Obamacare attacked as unconstitutional invasion of privacy

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Thanks. I searched and searched the Constitution a year back about gun rights or the right to bear arms, yet couldnt find the word right to privacy. I was shocked and always assumed we had it.

reply to post by skeptic1


Well the invasion of privacy is not a soggy ground to debate this on, it is on very hard ground. Here is the history of privacy law.

The constitution clearly states that it is a document of what the government can do, and nowhere in the constitution does it give the government the right to invade our privacy just because. The right to privacy was automatically assumed.

This is also unconstitutional because the constitution does not give the legal authority to the federal government to provide health care for all. Although the general welfare clause got interpreted to "save the court". Because Roosevelt wanted to appoint 9 more justices to the supreme court to make his unconstitutional policies, constitutional.

So the court interpreted the general welfare clause as a means for the government to provide social safety nets even though they are unconstitutional. They did this to save the court.

So with universal health care falling under the general welfare clause, and the courts subsequent reinterpretation of it in order for them to save the court for have 18 justices they voted against the constitution.

Now if we look at the 4th amendment it says we have the right against illegal search and seizure without probable cause and a warrant must be issued. Obamacare will completely violate this because our medical records which are by law bound to our privacy and must be released with our consent.

Thus Obama care is starting down the slippery slope of nullifying the 4th amendment because they will have access to information that takes a warrant for them to gain access too. Our medical records contain just about everything about our lives.

reply to post by wonderworld


That is pretty much what the courts assumed too, and also the founding fathers. The grounds on which the constitution was founded it was an automatic given the we had the right to privacy. The link I posted up above is a good crash course on the right to privacy.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


I love it. I do learn something new every day. I need to read that again. I may need that debate in the future. Thanks again!

Now if we look at the 4th amendment it says we have the right against illegal search and seizure without probable cause and a warrant must be issued. Obamacare will completely violate this because our medical records which are by law bound to our privacy and must be released with our consent.

Thus Obama care is starting down the slippery slope of nullifying the 4th amendment because they will have access to information that takes a warrant for them to gain access too. Our medical records contain just about everything about our lives.

Exactly. That was kind of my point with showing that medical cases helped set up the "constitutional right to privacy" (especially Roe v. Wade with medical issues), and Obamacare can wipe out that medical right to privacy with the stroke of a pen.

The courts have shown that they won't stand up to the liberal social programs in this country. When it comes down to it, what are they going to give more weight to?? The public good (the enumerated Constitutional power the federal government has to provide for the general welfare) or the legal fallacy of a constitutional right to privacy that was partially put in place by medical cases?

I know it seems like I am arguing a couple of different points, here, but I feel that there is more of a leg to stand on with the lack of enumerated Constitutional rights for the Federal government to do this. To me, that stands up better against the the argument of human rights and the public good.

It is going to happen and we are all going to be screwed. I agree with you on everything you are saying, but I can see how they will argue the other side......and win (and that is what I am trying to point out). I mean, it is for the public good, for basic human rights, for the good of the country........

It will go through, and neither the fact that they do not have the Constitutional power or right to do this (Obamacare) nor a person's right to privacy is going to stop them unless enough people who don't want the government taking over their lives stand up and scream loud enough.

reply to post by skeptic1


I see where you are coming from, but in all honesty they are going to stay away from the privacy debate, because it has been a precedent that has been upheld for centuries.

Where they are going to argue is on providing for the general welfare clause, and they are going to point to the social security case where the court reinterpreted the general welfare clause. Because the right to privacy has always been assumed since the inception of America. Medical records laws were put into effect to protect our right of privacy against the corporations.

And unless the court re-reinterprets the general welfare clause to mean the government can only provide a strong currency, an environment of stability for people to provide for their families, and for the defense of America(which is what it originally meant), then it will get shot down.

I don't see it happening though, the supreme court has become a political tool. So this is going to get shoved down our throats anyway we look at it.

reply to post by skeptic1


Actually I doubt they'll argue much. The judges will side with the bill. The corruption runs deep. They will stop at nothing to gain from their warped agenda.

I can tell you my doctor is against it and said most of his patients are, as well. What we see in the media is not correct. The numbers and popularity poles are off by a long shot.

Yes they probably mess around with the 4th amendment too!

reply to post by wonderworld


Same here, I had a debate with somebody on another thread that is all for a single payer system and linked me to an article that stated 16,000 doctors are for it, so I did the math and it came out to like 18,000+ people per doctor. I was like yea that is going to make things go over real well.

I just fail to see the logic how this is going to reduce costs. It isn't like medical treatment is a set in stone number, it is a continuously variable number. It will just keep going up every year though, because as more babies are born, etc. You get where I'm going with this.

But unless they start subsidizing medical school health care in this country is going to go down the crapper. Doctors are going to go find another job so they can pay the bills, they aren't going to settle on getting paid 70g's a year when their students loans are 2,000g's a month.

Then add in the Cap and Trade and they are just begging for disaster. This is an issue that should be left up to the states.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


I'm assuming it will be an HMO. You dont get quality care and have a co-payment. My ex-husband and I had this type of coverage and he had a well paying job. We would go elsewhere if anything serious came up.

It's meant to save money, be cost effective but you get what you pay for. There is a trick with HMO's you must go 3 times before they give you antibiotics. Most people are too proud to go to the doctor thinking it's a gas pain and end up dying. HMO or not.

So consider a co-pay on each visit plus a co-pay on each medicine and the doctor getting screwed as well. They will most likely get paid 35 cents on the dollar therfore cut down on MRI's and other testing unless the person id dying, then they'll say you waited too long.

Sorry for the essay and spelling errors. I'm typing faster than I can think at the moment.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by wonderworld]

reply to post by wonderworld


It will be a nightmare. I fail to see how adding more people to the health care system is going lessen the cost.

The logic is all backwards and people just lap it up. Another logical fallacy is the, we need to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use to 1907 levels, meanwhile stating that we need to build a 21st century economy. So it's like in order to "progress" we have to "regress". It's really strange.

Off topic,

If you are using Firefox, download the add-on Hyperwords, it has spell check and definition look up and things. And translation, its pretty useful.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Thanks for the add-on info. I didnt know that either. Firefox is more secure.

No it’s actually on topic. The Green bill will most likely be put on hold to pay for another war brewing that will increase costs, as well. I have no idea of who’s flipping the costs on this Healthcare bill either?

It isn’t written in black and white. I have a feeling it ties in with the Bill Hillary Clinton was pushing, when Bill was President. I dont know if the doctors have seen the specifics.

Bill and his bills. O.K , does firefox correct grammer like that one?

reply to post by wonderworld


Lol no, it doesn't correct grammar.

Yea from what little info I have gotten people are saying this is essentially the same bill that Hillary was pushing. I have a feeling that it will ultimately fail. The dems are fractured on this bill already so it seems like it might already be DOA. Not to mention popular support is not there for it.

I don't think the Obama infomercial did him much good either. People want to hear the different views on major decisions like this. You have a small minority that doesn't care what the consequences are but most people want enough info to make an informed decision.

Not to mention I think people are getting fed up with Obama campaigning all the time and not doing his job. His latest town hall also didn't help things along when he said the whole bill couldn't be scored because the CBO doesn't do cost savings due to budget cuts from other programs and the bill is already sitting at a trillion plus dollars as is.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Your right about him out preaching his policies. It was like begging the doctors to accept his plan. He goes on these publicly entertaining infomercial's, as you say to communicate with the Senate as well. What the He%%.

He does have style with no substance. That's for sure.

The Constitution does not list providing health care as a duty to the Federal Government.

It is therefore ILLEGAL for the Federal Government to impose ANY form of control over health care aside from interstate safety regulations..

Black and White. No shades of gray. If the Constitution does not list the duty to Congress or another branch, it falls to the rights of the State (this includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and now Obama's joke of a program)



If the Government would like to stick their hands into Health Care it will require a ratification of a new Constitutional Amendment.

But when do we listen to the Constitution anymore?

reply to post by Rockpuck


Yep, you are correct. It would require a constitutional amendment for this to be constitutional. As you said though they don't listen to the constitution anymore. And if this does pass and gets taken to court the Admin will just argue the Social Security case in which the court reinterpreted the general welfare clause.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Yes, I follow what your saying. Congress was never intended to play banker either. That thought is still scary. They may soon be voting on another stimulas package.

what else is new... I could have swore we must have lost a war somewhere, But I can not find a single country that killed America.
unless, you look at the UN... and then their charter superceeds our
Constitution... now, isnt that special.

reply to post by BornPatriot


Yes it seems thes UN treaties are out trumping our Constitution. It's a shame.