Why ObamaCare (H.R. 3590) is Unconstitutional:
- The federal government has no authority under Article One, Section Eight the Constitution to force citizens to purchase insurance from for-profit corrupt corporations. The pretense by some elected officials that health care can be regulated uner the The Commerce Clause is also bogus. The commerce cause is only relevant to commerce between states, and was intended to ensure regular commerce between the states of the union.
- Many elected officials are saying ObamaCare is Constitutional just because there is not The federal government cannot artibrarily make up its own powers just because the Constitution does not say the government cannot regulate health care. This turns the constitution on its head. It is a ridiculous pretense that government is all powerful by default unless a power is explicitly denied. The founders predicted efforts of this type to usurp power and they gave us the Tenth Amendment, which declares that all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people.
- The Constitution's Article I Section 7 states "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." ObamaCare increases taxes/revenues and as such MUST originate in the House according to the Constitution. Contrary to this requirement this bill was passed into law without being first being properly considered in the House as a revenue-raising health care bill. [5]
- ObamaCare illegally commandeers state legislatures. It undermines their state sovereign discretion and dictates to them how they must regulate or alter existing regulations for health care. [Credit goes to Judge Andrew Napolitano for raising this point.]
- States are unequal under the law; benefits were granted to certain states or sections of states, that are not granted to all other states.
- The IRS will fine individuals who do not purchase health insurance. This violates the 5th Amendment which prohibits the government from imposing fines without due process of law.
- Not to mention that there are countless violations of personal privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment with the establishment of government tracking of medical records.
Health Care Rationing:
(commentary by Kathleen Gilbert and Peter J. Smith [2])
The National Right to Life Committee's (NLRC's) health care blog points out that "Section 3209 of the health care bill ... effectively allows federal bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) of the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to bar senior citizens from adding their own money, if they choose, to the government contribution in order to get private-fee-for-service Medicare Advantage (MA) plans less likely to ration life-saving treatment."
What this amounts to, according to NRLC, is that "doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers will be told by Washington just what diagnostic tests and medical care is considered to meet 'quality' and 'efficiency' standards – not only for federally funded health care programs like Medicare, but also for health care paid for by private citizens and their nongovernmental health insurance.”
“Treatment that a doctor and patient in consultation deem needed or advisable to save that patient's life or preserve or improve the patient's health but which the government decides is too costly – even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it – will run afoul of the imposed standards. In effect, there will be one uniform national standard of care, established by Washington bureaucrats and set with a view to limiting what private citizens are allowed to spend on saving their own lives." Read more from the NRLC on health care rationing in H.R. 3590 here: http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/SenateBill122309.html.Abortion Funding:
(commentary by Kathleen Gilbert and Peter J. Smith [2])
Current restrictions in the health care bill say that federal funds cannot be used directly to pay for abortions; however that does not prevent federal dollars from propping up the bottom-line of insurance companies that can re-allocate private dollars to pay for abortions.
Although the Executive Order Obama signed following the bill's passage purports to apply the Hyde amendment to the bill, the White House's Robert Gibbs admitted that the president’s directive, revealingly titled "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Consistency with Longstanding Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion," merely "reiterates" what is already in the bill, and does not address its inherent flaws.
- Direct funding of abortion through the Community Health Centers program: The new law directly appropriates $7 billion for Community Health Centers (CHCs) into a separate fund. Since the funding does not fall under annual Health and Human Services (HHS) appropriations, it is therefore unconnected to any restriction on the use of these funds for abortion.
Some backers of H.R. 3590 have asserted that none of the 1,250 federally funded CHCs provide abortions; yet, the website of the Reproductive Health Access Project strongly assures CHC operators that offering abortions is not only possible, but "important for the health of your patient."
The President himself defended “reproductive care” – a term typically used to imply abortion services – as “essential care.” Without a legislative statute to the contrary, it is possible that a court challenge launched by pro-abortion groups could open up CHCs to provide abortion.
- Other direct appropriations not covered by abortion restrictions: The Senate bill contains additional pools of directly appropriated funds that are not covered by any limitations regarding abortion, including $5 billion for a temporary high-risk health insurance pool program (Sec. 1101 on pages 45-52) and $6 billion in grants and loans for health co-ops (Sec. 1322, pp. 169-180). Only bill-wide, permanent language, such as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, could have ensured that none of these funds are tapped by pro-abortion political appointees and bureaucrats to pay for abortion.
- Federally administered abortion plans: The bill would create a new program under which the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) would administer two or more national (“multi-state”) insurance plans. (See Section 1334.)
The bill provides that “at least one” such plan would be subject to limitations on abortion coverage. This implies that other federally administered plans could cover elective abortions, or perhaps even be required to do so by the federal administrator. This is a sharp break from longstanding federal policy, adopted by Congress, under which plans that participate in the OPM-administered Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program are prohibited from covering elective abortions.
Also, even the purported requirement (pages 2087-2088) that the OPM program offer one pro-life plan is rigged to expire each year; this requirement will remain in force only if pro-life forces prevail annually in preserving pro-life language on an unrelated annual appropriations bill.
- The "abortion surcharge": Section 1303, page 2069 of the bill contains the objectionable “Nelson-Boxer language,” under which private plans that cover elective abortion would qualify for the federal subsidy. However each enrollee in those plans that include abortion coverage would have to pay an "abortion surcharge" of at least one dollar per month. These funds would be used to pay for abortions.
This requirement applies to anyone who enrolls – or may have to enroll – in a subsidized plan that covers elective abortions. This will certainly include many people who would learn of the abortion surcharge only after enrolling, but who would also have no choice other than to pay the abortion surcharge, or see their entire health coverage lapse.
- Authorities for pro-abortion mandates: The new law contains a bewildering array of provisions that grant authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and other federal entities to issue binding regulations on various matters.
Some of these provisions could be employed in the future as carte blanche for the HHS to issue pro-abortion mandates, requiring health plans to cover abortion and/or provide expanded access to abortion, unless there is clear language to prevent it. For example, under the Mikulski Amendment (Section 1001, pp. 20-21), the HHS could force every private health plan to cover elective abortions merely by placing abortion on a list of “preventive” services.
While the Senate bill does contain some anti-mandate provisions, NRLC's analysis finds that these clauses are worded in such a way that they control only specific provisions of the bill (e.g., the reference to “essential health benefits” on page 2070), or are ambiguous in their scope.
- Open door to future abortion funding in Indian health programs: The Senate-passed health bill revamps and reauthorizes all Indian health programs. In the House bill, these programs were permanently barred from providing elective abortions by the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. But in the Senate bill, no such prohibition exists, other than a mere policy-neutral clause (Section 10221, pp. 2175-2176) that “punts” the abortion policy, requiring that it be set annually on an appropriations bill.
The Senate omitted the necessary pro-life language even though a permanent Hyde Amendment had won approval by the Senate the last time that the Indian health reauthorization (S. 1200) was on the Senate floor in amendable form. (The House never acted on S. 1200.)
- Missing abortion conscience language: The House-passed bill contained a codification of the “Hyde-Weldon” language (H.R. 3962, Section 259), which would prevent government actors from penalizing health care providers who refuse to participate in providing abortions.
However pro-abortion senators blocked its inclusion in the Senate bill. The so-called conscience protections in H.R. 3590 (e.g., on page 123) are exceedingly narrow.
Obama's Own Private Army
[3] Commentary by By Henry Lamb, World Net Daily, April 10, 2010:
Who knew that Obamacare provides for a "Regular Corps," and a "Ready-
Reserve Corps," of officers and individuals who are appointed by the
President? Commissioned officers are subject to active duty at the
call of the Surgeon General. The new law provides $17.5 million in
each of the first four years to recruit and train these reserves.
During his campaign, Obama said, "We cannot continue to rely only
on our military . . . we've got to have a civilian security force
just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We cannot
continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the
national security objectives we've set."
Beginning of Obama's civilian security force
Section 5210 of the Patient's Protection and Affordable Care Act
(a.k.a. Obamacare) may be the beginning of Obama's civilian security
force. This section amends Section 203 of the U.S. Public Health
Service Act. Why it was included in the massive health care bill is
a question in search of meaningful answers. Judge Andrew Napolitano
from FOX News [2] has a few questions of his own.
The new law says "The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to
fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel
available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service's reserve
program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both
routine public health and emergency response missions."
training" to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned
Corps. The Ready Reserve "shall" be ready for involuntary calls to
active duty. The Ready Reserve must be prepared to respond to orders
from the President to go anywhere in the country, or anywhere outside
the country.
From HR 3590:
SEC. 430. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.
Section 20 3 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 20 4) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 20 3. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.
PS- I spent 2 days on and off researching this to verify.
(2) REQUIREMENT.—All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended.
(3) APPOINTMENT.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(4) ACTIVE DUTY.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.
(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.—Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.
(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.
(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.—
(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.
(2) USES.—The Ready Reserve Corps shall—
(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;
(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;
(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and
(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.
(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 20 10 through 20 14. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.
New Taxes:
(commentary by Steve Watson and Paul Watson [4])
As reported by Bloomberg News today, analysis by the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation reveals that the bill will generate $409.2 billion in additional taxes by 2019.
In addition, the Congressional Budget Office states that the bill also levies almost $69 billion more in penalties for those who fail to meet mandates to buy insurance.
The Journal of Accountancy boils down some of the tax hikes and penalty fees in H.R. 3590 and the Reconciliation Act – the highlights include:
Excise Tax on Uninsured Individuals – Individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage will be subject to a penalty equal to $750. The fee for an uninsured individual under age 18 is one-half of the adult fee.
Excise Tax on High-Cost Employer Plans – The federal government would impose a 40% tax on the value of employer-sponsored health coverage exceeding certain thresholds. Those levels are projected to be $8,500 for self only and $23,000 for any other level by the year 2013. This excise was announced with fanfare by the White House and labor unions in January and remains in the final bill.
Increase in additional tax on distributions from Health Savings Accounts and Archer Medical Savings Accounts not used for qualified medical expenses – An increase from 10% to 20% on taxes of money in a health savings account not used for qualified medical expenses. For Archer medical savings accounts, an increase from 15% to 20%.
Additional Hospital Insurance Tax on High-Income Taxpayers – High income tax payers, making on a joint return over $250,000 and a standard return over $200,000, are required to pay an additional 0.5% of wages. This applies to both self-employed, and regularly employed individuals.
Fees on Health Plans – A fee applied to all health insurance providers based upon net premiums and any third party fees associated with the administration of those programs. The fees will total $6.7 billion annually. This figure begins at $8 billion in the Reconciliation Act and rises to $14.3 billion by 2018.
Tax on Indoor Tanning Services – The act imposes a 10% tax on amounts paid for indoor tanning services. Like a sales tax, the tax will be collected from the person tanning when payment for the tanning services is made.
Business Insider boils down 15 more tax hikes here – highlights include:
Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage – A 2.5% income tax on individuals who do not have health care coverage, limited to a cost less than the average national health care premium.
Excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures – A tax of 5% is levied upon the am mount paid for any cosmetic surgery. This does not include the need for such surgeries created by trauma or a disfiguring disease. If the tax is not collected by that professional completing the procedure, their business is still liable for the requirement.
The Reconciliation Act also legislates for the following surcharges: 1% surcharge on individuals making more than $350,000, 1.5% surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000, 5.4% surcharge on individuals making more than $1 million.
Yet more tax provisions in the bill are highlighted by INvestors Business Daily in their piece titled 20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms – highlights include:
Taxes On Employers – If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes) (Section 1513).
Taxes on Pharmaceutical Companies – The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry (Section 9008 (b)).
Taxes on medical device manufacturers – The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers (Section 1405).
Framework Established for Implanted RFID Microchipping:
Section 2521 on page 1004 of the ObamaCare bill calls for the establishment of a 'National Medical Device Registry":
"The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the registry, to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that; (A) is or has been used in or on a patient; (B) is a class III device; or a class II device that is implantable."
What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Approved by the FDA [6], a class II implantable device is an “implantable radio frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information.” The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as “claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary.”
Page 1006 states that the National Medical Device Registry is "to be enacted within 36 months upon passage" of ObamaCare.
Today, hospitals throughout America have already recommending implanting of RFID chips into patients for medical purposes, such as those who suffer from Alzheimer's disease [5]. Soon it will become more common for RFID chips to be used in many more types of patients, which will be tracked by the national government database.
Read more here:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3193-national-healthcare-will-require-national-rfid-chips
Other Details:
- 16,500 new combat-trained IRS agents armed with shotguns to enforce the mandatory participation in health care insurance programs.
- Student loans have been taken over by the federal government. It will administer $1 trillion in student loans over the next decade [1].
- The marriage penalty: A Wall Street Journal column pointed out in January that both the House and Senate versions of the health care reform legislation would force married couples to pay "thousands of dollars more for the same health insurance coverage as unmarried people living together." The penalty results from the fact that guidelines for qualifying for health insurance subsidies rely on federal poverty guidelines; therefore, married couples would be at a disadvantage for receiving subsidies due to their combined income. [2]
Information Sources:
[1] http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/26/dana-perino-student-loans-health-care-sen-kent-conrad-democrats-students/
[2] excerpted from http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10040115.html)
[3] http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=138629
[4] http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamacare-taxing-the-american-people-into-oblivion.html
[5] http://money.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978167682
[6] http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm072191.pdf
[7] http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/250658/rfid_chip_implants_planned_for_alzheimers.html?cat=5
