Tuesday, May 11, 2010

MICHAEL CONNELLY


A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire Healthcare Bill - now voted into law. Read his stunning conclusions.



The Truth About the Health Care Bill
- by Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney


Confirmed by Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/connelly.asp


The Snopes post is an interesting read in and of itself - I recommend you go there and read it.

Regular readers of STORMBRINGER know I normally avoid politics, although I recently changed this posture due to disturbing information regarding Kevin Jennings; Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the Obama Administration's Department of Education. - S.L.




The Truth About the Health Care Bill
- by 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




Never heard of Michael Connelly? Neither have I; but I know who THIS guy is - as far as I'm concerned his words are as valid now as when he spoke them fifty years ago:

video





"If you're not part of the solution,
then you're definitely part of the problem."


This is my way to get involved - Sean Linnane





.

8 comments:

  1. Dad, the Retired Lt. Colonel USAF M.D. with a Masters in Public Health, who ended his career as a Hospital administrator, kicked this back to me in the emails just now. Reckon he'd know better than I as he's been studying this issue pretty intensely for the past 20 years, ever since he got into Hospital Management as an additional duty besides practicing medicine:

    "While some of Connelly's points are technically correct, he's a bit off the mark when discussing rationing of care and other related issues.

    In the US, the market used to handle the rationing (can't afford it? don't get it!) of non-communicable disease care until private and public insurance got in the way. Now, bits of it are done by numerous entities.

    Unless we return to an era of personal responsibility for selecting health care choices and communal support for extraordinary expenses that benefit society as a whole (food and drug safety along with epidemic prevention), then the system will continue to unravel regardless of the payer mix."

    The Health Care Bill was wrong but what we had before was broken, just not UNCONSTITUTIONALLY broken. Returning to individual responsibility is what is needed but then you couldn't be making citizens into serfs so nearly as easily, could you. And the government gobbles up more of our choices and freedoms...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am sure he has as many creds as a constitutional law professor and attorney than our most recent nomination to the Supreme Court. I have a feeling he's not a Harvard law Review star either.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Didn't like the way what I typed read. I'm assuming Paul J is/was referring to Connelly's creds, not my father's. He is a physician that has run major facilities of medical nature in USAF, VA, and Private Sector, even putting in a stint working for a Pharm Co as director of R&D at one point. 45 years in the business.

    The Constitutional issue is ONE thing, the bit about RATIONING is separate. I don't reckon the "Constitutional scholar" ever ran a hospital or system of hospitals, either, nor dealt with the current Byzantine mazes of Medical Billing systems.

    There are functional problems in the pre-existing system and there are functional and Constitutional problems in the forthcoming nightmare that will make it worse as the Leviathan state grows to try to control more and more of the economy. Neither work well on paper OR in PRACTICE.

    Health care insurance had become steadily MORE BROKEN for the past 60 years, coincidentally, that was about when the government first really came into involvement in such things and has progressively gotten more and more involved in things related to health and health care.

    Casualty, Life, & Property are all reasonably good gambles for an Insurance Company and yes, the house usually wins, but if you gamble that you might need coverage that would be catastrophic for you to afford to pay out of pocket and it turns out to be so, then the insurance buyer wins. Actuarial work can make that workable as a business model. And profitable.

    When government started mandating HOW HEALTH INSURANCE would be run and mandated covering people at unrealistic low premiums, often self-destructive people at that, it breaks the ability of the insurance companies to sort out proper premiums.

    So we ended up with a system that isn't really "insurance" at all. It's a THIRD PARTY payer system where it's vaguely like buying an "extended warranty" on a consumer product or car but with free or subsidized maintenance as well(i.e. office visits and routine procedures) along with huge amounts of government regulation as to how one can proceed in business. That is NOT INSURANCE in a free market sense by any stretch of the imagination. It also prevents hospitals and physicians from operating as if they were in anything close to a free market.

    It's a government regulated third party health care payment system that might be compared to perhaps "mandated health care savings by individuals and employers for future possible health needs, sort of...". Then you throw in the free riders, unemployed, people that never had any savings or jobs, and illegals on top of that along with the government sponsored health benefits that already existed prior to 2010, along with the fact that it's more or less against the law for hospitals to refuse service even to indigent people, and it was nothing at all close to ANY REASONABLE IDEA OF INSURANCE as insurance is commonly understood to function before this recent further screwing of the pooch.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow! Thanks, SL. Cross-posted at Free Republic:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2511756/posts?page=1

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here is the thing, two wrongs don't make it right. Supporters of the bill can't say that under the old system we had rationing and those who deserved no insurance such as foreign squatters or those who did not work and play by the rules were getting health care anyhow by back door forcing the rest of us to be denied our rights and having us pay indirectly and rationing , so therefore supporters of Obama care can screw it up even more in the name of good faith that a new plan or any plan is better even though we all know its more of the same and worse. If any thing needs to be fixed, it surly is not our constitutional rights, the right to purchase goods and services such as care and insurance under a free economic system, where people- individuals are allowed to choose what they work for and what they do with their own money, as opposed a dictator style government where people who don't work, people who make stupid choices or don't belong in the country, are given the fruits and labor of citizens or those who do work if it fits with the political engineering game plan for the party in power to stayed empowered by mob rule of the masses of people they wish to invite to the country from every undeserving providence on the planet to pillage the harvest of the american worker. Its never been about health care at all, because in the end we all die under any plan man can dream up. Its about who pays, how much we can earn and what we can do with the fruits of our own labor. Two wrongs don't make a right, if the old system was broken that's no excuse to fine citizens for not obeying a new plan, an inviting more non citizens into to an equally broken plan. Why wasn't the free market trade of insurance across state lines or tort reform put on the table to give both the individuals and drs more freedom instead of bonding everyone in chains like slaves to a dictator style government literally under the deception of improvement, where now we has humans will be taxed in every aspect of our lives including even just breathing? If that ain't wrong then I don't what is!

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's wrong, just like the upcoming legislation is going to be wrong. But it appears that there is not anything the American Public can do about it.

    When the government and/or our Representatives do not heed our collective will and are not afraid of losing their jobs...then at that point the government is illegitimate.

    And must be corrected. But knowing exactly when and how is the question now before the American People.

    Everyone needs to think hard and not too long on those two questions.

    Papa Ray

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nice to be visiting your blog again, it has been months for me. Well this article that i’ve been waited for so long. I need this article to complete my assignment in the college, and it has same topic with your article. Thanks, fantastic share.
    Milan Hotels

    ReplyDelete