die or when someone in your family can die than I cannot talk to you. I have read that part of the bill and how you get that from there means you probably are still choosing your own adventure.
LOL Like I indicated above MARTIN; you obviously don’t know what the hell you’re talking about– Or perhaps you do, according to your brainwashing. My information is sound and based on facts and common sense– apparently you can’t challenge them in like manner.
It’s clear that you don’t understand the bill and I seriously doubt that you’ve read or studied much of it. Seems to me that you believe whatever you’re told– not just about HR 3200, but about ‘Tenthers’, ‘Birthers’ and every sound position based on facts and valid historical documentation (or, lack thereof). Talk about choosing your own adventure– you’re coming from a position of transference (um, yeah, that basically means you’re accusing me of your own faults).
Big words? Where? Scaring small people? How? Your own comments even define you and demonstrate by your accusations that the problem is with you and your own ignorance.
I don’t expect you to have the capability at this point to comprehend my words, but I’ll try to simplify your one and only point in this comment. The Bill is clear about government choosing end of life options. By definition, that means exactly what it says.
I *would have* gone into the details of the Bill, if you were a reasonable person, but I don’t wanna intimidate or confuse you further with ‘big words’ or scare a small person such as yourself.
Go back to sleep Martin; that mean ol’ bogeyman isn’t real after all.
We have a tenther everyone….use big words, scare small people. Are you a birther too?
If you really think the gov’t is going to tell you when you can die or when someone in your family can die than I cannot talk to you. I have read that part of the bill and how you get that from there means you probably are still choosing your own adventure.
LOL Like I indicated above MARTIN; you obviously don’t know what the hell you’re talking about– Or perhaps you do, according to your brainwashing. My information is sound and based on facts and common sense– apparently you can’t challenge them in like manner.
It’s clear that you don’t understand the bill and I seriously doubt that you’ve read or studied much of it. Seems to me that you believe whatever you’re told– not just about HR 3200, but about ‘Tenthers’, ‘Birthers’ and every sound position based on facts and valid historical documentation (or, lack thereof). Talk about choosing your own adventure– you’re coming from a position of transference (um, yeah, that basically means you’re accusing me of your own faults).
Big words? Where? Scaring small people? How? Your own comments even define you and demonstrate by your accusations that the problem is with you and your own ignorance.
I don’t expect you to have the capability at this point to comprehend my words, but I’ll try to simplify your one and only point in this comment. The Bill is clear about government choosing end of life options. By definition, that means exactly what it says.
I *would have* gone into the details of the Bill, if you were a reasonable person, but I don’t wanna intimidate or confuse you further with ‘big words’ or scare a small person such as yourself.
Go back to sleep Martin; that mean ol’ bogeyman isn’t real after all.
(lips trembling)…..does this mean they are going to kill my grandma? I just read it and it specifically says they are going to kill my grandma. Oh no. Should I call her? Tell me tenther..should I? Or birther? Which one do you like? Since you don’t have a name I keep having trouble deciding form which crazy republican theory to get your name from. How come none of those of any traction by the way? Is it the liberal media? HA! It is all so laughable and such a sign of desperation.
I have already read the bill and nowhere does it say that end of life decisions are going to be made by the gov’t. How can you get that from the bill? Are you orly taitz?
Anyhow, I want to read the GOP’s plan. Can you point me there or are you too busy trying to prove something about Obama.
(lips trembling)…..does this mean they are going to kill my grandma? I just read it and it specifically says they are going to kill my grandma. Oh no. Should I call her? Tell me tenther..should I? Or birther? Which one do you like? Since you don’t have a name I keep having trouble deciding form which crazy republican theory to get your name from. How come none of those of any traction by the way? Is it the liberal media? HA! It is all so laughable and such a sign of desperation.
I have already read the bill and nowhere does it say that end of life decisions are going to be made by the gov’t. How can you get that from the bill? Are you orly taitz?
Anyhow, I want to read the GOP’s plan. Can you point me there or are you too busy trying to prove something about Obama.
Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include—
‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes; ‘‘(II) the information needed for an indi-vidual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
‘‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual re-sides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is un-able to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decision-maker (also known as a health
care proxy).
‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and ‘‘(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
‘‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that—
‘‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
‘‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
‘‘(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and
‘‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stake-holders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.
‘(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.
‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order. ‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that—
‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;
‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
‘‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Martin, what does this say?
It means that unless you have an “order” to keep you alive, they don’t have to if you’re old. it means that it’s no longer their job to keep you ALIVE. they let you die, save the money, and screw you over… well, your family, anyway.
Martin, without asking the Huffington Post: can you tell me how this is constitutional?
Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include—
‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes; ‘‘(II) the information needed for an indi-vidual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
‘‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual re-sides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is un-able to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decision-maker (also known as a health
care proxy).
‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and ‘‘(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
‘‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that—
‘‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
‘‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
‘‘(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and
‘‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stake-holders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.
‘(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.
‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order. ‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that—
‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;
‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
‘‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Martin, what does this say?
It means that unless you have an “order” to keep you alive, they don’t have to if you’re old. it means that it’s no longer their job to keep you ALIVE. they let you die, save the money, and screw you over… well, your family, anyway.
Martin, without asking the Huffington Post: can you tell me how this is constitutional?
‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items—
‘‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’’.
If they want to reform things, I think most Americans are for that. Create a marketplace for buying insurance? great. tort reform? great. things DO need to be fixed. things like what I posted in this post have NO PLACE in a “reform” because they’re “fundamentally changing” the system, not just reforming it. the government should have NO SAY in whether or not your treatments are limited. that’s a personal and family decision.
Martin, riddle me this: If you’re crying in the woods and no one hears you, are you still crying?
‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items—
‘‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’’.
If they want to reform things, I think most Americans are for that. Create a marketplace for buying insurance? great. tort reform? great. things DO need to be fixed. things like what I posted in this post have NO PLACE in a “reform” because they’re “fundamentally changing” the system, not just reforming it. the government should have NO SAY in whether or not your treatments are limited. that’s a personal and family decision.
Martin, riddle me this: If you’re crying in the woods and no one hears you, are you still crying?