Memo To: All Members the United States Senate
and of the U.S. House of Representatives
From: The 10th Amendment Foundation, Inc.
P.O. Box 1354
Abingdon, VA. 24210
Phone: 1-276-628-3422 E-MAIL: ceo@10thamendmentfoudation.org Web Page: 10thamendmentfoundation.org
Why Congressionally Imposed
National Health Care is Unconstitutional
The 10th Amendment was set up to provide us with a LIMITED federal government and so it said that all powers that were not given to the Federal Government by the Federal Constitution, were denied to it and reserved to the States OR TO THE PEOPLE.
The 10th Amendment Foundation, Inc. is a recently organized, but very fast growing organization established to educate the voting public about the importance of our representatives strictly adhering to the Constitution and following their oaths of office to defend and uphold the constitution.
Our mission also includes the reminding of the members of Congress and the Senate that their only source of power comes from the Constitution; that IF they consider the Constitution is so old that it is no longer valid, then Congress has no valid right to legislate anything; that without a meaningful Constitution, Congress and the Senate have no basis for their existence and are in reality irrelevant; therefore the laws they might pass are meaningless; and no one has any obligation to obey them.
We are located basically in the 9th Congressional District of Virginia and the 1st District of Tennessee with the goal of establishing chapters in every Congressional District in the country. (We are now in the process of setting up District Chapters in a number of Districts from Nashville and Charlotte to Alexandria and Queens NY!)
All of our members have been very disturbed by the total ignoring of the Constitution and his oath to uphold and defend it by President Obama in practically everything that he has done since being inaugurated as President, but that does not really involve you or your acts as a Congressman.
I. SERIOUS REASONS WHY THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE BILL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.
Any country that doesn't abide by a "Rule of Law" will be governed by the rule of a man. Any country governed by the rule of a man will become one ruled by a man who becomes a tyrant (as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia proved).
The ultimate rule of law in the United States comes down to The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Because the Founders understood that the further a government was from the people the less power it should be given, and the more relative power constituent governments should have, because they are closer to the governed. In addition, the more power given to a big central government, the more power that government would have over the people (with a lessening of individual freedoms) in order for it to control the masses.
If they know and understand the mandate of the 10th Amendment, no member of Congress or the Senate can possibly even consider the passage of any Federal law that would impose or set up a national health delivery or health insurance program without first moving for and passing a constitutional amendment. In fact, any member of the House or the Senate who does so necessarily ignores the Constitution, and violates their oath of office to "uphold and defend the Constitution." In all due respect, part of our mission requires that we fully inform the voters in any congressional district or state of the fact that their member of Congress or the Senate voted for any unconstitutional measure or measures whether in one act or many (if that in fact happened). With the delivery of this memo, we respectfully submit that no one can say, "I didn't know." The only way that they can answer any charge of their having violated of their oaths of office by failing to uphold and defend the constitution is to show that what they voted for was in fact constitutional.
We are all very disturbed by many, if not most, of the provisions of the so called "Health Care Bill" (HB 3200) and other proposals from Congress which we consider to be total violations of the constitution as well as specific violations of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 10th, 14th and 16 amendments to the constitution.
Whether or not, you had a chance to vote against that bill in a responsible Committee (and if you did vote against it we thank you) we are counting on you to vote against it on the floor because it is such a total violation of the Constitution which you and all your colleagues in the House (and Senate) swore to uphold and defend, and a vote for the bill as a whole or any of these provisions will be the basis for a charge that you violated your oath of office.
While we understand that HB 3200 is a long bill, and while we know that many of our members have already written you letters opposing the proposed Health care legislation, we felt as a group that we should list all the many sections and provisions HB 3200 (or any other proposal containing similar provisions) that violate the Constitution. If you or any member of House and the Senate vote for any of the measures listed below, you all will, by that act alone, have violated your oaths of office for one count for every section listed below for which you may vote in the affirmative. We also believe that the part of the oath of office of any member of Congress to "defend the constitution" requires that not only will each member of Congress vote against any provision listed below (or any other provision violating the constitution), but it requires that every member of Congress upholding their oath of office to defend the Constitution by strongly fighting in committee, and on the floor, and in the cloakrooms to show their collegues how a vote for that provision is in fact a violation of the constitution, and how a vote for each such provision is a separate and distinct violation of the oaths of office of every member of Congress to uphold and defend the Constitution.
______________________________________________________________________________
THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY ACT THAT TRIES TO CONTROL AMERICAN HEALTH CARE/INSURANCE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Therefore we would bring the following specific constitutional indictments against all of HB 3200 and against any other bills containing the indicated provisions as listed below:
I. IN GENERAL: THE 10TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
Since the beginning of our nation, insurance has been considered to be exclusively a matter for State regulation. There is absolutely NO paragraph, word, or phrase in the federal Constitution that can be stretched far enough to allow the Federal government to have any say whatsoever over health care delivery or health care insurance for any individual (except for Federal employment, in or out of the military, or those in Federal incarceration).
We at the 10th Amendment Foundation DEFY any member of Congress, the Senate, the Judiciary, or any "constitutional" lawyer to show us where the Federal Government has the constitutionally granted right to have any power to pass any national health care, or national health insurance law that covers anything relative to medical care or health care for any individual (other than those mentioned above)! The fact is that there is NO such power--not one section; not one paragraph; not one word that gives the Federal Government, or any agency thereof, the power to even consider such action without a constitutional amendment allowing it. (If it is proposed or brought up by others, then your oath of office requires you to actively oppose it.)
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution is every bit as much a part of the Constitution as the 1st Article; the 1st Amendment; the 2nd Amendment; the 4th Amendment; the 5th Amendment; the 14th Amendment; the 16th Amendment; and every other part of the Constitution.
In countering what we say here, some might reference Marbury v. Madison where John Marshall said that the 10th Amendment was only a "truism that reiterates the relationship between the states and the Federal government." That phrase does not make the "truism" any less true or binding on the Federal Government, and with that language on the books, The Supreme Court has upheld the limiting aspects of the 10th amendment, and accredited the 10th Amendment with very specific authority.
There is absolutely no evidence of any power given to the Federal government to control either the delivery of medical services or insurance to the people. History shows that since the beginning of our federal system it has been the states which have had the power to control and regulate medicine and insurance. This demonstrates that it is evident that the constitution does NOT give the Federal Government any right to control or regulate health insurance (or health care for individuals).
To the extent that one might say well we have the Food and Drug administration, the answer is simple: the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce and therefore Congress may set up means to control the transport of food and drugs between the states. The attempted exercise of any greater Federal authority is also a violation of the constitution, and any passage of any law or regulation such as this in the past still gives no right for Congress to pass another violation of the Constitution.
Those supporting a federal take over of medical care or insurance might refer to the social security program as being a "Federal insurance program", but the Supreme Court, in the case of Ford v. Commissioner in 1937, held that SOCIAL SECURITY is NOT an insurance program or a pension. This is so because no such program is called for under the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled instead that social security is a combination of two powers specifically given the Federal government under the Constitution: 1) to impose an income tax (and it should be noted that it took the 16th amendment to allow the Federal Government to impose such taxes) and 2) to spend tax money. If the Congress wants to spend it on welfare, it has the power to do so. So Social Security is nothing more than a federally sponsored spending of federal tax moneys for a welfare grant to the disabled and the elderly. That is why FICA (social security) taxes do not have to be put into a trust but can be spent for anything that Congress wants to spend them on, and the reason that social security "benefits" can be legally used for any program Congress wants to use them.
Even though it was found to be constitutional by a stretch of a court packed by a 3 term President, Franklin Roosevelt, it was nothing more (as commonly conceived) than a gigantic "Ponzi Scheme" no different than that for which Mr. Madoff has just been sent to prison for 150 years. The reason that it is not an illegal "Ponzi Scheme" is that Congress can assess taxes for whatever give-away it wants and it has absolutely no LEGAL requirement to pay anyone any social security payments. The social security program can be simply stopped at Congress' discretion to do so and no one will have any LEGAL right to do any thing about it.
Others might refer to "Medicare" and the "prescription benefits." They might be excused as being a Federal tax + a federal welfare grant for health care for the poor and the elderly but that would be a stretch. They were passed and no one challenged them. That was one more step down slippery slope to Federal despotism without a constitutional amendment allowing such programs. The question of their constitutionality is open. There was no 10th Amendment Foundation to raise any question, and the people had not awakened enough politically to do anything to try to make people realize that these programs were one more step toward national bankruptcy and tyrannic government.
A national health care bill that simply taxes everyone and then pays for everyone's health care who cannot otherwise pay for their own health care might possibly pass the constitutionality issue (under Ford v. Commissioner).
However, no plan can say that we (as individuals) have to carry health insurance and be constitutional. No plan can say what kind of Health Insurance any of us (as individuals) would have to buy if we, as individuals, decided to get health insurance and be constitutional. No plan could say what medical care we, as individuals, could have or could not have and still be constitutional. No plan could say what we, as individuals, could pay for (or had to pay for) any health care and still be constitutional. Not a single one of those things could be constitutional under any stretch of the imagination.
Any member of House or of the Senate would, by voting for any such a plan, violate their oaths of office far more than President Nixon ever did in connection with Watergate, and everyone should know that!
If we do not step in and make our representatives in Congress and the Senate sit up and take notice that they have each sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, our children and grandchildren (if not ourselves) will face either another revolution or they will face living in a soviet/nazi type dictatorship--indeed if we do not face such despotism ourselves.
If an individual can be found who has standing to question any national health plan that might be put into effect in violation of the constitution, (and that will happen if national health/insurance plan is passed) the 10th Amendment Foundation, Inc. will work to provide the lawyers and costs to take the matter to the Supreme Court. In the mean time, once again, we will exert every effort to inform the people in every Congressional District where their member of Congress who voted for any such so called National Health care, had violated their oaths of office to uphold and defend the Constitution.
We will not presume to quote the 10th Amendment of the Constitution (or any other amendment) since we respect you enough to believe that you have read each of them (as we believe that you have personally read all 1025 pages of HB 3200).
There is absolutely nothing in any provision in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to create or enforce any laws that control what kind of health care any citizen of the United States may take or refuse. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to require any citizen to have any health insurance of any kind or nature, or prevent any citizen from refusing any so called medical treatment or "advice" that they may choose to refuse. (That is a good part of what being freemen is.) In fact, the reason that insurance is not "transportable" across state lines is that it has always been considered to be strictly a state issue. Thus to the extent that HB 3200--or any act that tries to dictate what health care, or health care insurance that any citizen of the United States may have or refuse is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. Thus anyone voting for any bill containing any such provision will be, by that vote, in violation of their oath of office.
(We would point out that the fact that we have Medicare and Medicaid coming from the federal Government does nothing to abrogate the above, since all they do is to "TAX" under the 16th Amendment and to pay for medical care for those who may want it as a form of medical welfare. No one has to take the so called benefits of either or to abide by any medical advice or even to talk to anyone about any such matters. Furthermore, to the extent that either medicare or medicaid might be said to be similar to HB 3200, two wrongs do not make a right and the mere fact that Congress might have passed unconstitutional acts in the past does not give you or any member of Congress the right to vote for, or pass further acts that are unconstitutional.)
2) ANY PROVISION THAT GIVES THE GOVERNMENT COMPLETE CONTROL OVER WHAT HEALTH CARE ANY CITIZEN WILL BE ABLE TO RECEIVE IS A VIOLATION OF THE 10TH AMENDMENT.
HB 3200 p 29, lines 4-16; p 30, Sec 123; p 42; p. 84 Section 203; P. 85 line 7 and other sections of HB3200 and other proposals purport to give one of 53 NEW governmental agencies the power (they cannot give the power or right) to dictate exactly what medical services any citizen of the United States might be able to have under any health insurance. Thus any member of Congress who votes for any provision such as this will have violated their oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.
There could not be a more clear violation of the 10th Amendment!
3) ANY PROVISION THAT REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT TO AUDIT ALL BOOKS OF EMPLOYERS WHO CHOOSE TO SELF INSURE IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE 4th AMENDMENT:
HB 3200 does exactly this. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of course protects the "papers" of all citizens. Nevertheless, on page 22 of HB 3200 it is MANDATED that another of the 53 NEW Federal Agencies set up by the program will audit all employers who self insure. This auditing is not something allowed or required by the 16th amendment to the Constitution (and can be argued to be a violation thereof), and without that, it is a clear violation of rights protected by the 4th Amendment.
Thus any member of Congress who votes for any provision such as this will have violated the 4th amendment and their oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.
4) ANY PROVISION THAT PURPORTS TO GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THE (UNCONSTITUTIONAL) POWER TO LOOK AT AND AUDIT EACH AND EVERY AMERICAN'S PERSONAL BOOKS AND RECORDS WITHOUT A WARRANT OR ANY COURT APPROVAL IS, AGAIN A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT--
HB 3200 P 195 grants officers and employees of the Federal Government unrestricted access to the financial and personal records of ALL Americans in clear violation of the 4th Amendment.
In addition any personal records that have nothing to do with anything that the Federal health agency involved might find, but could be potential evidence in a criminal action (trumped up or not) and this would violate provisions of the 5th amendment. H.B.3200, however, says nothing about providing or dealing with the warnings that have to be given for criminal matters (and could well prevent the prosecution of very important criminal matters due to the inherent violation of the rights of the accused.)
5) ANY PROVISION THAT GIVES THE GOVERNMENT REAL TIME ACCESS TO ELECTRONICALLY TO EVERY INDIVIDUAL'S BANK ACCOUNT(S) MAKES THE LAW A VIOLATION OF THE 5TH AND THE 14TH AMENDMENTS.
The 5th and the 14th Amendments both protect the citizens' right to own property without its being subject to seizure by the government without due process of law.
P59 ll 21-24, p 85 Ll 7 OF HB 3200 gives the government direct access to all citizens' bank accounts for "real time" electronic funds transfers with or without the owner's ok and with no chance to object to the transfer and with no appeal thereof. This is in clear violation of the 5th and 14th Amendment prohibition of the taking of property without due process of law.
Those two Amendments also protect the citizens against contractural interference by the government (Federal OR State) for any otherwise valid contract.
Thus any member of Congress who votes for any provision such as this will have violated their oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.
6) ANY PROVISION THAT PURPORTS TO GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THE (UNCONSTITUTIONAL) POWER TO ISSUE A NATIONAL HEALTH CARE I.D. CARD WHICH ALL CITIZENS WILL HAVE TO TAKE AND CARRY. THIS IS A GROSS VIOLATION OF THE 10TH AMENDMENT (AND A VIOLATION THE 1ST AMENDMENT GUARANTEEING THE FREEDOM OF THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION FOR ALL THOSE WHOSE RELIGION WILL NOT ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE IDENTIFIED BY NUMBER).
P59 ll 21-24 gives the purported right to the health care agency to order the issuance of National Health I.D. cards to every citizen. This is the same type of thing that the Nazis put in place in Nazi Germany before they were able to take over absolute power there. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that even begins to allow for the Federal Congress to give, or require to be carried, a national Identification number to every citizen. (The author of this letter and many others could not get any medical care if this provision becomes law and one the the 53 new Federal Agencies set up under HB3200 decides to require a National Medical ID Card.)
While the National Health ID card is not absolutely required, the mere giving of the power to any Federal agency to order the issuance of such cards and to require their carrying by anyone seeking health care causes the bill to be unconstitutional.
The Social Security number was originally approved only because it was issued as a tax identification number under the 16th amendment and it was clearly stated in the legislation that allowed it that it was not to be used for Identification purposes.
There is absolutely NO PHRASE in the Constitution under which any reasonable person (or any reasonable person deciding what a reasonable person could Decide) can decide that the federal Congress has the right or the power to require every citizen to submit to having a National Health Care I.D. card in order to obtain needed medical care under the 10th Amendment. Thus ANY member of Congress voting for any provision authorizing the requirement of the issuance and acceptance of a national medical ID card clearly violates their oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.
(This is not a constitutional issue, but it should be noted that any National Health Care ID could also be one more way for identity thieves to carry out their trade.)
7) ANY PROVISION THAT PURPORTS TO GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THE (UNCONSTITUTIONAL) POWER TO CREATE A GOVERNMENTAL HEALTH CARE EXCHANGE THAT WILL BRING ALL PRIVATE HEALTH CARE PLANS UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTROL IS STILL ANOTHER GROSS VIOLATION OF THE 10TH AMENDMENT.
HB3200 creates a Health Care Exchange which will bring private health care plans totally under Federal Government control. For the last 200+ years all private insurance plans have been regulated by the states with NO control from the Federal Government. This is because there is NOT ONE THING that allows anyone to reasonably imagine that the Federal Government was given any control whatsoever over insurance companies.
That being the case, the Federal government is RESTRICTED by the 10th Amendment from controlling private insurance companies (and is in fact restricted from having any insurance company owned or controlled by the Federal Government.) Thus any member of Congress who votes for any provision such as this will have violated their oath of office to uphold and defend the
constitution.
8) ANY PROVISION THAT PURPORTS TO GIVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO (UNCONSTITUTIONALLY) MANDATE THE ENROLLMENT OF ALL MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS IN MEDICAID WILL VIOLATE BOTH THE 5TH AND THE 10TH AMENDMENTS.
Pg 102 LL 12-18 OF HB 3200 will require the automatic enrollment of all medicaid eligible individuals, whether they want to be enrolled or not. This again is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment, since an individual's status for health care or health insurance is not an item that in any way can be said to be covered by the Constitution.
Thus if an individual chooses (for religious or other reasons) not to enroll in medicaid that individual may not be required to do so without violating the 10th amendment of the constitution. This would be a reserved right to the people under that amendment.
In addition, since enrolling in a government run program could disclose the location of an individual who does not want to be located by the government because of potential criminal charges, this provision in and of itself would be a violation of the 5th Amendment's prohibition against making an individual provide evidence against himself. (Furthermore it could endanger the prosecution of important criminal cases against anyone found by reason of this provision. Thus any member of Congress who votes for any provision such as this will have violated their oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.
9) ANY PROPOSAL THAT ALLOWS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TOTALLY IGNORE AND VIOLATE THE 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS IN THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEEING EVERY CITIZEN THE PROTECTION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW WILL OBVIOUSLY BE A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
While the government does have sovereign immunity and it is therefore constitutional for the government to deny anyone the right to sue the government (as is specifically set up under the provisions of P.124 LL 24-25, of HB 3200) most, if not all, of the provisions of that bill utterly fail to give a right or means to contest or appeal to the citizen who is aggrieved by any decision of any of the 53 new Governmental agencies. Any bill that takes any form of LIFE, LIBERTY, or PROPERTY from any citizen without providing the citizen with the right AND MEANS of contesting the adverse action would clearly violate the 5th and 14th amendment prohibitions against taking the life, liberty or property of any citizen.
To the extent that any citizen is denied any medical treatment or procedure that would otherwise be available to them (because of their age or a physical condition that might make the treatment or procedure less desirable from a cost or societal standpoint) such action would be a violation of the 14th amendment prohibition against discrimination because of age or physical condition, AND the fact that no one could appeal that decision on a case by case basis would be a violation of the 5th and 14th amendments against taking life without due process of law.
Thus any member of Congress who votes for any provision such as this will have violated their oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.
10) ANY PROVISION STATING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO SAY HOW MUCH A DOCTOR MAY MAKE AND WHAT DECISIONS HE OR SHE MAY MAKE IN TREATING HIS OR HER PATIENTS. This is clearly a violation of the 10th and the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Pg. 241 LL 6-8 and Pg.253 LL 10-18 of HB 3200 say that no matter what skills or training the Doctors may have, the Government will be directing that all doctors are paid the same for services that the Government says will be allowed (regardless of what the Doctor believes is the best for his or her patients.) The Constitution not only does not give the government the power to say how much a person can make, it specifically prohibits the Federal Government from interfering with legal contractual negotiations or with legal contracts under the 5th Amendment. Thus this provision clearly violates the 5th and 10th amendments (AND ARGUABLY THE 13TH AMENDMENT) and any member of Congress who votes for any provision such as this will have violated their oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution. (Furthermore, under the 13th amendment, the Government cannot make any doctor work if he or she chooses not to do so.)
Thus any member of Congress who votes for any provision such as this will have violated their oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.
11) ANY PROVISION GRANTING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO REQUIRE ANY EMPLOYER TO AUTOMATICALLY ENROLL EMPLOYEES IN A THE "PUBLIC OPTION" HEALTH CARE PLAN. IS ANOTHER VIOLATION OF THE 10TH AMENDMENT (AND POSSIBLY THE 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS).
P 145 LL 15-17 of HB 3200 states that an employer must automatically enroll employees into the public option plan. Once again the 10th Amendment is clearly violated here. There is absolutely no basis in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to require private employers to give any employees any health insurance. This does not meet the requirements for things like social security or medicare-medicaid. Every power taken by Congress that is beyond the power granted it in the social contract (the Constitution) which creates Congress and gives it whatever power it has is one more violation of that contract and a dictatorial and unjustifiable violation of the 10th Amendment--and probably a violation of the 5th amendment--and a taking of freedom and rights from the people for whom the Constitution was written and the Congress created.
Once again, any member of Congress who votes for any provision such as this will have violated their oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.
12) ANY PROVISION GRANTING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POWER TO ASSESS INCOME TAXES ON THEIR GROSS INCOME AGAINST PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO PAY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE IS A VIOLATION OF THE 1ST, 5TH, 10TH, 14TH AND 16TH AMENDMENTS.
Pg 167 Lines 18-23 mandate that ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable health care according to the Federal Government will be taxed 2.5% of their gross (not normally taxable) income over and above all taxes assessed against all other Americans. This is pure discrimination against Americans who have made a choice with which the Federal Government disagrees but has absolutely no power to legislate on under the 10th Amendment. It may in select cases violate the 1st amendment rights of many of those people who are choosing to voice their objection to this legislation and is therefore a prior disincentive to their voicing their objection to such legislation.
It also violates the 16th Amendment which allows the Federal Government to assess income taxes FOR THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT NOT AT ANY POINT TO PENALIZE CITIZENS WHO REFUSE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THEMSELVES WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO LEGITIMATE POWER TO REQUIRE. This could well set up a precedent for stopping one of Congress' major powers--the untested poser to give tax "breaks" to some taxpayers who take certain actions that Congress wants taken. It is respectfully submitted that this is NOT something most members of Congress would not want to take a chance of loosing--even though it might be in the best interest of the country.
This provision also violates the the 5th and 14th amendment.
Once again any member of Congress who votes for any provision such as this will have violated their oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.
13) ANY PROVISION GRANTING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE (UNCONSTITUTIONAL) POWER TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE ELDERLY BECAUSE OF THEIR AGE AND THE POOR BECAUSE OF THEIR POVERTY BY REDUCING THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY PHYSICIANS FOR ALL OTHERS IS A VIOLATION OF THE 10TH AND THE 14TH AMENDMENTS.
P239 LL 14-24 OF HB 3200 specifically reduces the physician services for anyone now on medicare and/or medicaid. Those people, by definition are the elderly (over 65) and the poor, and the disabled. They are the only people who can expect that the medical services that they now have will be specifically reduced.
Thus this provision clearly violates the 10th and 14th amendments,and any member of Congress who votes for any provision such as this will have violated their oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.
In addition to the above, under the provisions of Pg 341 LL 3-9 the Government will have the power to disqualify probably the best government medical welfare program under Medicare (Part C of Medicare). Thus, while the proponents of the Federal Health Care plan keep promising that anyone who is satisfied with their present health care can keep it, the law will allow the government to take away one of the best plans from tens of millions of the elderly and disabled, thereby discriminating against them because of their age or status of disability in violation of the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.
Thus again, any member of Congress who votes for any provision such as this will have violated their oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.
14) ANY PROVISION GRANTING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO MANDATE (OR EVEN STRONGLY ENCOURAGE) "END OF LIFE" COUNSELING EVERY 5 YEARS FOR EVERYONE OVER THE AGE OF 65 OR SUFFERING FROM CHRONIC DISEASE WHICH WILL BE AIMED AT DISCUSSING WITH THOSE PEOPLE "END OF LIFE" DECISIONS SUCH AS VARIOUS DIRECTIVES AS TO HOW THEIR LIVES ARE TO BE ENDED (INCLUDING A GOVERNMENT ORDER AS TO END OF LIFE MATTERS WILL VIOLATE THE 1ST AMENDMENT GUARANTING THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION WITHOUT GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION.
Pg 425 LL4-12;17-19; 22-25; Pg 426 LL 1-3; PG 427 LL 15-24; PG 429 LL 1-9; 13-25; AND 430 LL 11-15 all deal with the government's part in ending the lives of the elderly and the sick and disabled. Historically and for as far back as human history can be traced "end of life" matters have been matters of discussion and decision between the patient, his or her family AND his or her spiritual counselor. For the government to step into this process could not possibly be more of the government "establishing a religion" (at least in connection with "end of life" matters and nothing could be more clearly a violation of the freedom of religion section of the 1st amendment.
In addition, there is absolutely no phrase or word in the constitution that could possibly be deemed to allow the Congress to dictate anything about the end of a person's life (unless that person is a member of the military and has to be ordered into battle, or a criminal, who after a trial with full due process of law has been convicted of a capital crime.) Thus this provision is also a violation of the 10th Amendment.
Thus again, any member of Congress who votes for any provision such as this will have violated their oath of office to uphold
15) ANY PROVISION GRANTING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO POTENTIALLY REQUIRE (OR EVEN SUGGEST) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING SERVICES IS A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Pg 489 Sec 1308 of HB 3200 provides for government provided family and marriage counseling to any and all those indicating a need for such services. Throughout the history of this nation, such counseling has always been a matter of counseling with the parties' spiritual advisor and the parties' church. Where the parties did not want to be counseled by spiritual advisors, it has been up to them to obtain private secular counseling. For the Government to get into this area at all is once the government's establishing (at least in a partial sense) a church or interfering with the free exercise of a citizen's right to freely exercise their religion in violation of their rights guaranteed under the 1st Amendment protection of the freedom of religion.
In addition, there is absolutely no phrase or word in the constitution that could possibly be deemed to allow the Federal Congress to dictating or even (with any semblance of authority) to say anything about any marital relationship between any two citizens of the United States. This has, to the extent that government is allowed to intervene in these matters at all, been left up to the States. This then also is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment.
Thus again, any member of Congress who votes for any provision such as this will have violated their oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.
In addition to all of the above there are other similar unconstitutional provisions in HB 3200 such as the invasion of family privacy by having Federal Agents go into the homes to "provide child care counseling" -- a violation of the 1st Amendment protection for privacy (which allows for the supposed unconstitutionality of state laws prohibiting abortion) and the 10th Amendment.
SUMMARY OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT
Any Federal Health care/insurance plan as is being talked about in Washington and around the country today is so totally unconstitutional that it is totally impossible for any member of Congress or the Senate to vote for any such plan without violating their oaths of office and/or rendering their entire raison d'etra irrelevant and void.
IS THERE A WAY THAT THE PROBLEMS WITH HEALTH INSURANCE CAN BE FIXED WITHOUT VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION? YES, AS FOLLOWS:
1: There is nothing to stop the Federal government to encourage the individual states from coming together to adopt a "Uniform Health Insurance Regulation Act" as they have done with "The Uniform Commercial Code" governing commercial transactions between and among the states.
In addition, one of the main things that has run up the cost of medical care are the run-away medical malpractice and products liability law suits brought on by members of the American Trial
Lawyers Association. Virginia has a cap on medical mal-practice law damages which amounts to the actually proven damages and a limit on "punitive damages." If the states would come together to pass a uniform malpractice (and medical product liability) reform act, and if the Federal government eliminated "class action" law suits in Federal medical product and pharmaceutical products liability law suits, and then control the premiums charged by malpractice and product liability insurance companies a very significant lowering of medical costs would be possible;
2. If they consider it to be really a problem, there is nothing to stop the Federal Government, acting under its taxing powers under the sixteenth amendment, to grant TAX CREDITS to those who out of the charity of their hearts would pay the health insurance for someone who wanted it and needed it and could not come up with the money to pay for it. The Federal Government could also provide considerable further incentives for people to take care of themselves by increasing the Health Savings Account program and letting payments to such accounts be taken as tax credits instead of simply not taxing them.
3. In addition, the Federal government COULD eliminate class action lawsuits in Federal Courts. This too, would go far in cutting medical costs. (By the way, the author of the original draft of this letter is a Life Member of the Virginia Trial Lawyers.)
Thanking you on behalf of all the members of the 10th Amendment Foundation for taking your time to read and consider this, we are:
19.
Sincerely yours,
_____________________________________
The Rev. Dr. S. Strother Smith, + ESQ
President
The 10th Amendment Foundation, Inc.
______________________________________
Mr. Joe Waters
Vice President
The 10th Amendment Foundation, Inc.
______________________________________
Mrs. Temple Mellinger
Recording Secretary
The 10th Amendment Foundation, Inc.
_____________________________________
Mr. Travis Proffitt, CPA
Treasurer
The 10th Amendment Foundation, Inc.
_____________________________________
President
9th Virginia Chapter,
The 10th Amendment Foundation, Inc.
_____________________________________
President
1st Tennessee Chapter,
The 10th Amendment Foundation, Inc.
20.
about Health Care (HB 3200)
From actual sections of the Bill
Question 1
Limiting Health Care choices:
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the bill & PG 85 Line 7 of the Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The right to individual decisions as to coverage that might otherwise be available are strictly controlled by government mandate.
(from the official copy on the internet) 1) Do you support rationing of health care? 2) If they do not support rationing of health care, especially to the sick and the elderly how can any member of Congress possibly support this bill? 3) If so, where in the enumerated powers of Congress, does Congress have the right to say that I or anyone here cannot have, nor even have the means to have whatever health care I may want or need? 4) Where, in the Constitution, under enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, does the Federal Government have any power to say what can be put in any insurance policy or what I can have if I can find a willing party to provide me with whatever insurance I may want. If you cannot show us that then how does this whole matter fit under the 10th amendment? If it doesn’t fit under the 10th Amendment how can it be constitutional, and how can any member of Congress possibly vote for this bill without violating their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution?
(Here is the actual language of the Bill)
DO NOT USE UNLESS THEY SAY IT IS NOT IN THE BILL
(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—
22
A. IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under
1-1
23
the essential benefits package shall be designed
24
to provide a level of coverage that is designed
25
to provide benefits that are actuarially equiva-
1
lent to approximately 70 percent of the full ac-
2
tuarial value of the benefits provided under the
3
reference benefits package described in sub-
4
paragraph (B).
5
(B) REFERENCE BENEFITS PACKAGE DE-
6
SCRIBED.—The reference benefits package de-
7
scribed in this subparagraph is the essential
8
benefits package if there were no cost-sharing
9
imposed.
10
SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
11
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
12
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a pri-
13
vate-public advisory committee which shall be a
14
panel of medical and other experts to be known as
15 1-2
the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to rec-
16
ommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
17
and premium plans.
18
AND
SEC. 203. BENEFITS PACKAGE LEVELS.
4
(a) INGENERAL.—The Commissioner shall specify
5
the benefits to be made available under Exchange-partici-
6
pating health benefits plans during each plan year, con-
7
sistent with subtitle C of title I and this section.
8
(b) LIMITATIONON HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS OF-
9
FEREDBY OFFERING ENTITIES.—The Commissioner may
10
not enter into a contract with a QHBP offering entity
11
under section 204(c) for the offering of an Exchange-par-
12
ticipating health benefits plan in a service area unless the
13
following requirements are met:
14
(1) REQUIRED OFFERING OF BASIC PLAN.—The
15
entity offers only one basic plan for such service
16
area.
17 1-3
(2) OPTIONAL OFFERING OF ENHANCED
18
PLAN.—If and only if the entity offers a basic plan
19
for such service area, the entity may offer one en-
20
hanced plan for such area.
21
(3) OPTIONAL OFFERING OF PREMIUM PLAN.—
22
If and only if the entity offers an enhanced plan for
23
such service area, the entity may offer one premium
24
plan for such area.
25
___________________________________________________________________________________
Questions to ask your
Congressman on Health Care (HB 3200)
From actual sections of the Bill
Question 2
Auditing Employers--Constitutionality:
Pages 21-23 of the Bill (from the official copy on the internet) make it plain that self insuring employers would be audited to see if they can actually do it. SO: 1) How would it be done? 2) What wording in the Constitution gives the Federal Government the right to do this? 3) Doesn’t this in effect violate the 4th amenmdnet? 3) This auditing of Small business books will not be for Tax purposes Where under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution (Or anywhere that would allow it to be deemed constitutional under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution) does the Federal Government have the right to willy-nilly audit the books of a small business except specifically under the IRS FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES? How can any Congressman or Senator vote for this when you all swore to uphold the and defend the Constitution?
(Here is the actual language of the Bill)
•HR 3200 IH
(b) STUDY AND REPORTS.—
22
(1) STUDY.—The Commissioner, in coordina-
23
tion with the Secretary of Health and Human Serv-
24
ices and the Secretary of Labor, shall conduct a
25
study of the large group insured and self-insured
26
22
employer health care markets. Such study shall ex-
1
amine the following:
2
(A) The types of employers by key charac-
3
teristics, including size, that purchase insured
4
products versus those that self-insure.
5
(B) The similarities and differences be-
6
tween typical insured and self-insured health
7
plans.
8 (C) The financial solvency and capital re-
9
serve levels of employers that self-insure by em-
10
ployer size.
11
(D) The risk of self-insured employers not
12
being able to pay obligations or otherwise be-
13
coming financially insolvent.
14
(E) The extent to which rating rules are
15
likely to cause adverse selection in the large
16
group market or to encourage small and mid
17
size employers to self-insure
18
(2) REPORTS.—Not later than 18 months after
19
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commis-
20
sioner shall submit to Congress and the applicable
21
agencies a report on the study conducted under
22
paragraph (1). Such report shall include any rec-
23
ommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate
24
to ensure that the law does not provide incentives
25
23
for small and mid-size employers to self-insure or
1
create adverse selection in the risk pools of large
2
group insurers and self-insured employers. Not later
3
than 18 months after the first day of Y1, the Com-
4
missioner shall submit to Congress and the applica-
5
ble agencies an updated report on such study, in-
6
cluding updates on such recommendations.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Questions to ask your Congressman on Health Care (HB 3200)
From actual sections of the Bill
Question 3
YOU HAVE NO CHOICE OVER YOUR LEVEL OF MEDICAL CARE - Constitutionality:
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for each one of us here. According to the Bill, we will have no choice!
How can it be constitutional under the limitations of the 10th amendment for the Government to limit what health care we may seek or use? Where in the Constitution does it even suggest that the government can do that? How can any Congressman who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States possibly vote for this bill without violating the Constitutional limitations placed on Congress by the 10th Amendment?
(Here is the actual language of the Bill)
DO NOT USE UNLESS THEY SAY IT IS NOT IN THE BILL
SEC. 142. DUTIES AND AUTHORITY OF COMMISSIONER.
3
(a) DUTIES.—The Commissioner is responsible for
4
carrying out the following functions under this division:
5
(1) QUALIFIED PLAN STANDARDS.—The estab-
6
lishment of qualified health benefits plan standards
7
under this title, including the enforcement of such
8
standards in coordination with State insurance regu-
9
lators and the Secretaries of Labor and the Treas-
10
ury.
11
(2) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—The es-
12
tablishment and operation of a Health Insurance
13
Exchange under subtitle A of title II.
14
(3) INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABILITY CREDITS.—
15
The administration of individual affordability credits
16
under subtitle C of title II, including determination
17
of eligibility for such credits.
18
(4) ADDITIONALFUNCTIONS19
Such additional
functions as may be specified in this division.
20
(b) PROMOTING ACCOUNTABILITY.—
21
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall un-
22
dertake activities in accordance with this subtitle to
23
promote accountability of QHBP offering entities in
24
meeting Federal health insurance requirements, re-
25
43
gardless of whether such accountability is with re-
1
spect to qualified health benefits plans offered
2
through the Health Insurance Exchange or outside
3
of such Exchange.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions to ask Congressman Boucher about Health Care (HB 3200)
From actual sections of the Bill
Question 4
MANDATORY END OF LIFE CONSULTATION--Constitutionality:
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life
Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!
PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death
PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends
Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "adv. care planning consult" will be used frequent lF patients health deteriorates
PG 429 Lines 10-12 "adv. care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV
Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life
The 1st Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that the State shall not establish any religion. End of life matters have always been and in fact are peculiarly religious in nature (for the religious) and while some may not mind or consider “end of life” counseling to violate their religious (or lack of religious) beliefs, if even one church does consider this to interfere with the responsibilty of the church or clergy, it violates the first amendment to the Constitution.
In addition How can it be constitutional under the limitations of the 10th amendment for the Government to tell us, (or even consult with us) about the very very personal matters of how we will deal with end of life? Where in the Constitution does it even begin to suggest that the government can do that? How can any Congressman who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States possibly vote for this bill without violating the Constitutional limitations placed on Congress by the by the 1st and the 10th Amendment?
(Here is the actual language of the BILL)
SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
15
(a) MEDICARE.—
16
(1) INGENERAL.—Section 1861 of the Social
17
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended—
18
(A) in subsection (s)(2)—
19
(i) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of
20
subparagraph (DD);
21
(ii) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of
22
subparagraph (EE); and
23
(iii) by adding at the end the fol-
24
lowing new subparagraph:
25
425
‘‘(FF) advance care planning consultation (as
1
defined in subsection (hhh)(1));’’; and
2
(B) by adding at the end the following new
3
subsection:
4
‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
5
‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
6
term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a con-
7
sultation between the individual and a practitioner de-
8
scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning,
9
if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has
10
not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such
11
consultation shall include the following:
12
‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad-
13
vance care planning, including key questions and
14
considerations, important steps, and suggested peo-
15
ple to talk to.
16
‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of ad-
17
vance directives, including living wills and durable
18
powers of attorney, and their uses.
19
‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the
20
role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
21
‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list
22
of national and State-specific resources to assist con-
23
sumers and their families with advance care plan-
24
ning, including the national toll-free hotline, the ad-
426
vance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal
1
service organizations (including those funded
2
through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
3
‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
4
continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail-
5
able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene-
6
fits for such services and supports that are available
7
under this title.
8
‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
9
orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar
10
orders, which shall include—
11
‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of
12
such an order is beneficial to the individual and
13
the individual’s family and the reasons why
14
such an order should be updated periodically as
15
the health of the individual changes;
16
‘‘(II) the information needed for an indi-
17
vidual or legal surrogate to make informed deci-
18
sions regarding the completion of such an
19
order; and
20
‘‘(III) the identification of resources that
21
an individual may use to determine the require-
22
ments of the State in which such individual re-
23
sides so that the treatment wishes of that indi-
24
vidual will be carried out if the individual is un-
427
able to communicate those wishes, including re-
1
quirements regarding the designation of a sur-
2
rogate decisionmaker (also known as a health
3
care proxy).
4
‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement
5
for explanations under clause (i) to consultations
6
furnished in a State—
7
‘‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been
8
addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining
9
treatment to constitute a set of medical orders
10
respected across all care settings; and
11
‘‘(II) that has in effect a program for or-
12
ders for life sustaining treatment described in
13
clause (iii).
14
‘‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining
15
treatment for a States described in this clause is a
16
program that—
17
‘‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized
18
and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
19
‘‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such
20
orders to physicians and other health profes-
21
sionals that (acting within the scope of the pro-
22
fessional’s authority under State law) may sign
23
orders for life sustaining treatment;
24
‘‘(III) provides training for health care
1
professionals across the continuum of care
2
about the goals and use of orders for life sus-
3
taining treatment; and
4
‘‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stake-
5
holders includes representatives from emergency
6
medical services, emergency department physi-
7
cians or nurses, state long-term care associa-
8
tion, state medical association, state surveyors,
9
agency responsible for senior services, state de-
10
partment of health, state hospital association,
11
home health association, state bar association,
12
and state hospice association.
13
‘‘(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is—
14
‘‘(A) a physician (as defined in subsection
15
(r)(1)); and
16
‘‘(B) a nurse practitioner or physician’s assist-
17
ant who has the authority under State law to sign
18
orders for life sustaining treatments.
19
‘‘(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination
20
under subsection (WW), including any related discussion
21
during such examination, shall not be considered an ad-
22
vance care planning consultation for purposes of applying
23
the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).
24
‘‘(B) An advance care planning consultation with re-
1
spect to an individual may be conducted more frequently
2
than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant
3
change in the health condition of the individual, including
4
diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a
5
life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening
6
injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a
7
long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or
8
a hospice program.
9
‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may in-
10
clude the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining
11
treatment or a similar order.
12
‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order
13
regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect
14
to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to
15
the treatment of that individual that—
16
‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as de-
17
fined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care
18
professional (as specified by the Secretary and who
19
is acting within the scope of the professional’s au-
20
thority under State law in signing such an order, in-
21
cluding a nurse practitioner or physician assistant)
22
and is in a form that permits it to stay with the in-
23
dividual and be followed by health care professionals
24
and providers across the continuum of care;
430
‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s
1
preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, in-
2
cluding an indication of the treatment and care de-
3
sired by the individual;
4
‘‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized
5
within a given locality, region, or State (as identified
6
by the Secretary); and
7
‘‘(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as
8
defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the in-
9
dividual.
10
‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara-
11
graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treat-
12
ment to an indication to limit some or all or specified
13
interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may in-
14
clude indications respecting, among other items—
15
‘‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the
16
patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac
17
or pulmonary problems;
18
‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer
19
to a hospital or remaining at the current care set-
20
ting;
21
‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
22
‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutri-
23
tion and hydration.’’.
24
and providers across the continuum of care;
25
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00429 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\AAHCA0~1.XML HOLCPC
July 14, 2009 (12:51 p.m.)
f:\VHLC\071409\071409.140.xml (444390|2)
430
‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s
1
preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, in-
2
cluding an indication of the treatment and care de-
3
sired by the individual;
4
‘‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized
5
within a given locality, region, or State (as identified
6
by the Secretary); and
7
‘‘(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as
8
defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the in-
9
dividual.
10
‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara-
11
graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treat-
12
ment to an indication to limit some or all or specified
13
interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may in-
14
clude indications respecting, among other items—
15
‘‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the
16
patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac
17
or pulmonary problems;
18
‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer
19
to a hospital or remaining at the current care set-
20
ting;
21
‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
22
‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutri-
23
tion and hydration.’’.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions to ask your Congressman on Health Care (HB 3200)
From actual sections of the Bill
Question 5
Instant access to financial accounts--Constitutionality:
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to the bank accounts of every citizen for electronic funds transfer. They can seize everyone’s bank account without giving any notice or any chance for that person to raise any issue or defense.
How is this not a violation of the rights of everyone here and everyone in the country (except for Members of Congress who are not under the plan) under the 4th Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without a judge’s warrant? How is this not a violation of the 5th Amendment prohibition to the taking of private property without due precess of law? AND Where under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution (Or anywhere that would allow it to be deemed constitutional under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution) does the Federal Government have the right to seize my personal bank account or records without notifying me and without my permission except for tax purposes under the 16th amendment? This is even more clearly against the Constitution. How can any member of Congress vote for this when he or she swore to uphold the and defend the Constitution?
(Here is the actual language of the Bill)
DO NOT USE UNLESS THEY SAY IT IS NOT IN THE BILL
‘‘(4) REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC STAND-
9
ARDS.—The standards under this section shall be
10
developed, adopted and enforced so as to—
11
‘‘(A) clarify, refine, complete, and expand,
12
as needed, the standards required under section
13
1173;
14
‘‘(B) require paper versions of standard-
15
ized transactions to comply with the same
16
standards as to data content such that a fully
17
compliant, equivalent electronic transaction can
18
be populated from the data from a paper
19
version;
20
‘‘(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in
21
order to allow automated reconciliation with the
22
related health care payment and remittance ad-
23
vice;
24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions to ask your Congressman on Health Care (HB 3200)
From actual sections of the Bill
Question 6
Instant access to financial accounts--Issuance of National Health Care ID Card: Constitutionality:
Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
How is this not a violation of the rights of everyone here and everyone in the country (except for Members of Congress who are not under the plan) under the 4th Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without a judge’s warrant? AND Where under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution (Or anywhere that would allow it to be deemed constitutional under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution) does the Federal Government have the right to seize my personal bank account records without notifying me and without my permission except for tax purposes under the 16th amendment? This is even more clearly against the Constitution. How can any member of Congress vote for this when he or she swore to uphold the and defend the Constitution?
In additon, where and how under the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right or power to issue any National Health Care ID card. The use of the social security number (which was originally issued “NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF IDENTIFICATION’ but was in reality to be used as a taxpayer’s identification) is bad enough. It is totally against my religious beliefs to allow myself to be generally identified by a number instead of a name. This National Health Care ID would be even worse because I can live without giving my social security number. except for direct tax payer identification purposes. Under this plan, I could not get any medical care at all without giving my National Health care ID card. (If it had a different number than one’s social security number and could be used only for health care purposes it might be more acceptable, but the social security number was originally intended to be used only for social security and NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION. If this bill passes and I have to have a National Health Care ID card, I will just have to sue to get health care without using any health care ID and if I loose that suit then I will have to forgo any health care. How can it be constitutional to deny me my religious convictions or have to forgo any chance of obtaining health care. People support ing this bill say that health care should be a “right” for everyone. If it requires an identification number or card, I would be denied the “right” to health care by the very Government that says it is working to guarantee everyone a right to health care.
(Here is the actual language of the Bill)
DO NOT USE UNLESS THEY SAY IT IS NOT IN THE BILL
‘‘SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE
TRANSACTIONS.
11
‘‘(a) STANDARDSFORFINANCIALANDADMINISTRA-
12
TIVETRANSACTIONS.—
13
‘‘(1) INGENERAL.—The Secretary shall adopt
14
and regularly update standards consistent with the
15
goals described in paragraph (2).
16
‘‘(2) GOALSFORFINANCIALANDADMINISTRA-
17
TIVE TRANSACTIONS.—The goals for standards
18
under paragraph (1) are that such standards shall—
19
‘‘(A) be unique with no conflicting or re-
20
dundant standards;
21
‘‘(B) be authoritative, permitting no addi-
22
tions or constraints for electronic transactions,
23
including companion guides;
24
58
‘‘(C) be comprehensive, efficient and ro-
1
bust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper
2
transactions or clarification by further commu-
3
nications;
4
‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real-
5
time) determination of an individual’s financial
6
responsibility at the point of service and, to the
7
extent possible, prior to service, including
8
whether the individual is eligible for a specific
9
service with a specific physician at a specific fa-
10
cility, which may include utilization of a ma-
11
chine-readable health plan beneficiary identi-
12
fication card;
13
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions to ask your Congressman's on Health Care (HB 3200)
From actual sections of the Bill
Question 7
Medicaid eligible individuals automatically enrolled: Constitutionality:
PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice
Believe it or not, there are people who choose to stay as far away from governmental interference in their lives. This would include forcing them to be enrolled in medicaid. Where under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution (Or anywhere that would allow it to be deemed constitutional under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution) does the Federal Government have the right to require anyone to accept governmental handouts if they do not wish to do so? This is even more clearly against the Constitution. How can any member of Congress vote for this when he or she swore to uphold the and defend the Constitution?
(Here is the actual language of the Bill)
DO NOT USE UNLESS THEY SAY IT IS NOT IN THE BILL
(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID EL-
IGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Com-
13
missioner shall provide for a process under which an
14
individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and
15
has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-partici-
16
pating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions to ask your Congressman on Health Care (HB 3200)
From actual sections of the Bill
Question 8
GOVERNMENT AGENTS VISITING FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN: Constitutionality:
In sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.
Where under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution (Or anywhere that would allow it to be deemed constitutional under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution) does the Federal Government have any valid interest in having its agents come into the homes of young parents to try to tell them how they have to raise their children?
(Here is the actual language of the Bill)
DO NOT USE UNLESS THEY SAY IT IS NOT IN THE BILL
838
SEC. 1904. GRANTS TO STATES FOR QUALITY HOME VISITA-
1
TION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG
2
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHIL-
3
DREN.
4
Part B of title IV of the Social Security Act (42
5
U.S.C. 621–629i) is amended by adding at the end the
6
following:
7
‘‘Subpart 3—Support for Quality Home Visitation
8
Programs
9
‘‘SEC. 440. HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES
10
WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EX-
11
PECTING CHILDREN.
12
‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to im-
13
prove the well-being, health, and development of children
14
by enabling the establishment and expansion of high qual-
15
ity programs providing voluntary home visitation for fami-
16
lies with young children and families expecting children.
17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions to ask your Congressman on Health Care (HB 3200)
From actual sections of the Bill
Question 9
Controling pay for every doctor--Constitutionality:
pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.
How is this NOT a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed protection of the right to be paid for one’s work under the 5th Amendment AND how is it not in reality a violation of the protections of the 13th Amendment in making doctors do the government’s work but not allow them to have a say in what they might earn?AND Where under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution (Or anywhere that would allow it to be deemed constitutional under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution) does the Federal Government have the right to place limits on what anyone can make for the work that they do? This is even more clearly against the Constitution. How can any member of Congress vote for this when he or she swore to uphold the and defend the Constitution?
(Here is the actual language of the Bill)
DO NOT USE UNLESS THEY SAY IT IS NOT IN THE BILL
127
(1) PHYSICIANS.—The Secretary shall provide
1
for the annual participation of physicians under the
2
public health insurance option, for which payment
3
may be made for services furnished during the year,
4
in one of 2 classes:
5
(A) PREFERRED PHYSICIANS.—Those phy-
6
sicians who agree to accept the payment rate
7
established under section 223 (without regard
8
to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.
9
(B) PARTICIPATING, NON-PREFERRED
10
PHYSICIANS.—Those physicians who agree not
11
to impose charges (in relation to the payment
12
rate described in section 223 for such physi-
13
cians) that exceed the ratio permitted under
14
section 1848(g)(2)(C) of the Social Security
15
Act.
16
(2) OTHER PROVIDERS.—The Secretary shall
17
provide for the participation (on an annual or other
18
basis specified by the Secretary) of health care pro-
19
viders (other than physicians) under the public
20
health insurance option under which payment shall
21
only be available if the provider agrees to accept the
22
payment rate established under section 223 (without
23
regard to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.
24
