The Truth About the Health Care Bills

Posted August 12, 2009 at …

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

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 information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution 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. Here is a link to the Constitution:

And another to the 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

Leave a Comment


Leave a Reply

Henry Brown

Mr. Allgood:
WOULD SUGGEST that PRIOR to posting such right wing STUFF that you verify the accuracy of same.
IF you haven’t read said “proposed” bill to post such a pile of work is just basically reinforcing the untruths that this right wing nut posted on his blog.

Sam Allgood

Mr. Brown, I would suggest that in making such accusations and calling names that you provide some proof that they are untruths. In reviewing the comments, I noted that he was referring to an original House bill which certainly could have been changed or dropped by this time. I guess it would be OK to post left-wing stuff without reading everything they refer to. I did take the time to research who the author was and to me he appeared to be reputable, but of course, having an opinion other than leftist mantra would make us both disreputable to those on the left.

Henry Brown

Mr. Allgood:

Since you apparently researched Mr Connelly’s website
I will apologize for posting MY PERSONAL opinion of Mr. Connelly’s somewhat extreme political leanings, although, I believe that it MIGHT be possible for someone else to come to the same conclusion…

I would offer that it probably NOT ok to post any thing without reading what you are posting regardless of your political inclinations.

this was the response that I sent to one of the several people who sent me the same blog posting that you posted on this site:

A. This PROPOSED bill states on Section 246 that only legal residences will be eligible for health care under this bill. APPARENTLY what the people who are, somewhat blindly opposed to this bill take that to mean, APPARENTLY is because it doesn’t state that there is a requirement to provide “proof” of residency it will permit illegal immigrants to participate in health care within the United States. NOT sure that they can possibly figure out that there are PROBABLY more illegal’s being treated in emergency rooms and that in a majority of cases we the taxpayer currently pay through the nose for it(compare the Hospital bills for someone who has insurance vs what the hospital bills the “local” entity for uninsured care.

B. After READING the entire PROPOSED bill nowhere could I find any statement that the “public option” will force the private insurance companies out of business. I know that Medicare has created a entire new business model to almost exclusively support the medicare program

C. I know that my insurance carrier questions and sometimes refuses to pay for procedures that some dumb bureaucrat decides is NOT necessary for financial reasons.

D. BY this Constitutional Lawyer logic,we should NOT have in place any Medicare NOT to mention Medicaid because the two programs are NOT mentioned in the constitution, at least that I could find.

E. Who do you think reviews our medical records now, since we are both insured by federal government. AND although it has been several decades, early 80’s, since I was employed by the private sector, I believe that then every employer has/had the right to review the costs/medical records because they pick up the majority of the cost.

Suspect I could go on but….

Sam Allgood

In regard to item B, I submit the following, readily acknowledging that the terminology is confusing and I may be misinterpreting it, but it sure seems to say to me that once the law is implemented, insurers can not sign up any new people, despite the sections title:


(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:


(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

That appears to me to say you can keep your coverage, as claimed, but don’t change jobs because the new employer won’t be able to offer you coverage.

It seems to me that intentionally write legislation to make it confusing.


I have to agree, that wording does say that you cannot choose private insurance after the bill is in effect. That’s pretty weird, and I don’t think that’s fair. If we are going to have both private/public options, then everyone should be able to choose and switch.

As for the writing being confusing, that is not peculiar to this bill (and therefore not some democratic plot to trick everyone). Legal writing is horrendous, as anyone who’s had to read it can attest. The section you quote, Sam, is actually rather clear, compared to the usual!

I do have to agree with Henry though: what does health care have to do with the Constitution? It isn’t a matter of Constitutional Law. Unless you are a Constitutional purist and say that if it’s not in there, then it should be a State matter. Beyond that, the specifics of this debate are in a different arena.


I dont’ want to get into the specifics of Mr Connelly’s post, but it would be much more believable if he backed up his interpretation with facts or examples (ie, citations/excerpts from the bill). As it is, we are left only to take his word for it.

Sam Allgood

GeekCheek … we’re in agreement about the confusion … I meant all legislation, not just this bill and not just Democrats. That’s what we get by continually sending lawyers to Congress!

Connelly’s point is that this bill has little to do with health care. Instead it is a huge unconstitutional transfer of power to the executive branch. And I am a Constitutional purist and believe that most laws that Congress has passed are unconstitutional, doing things that they are not granted the power to do by the Constitution. They get away with it because the Supreme Court lets them get away with it (they are in agreement with their leftist agenda) and we the people let them do (we are too lazy and distracted to get involved, being too concerned with being entertained and too willing to be kept uninformed by the mainstream media).

Sam Allgood

P.S. I have wondered for a long time why, when a law is declared unconstitutional, are the lawmakers who voted for it not prosecuted? They should at least be fired … but we keep voting them in. Which points to a key problem with our political system … as long as people can vote into office those who will transfer wealth from those who have to themselves, they will do so … that can only last so long until the well is totally dry and we are all up the creek!


So, when you talk about the huge transfer of power from the Legislative to Executive Branches, I hope you include all such transfers that occurred under Bush/Cheney. I agree, in the last…oh let’s say 9 years…..there has been a HUGE transfer of power and loss of civil rights. Two excellent treatises on the subject are The End of America and Give me Liberty, both by Naomi Wolf ( (To be fair, I have not finished the second book, but what I read was very good).

As much as I’d like to, I can’t place all the blame on Bush/Cheney. Our CONGRESS allowed it to happen. And even if the Republicans held the majority, why didn’t Democrats raise holy hell? We as a people allowed politicians to use post-9/11 fear to take away our rights and consolidate power in the Executive Branch. And I haven’t seen Obama reverse any of that……

As for why lawmakers aren’t prosecuted for voting for unconstitutional laws….Maybe the idea is that they didn’t realize it was unconstitutional? Of course, they are all lawyers (except the ex-actors), so they should know better. Frankly, I’d rather see our elected officials prosecuted for other things (which shall remain nameless here to prevent a fight! ha ha).

Sam Allgood

Oh, here we go with the lefty lies again. The Supreme Court did nothing more than tell Florida that if they were going to recount votes, they had to do so using consistent rules for recounting across the state. The leftists who were trying to steal the election through that process knew that they could not accomplish their purposes that way, as proven by the five major news organizations that did do a recount afterwards … drawing the conclusion that no matter how you counted the hanging chads, Bush won Florida.

Gore and his lefty followers concluded that the best way to respond to this was rather than face up to the truth, just keep proclaiming that SCOTA gave the election to Bush. They also refused to deal with the fact that it would not have been issue if Gore had simply been able to win in HIS OWN STATE … but they had had enough of Gore already.


Aw, come on — I was just razzin’ ya on that one. Guess I should’ve put the smiley on the end so you’d know that. : )

But what about my other post?

Sam Allgood

Sorry, didn’t see the first comment … I agree that the huge transfer of power (to the federal government and specifically to the executive branch) have been going on for a long time, way before Bush/Cheney. Our whole political system sucks.

My bottom-line conclusion during the Clinton-Lewinsky fiasco was that if the situation were reversed, e.g., a Republican president, the same accusations and defenses would have been made … they would have just been coming from the opposite parties. It’s all about POWER … specifically keeping my party in power or when that doesn’t work, switch parties so that I’m in the one in power.


Frankly, I’m sick of the whole lot of them. We need to clean house and start fresh. I don’t affiliate with ANY party anymore. I’m a free agent.

Sam Allgood

Ditto … though most people I’m sure would identify me as Republican, and I pretty much vote that way, I have just about as many problems with most of them as I do with Democrats.

Time for another Revolution!

Al Fullbright

I can see right now there is no way to open your eyes. If you lost your job or were badly injured and your Insurance dropped you – would you be the first in line to scream and yell foul? You wouldn’t, because there are too many thousands of cases in front of you.

I dont care whether its paid for or if we have to mobilize the National Guard and the health departments of every state – the people in this country are experiencing huge gaps in health care coverage. Its about time we – and I say we as a nation, started to get a handle on the problem. Making a limited amount of people rich in the insurance business is not as important as fufilling the needs of the nation.

Its easy to act holier than thou when you have good health and a decent job and probably money in the bank, but there are many people who haven’t had the benefits of growing up in good solid families, had good educational opportunities, perhaps cant compete as mentally, some who are disabled or sick, and many who have been ravaged by natural catastrophe’s, or born into poverty.

Certainly there are many who can overcome these obstacles, but there are many more who cant. These are the people who need access to public health care.

Sam Allgood

My eyes are already open. I see, and agree with, those things you bring out and have compassion for them. There is certainly no justification for the profits of the insurance CEOs (or for the salaries of Congressmen with their automatic increases or the big salaries of the head of the new bureaucracy that will be created to administer this health care plan). I’m just tired of the the results of the ‘compassion’ of legislators being to reach into my pocket again … let me be compassionate and let them be compassionate with their own money.

If I did scream and yell foul, it would be at God, not at the government. He is the one that has promised to take care of me (there’s that right-wing religious nut coming out of me again). Of course, the government also promises such things, but I learned a long time ago not to trust them, after all they are only men and women and, in the majority of cases, corrupt and mainly looking out for #1.

I like the thoughts of Congressman David Crockett on this, though I am sure I will be thought as uncompassionate for it.


Well Sam, I’m glad to see you finally realize you are a right wing nut (just kidding). I agree that it’s pretty hard to stomach paying taxes for things when way too much money goes to lining pockets (can anyone say bank baillouts?). But I think that argument is mixing apples and oranges. Should we have a national health care system that provides care to all citizens? Yes. Is the most reasonable way for that to happen via a Federal system, paid for by taxes? Yes. Should our government be overhauled to protect our tax money from being used to line pockets? Yes. Should we also have overhauls to prevent ridiculous bonuses being paid while the same company is asking for a handout? Hell yes.

These are all things that need to be addressed. But denying ourselves a good health care system just because there is corruption or things to fix elsewhere in the system — well that’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Let’s build those protections into health care reform….and then we can tackle the general corrpution separately.

I am curious, Sam: do you think we should get rid of Medicare and social security? They are government-run, taxpayer-paid programs. I’m sure you will dispute this, but it has been proven quite clearly that Medicare actually works and is cost effective. Perfect, no – but it flies in the face of many of the arguments being used against the current health bill proposals.

Sam Allgood

Hmmm … where has it been proven that Medicare actually works … and how is ‘works’ defined? I see it as one of the main culprits contributing to the rising costs of health care. Sure, it works in that people who would not otherwise get some treatment, but I’m not sure there aren’t just as many cases of people getting treatment using medicare that shouldn’t (either cases of fraud or those who are just too lazy to work and choose rather to ‘work the system’.

I believe it is obvious that we could have better systems than what we currently have with medicare and social security. We shouldn’t just get rid of them, for one because they have been paid for by the working people of this country with a promise for their future financial and health security. We should not have been lied to, as is continuing to happen, about the cost of these programs. We should not have massive bills like this pushed down our throat without even Congress reading them as they tried to do initially.

Call me a skeptic, but I believe none of these programs were about health or security, though those were the arguments used to create the programs … they are all about buying votes and I don’t think that will ever change.

By the way, we are not denying ourselves a good health care system … we have the best health care in the world. We do have serious problems with health care delivery, and the profit motive of both doctors and insurance agencies is a major contributor to this problem. I’m not sure that the solution is not to go back to the old days … eliminate health insurance altogether and pay the doctor with chickens! 🙂 Really, I don’t know what the solution is, but I’m pretty sure it ain’t this as it will totally bankrupt our country and will likely result in worse health care, not better.