Obamacare attacked as unconstitutional invasion of privacy, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 4-7-2009 @ 11:38 AM by wonderworld

Obamacare attacked as unconstitutional invasion of privacy


www.examiner.com
In my last column, "Under Obamacare, where will Canadians go for medical services?," I highlighted Gun Owners of America's (GOA's) opposition on privacy grounds to President Obama's obsession with nationalizing medical services in America. Noting that mainstream privacy experts are also alarmed at the Obama administration's "damn the torpedoes" attitude to impose statist policy mandates at whatever the cost to privacy, I called for an unholy alliance of gun owners and privacy advocates to take action to stop Obamacare now before it becomes a social and economic entanglement that would
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 12:00 PM by wonderworld
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman



They seem to be ignoring a lot of the constitution lately like HR 675 allowing the military to arrest citizens, etc, etc, and be state police. Even though it's illegal it will still happen. Without declaring a State emergency.


reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 12:29 PM by wonderworld
reply to post by mikerussellus




Liberal play books, that is funny. We know some weird stuff is going on behind those closed doors but I'm guessing it's Paul Volcker giving Obama instructions on what to do next.



reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 12:43 PM by earlywatcher
the real problem here is that the government is no longer subject to the law. it doesn't matter how many safeguards are put in place if only the little people are expected to obey them. we have reached the point that anybody who represents government can just ignore anything they want to. it doesn't even matter what kind of plan or even constitution we have if it becomes irrelevant.

it's going to be very difficult to make personal medical information easy to exchange because each system holds things differently. big government sees that as a problem of course but i'm not so sure any more. the more standardized it all becomes, the easier it is to access for anybody and everybody.

even if government sets standards on who can receive what kinds of care based on...whatever they plan to base it on. i assume they will pretend these will be medical decisions: can this person really benefit from a hip replacement or is he too old and too fat and doesn't eat enough vegetables and has asthma? or will it be based on what kind of job (importance) the person has? and there is NO doubt in my mind that anybody well connected to the regime in power (both parties) will get their treatment regardless of anything else.

in other words, the more they they know about us the easier it will be to reward and punish in terms of medical treatment as well as taxes and everything else.

that sounds awfully cynical.

health care industry does need reform. i just don't trust obama to do it because he turns everything into a power grab.


reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 12:54 PM by wonderworld
reply to post by earlywatcher



Good point

" Sorry mam we cant help; you had a prexisting medical condition"

"Sorry we dont cover Birth control pills we prefer to gut you instead."

"Sorry about your prostate sir but you failed to get a screeing as required by law"

The possibilities are endless!


reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 05:45 PM by hangedman13
reply to post by wonderworld



No I don't think most people would notice. The typical American is unaware of what really is going on around them. Thinking things through is something most people don't do. If they did would we be where we are now! Watching Obama in action is like watching a faith healer. Lots of flash and pretty words but ultimately useless!

[edit on 4-7-2009 by hangedman13]


reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 05:51 PM by wonderworld
reply to post by hangedman13



Yes the people are still worshipping Obama. I think most have compassion that all this was dumped on him; however his policy choices will backfire. They already have.

There were other choices besides the Stimulus bill. what's it stimulated? Maybe a few egos, especially disregarding the GDP. You can be an idiot and know that much.



reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 06:03 PM by wonderworld
reply to post by skeptic1



I think they are implying the privacy of personal choice as mentioned below. Yes I know the constitution has no privacy rights.

The Supreme Court created the right to privacy in the 1960s and used it to strike down a series of state and federal regulations of personal (mostly sexual) conduct. This line of cases began with Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 (involving marital birth control), and includes the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.


The court's underlying rationale was not abortion-specific. Rather, the justices posited a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must remain free of government regulation, except in the most exceptional circumstances. As the court explained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), "these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life."


It is, of course, impossible to predict how and when the courts will ultimately rule on the new health system. Much depends on the details and the extent to which reasonable and practical private alternatives to the national plan remain. In crafting the law, however, its White House and congressional sponsors must keep privacy -- that near absolute right to personal autonomy they have so often praised and promoted -- squarely before them. The only thing that is certain today is that the courts, and not Congress, will have the last word.


online.wsj.com...

Your right hell no they dont care.


reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 06:08 PM by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by skeptic1



Yes you are correct that there is no right to privacy stated exactly as that in the constitution, but the 4th amendment has always been interpreted by the supreme court since the inception of America that it does indeed mean you have a right to privacy.

So yes we do have a constitutional right to privacy it just isn't stated as the right to privacy.


reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 06:14 PM by wonderworld
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife



Thanks for clearing that up. I should make a large poster with that clause and stick it next to the Declaration of Indepenence.

Thanks!


reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 06:17 PM by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by wonderworld



No problem.

I can see where people get it confused, but having the right to be "secure" to you property and effects, is the same as having the right to privacy.


reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 06:17 PM by skeptic1
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife



This is unconstitutional for other reasons. Mainly due to the fact that the federal government has zero power to do something like this. Of course, this administration and Congress seems to love doing things that are unconstitutional.

Argue the real reasons it is unconstitutional, and not a legal fallacy (no enumeurated right to personal privacy within the Constitution with the enumerated exception of illegal search and seizure).

That's my point. There are the solid, concrete reasons that this is unconstitutional other than the one that can be argued the way I did in my first post. Others that cannot be argued.

The Supreme Court created the right to privacy in the 1960s and used it to strike down a series of state and federal regulations of personal (mostly sexual) conduct. This line of cases began with Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 (involving marital birth control), and includes the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.


But, think about it for a minute......if government takes over healthcare (which we all pretty much know it start to sometime before the 2010 elections), how private will these things be?? These cases established the "constitutional right to privacy", and a simple stroke of Obama's pen will erase it. Easy to do when the right is not concrete to begin with.

So, fight its unconstitutionality on concrete grounds, not soggy ones.

Just my take on this.......
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Santorum wants more fracking!!!
  US Political Madness, Posted 13 hours ago, 53 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 9 hours ago, 52 replies