The Healthcare Act could be hazardous to your health

Nick Purpura prepares to reargue his health care reform bill case. Now he's arguing a right to bear arms case--before the US Supreme Court, no less.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

By Nicholas E. Purpura and Donald R. Laster, Jr

Many agree that healthcare reform is needed. However, the Healthcare Act signed into law has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. Under the guise of “affordable healthcare,” the Democratic Party designed a plan that transferred massive power to the Executive Branch of government along with 1/6th of the economy to federal control in violation of Article I, Section 7 of our Constitution.

In district courts throughout the United States, the Department of Justice is arguing that Congress has authority under the “commerce clause” to mandate the purchase of health insurance and the right to impose or fine those who refuse. They argue the fines and mandates are necessary for the “general welfare” and claim the authority exists under the “necessary and proper clause.” However, there is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes “specific welfare” by forcing one group of citizens to pay for another group. In 1936 the Supreme Court ruled against “specific welfare” legislation as being unconstitutional. Since healthcare legislation has passed, two federal courts have also ruled that this Act is unconstitutional.

In order to make this healthcare affordable, taxes and fines are imposed on individuals, corporations, and businesses who refuse to comply with the government’s mandate. Therefore, free citizens are basically relegated to “government servitude.” This clearly violates the 13th Amendment which states only prisoners can be subjected to servitude, forced work, or provide a service against their will.

After reading the entire Bill, we have discovered that this legislation effectively makes null and void Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and Amendments 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16, as well as rendering the Judicial Branch of government irrelevant by doing away with judicial review and the checks and balances built into our Constitution for protection against the other two branches of government. In so doing, it has changed our Constitutional Republic into a government ruled by the dictates of men.

As written, the 4th Amendment once protected citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures and the right to privacy. Under this Act federal bureaucracies are given unfettered authority to obtain your personal medical records, as well as financial records without first obtaining a search warrant.

Prior to enactment of this Act, under the 5th Amendment it was illegal to take ones property or fine them without a judicial hearing. Such confiscation would have constituted an illegal “taking” in violation of the “due process” clause. This Act allows the government to fine, jail, or confiscate your property without the benefit of a trial if you fail to comply with the mandate to purchase health insurance.

The violation regarding the 16th Amendment can be explained as follows. If you already have private insurance that Big Brother deems unacceptable or refuse to obey the mandate one of the penalties, you will be subject to a fine (tax) based upon your “gross income.” This is over and above your normal income tax mandated by the 16th Amendment. Basically, Congress authorized the federal government to tax (calling it a fine) your gross income a second time on “phantom” income. Some would rightly argue that this is a violation of the 8th Amendment that prohibits “excessive fines.” Not to mention a violation of Article 1, Section 9,

No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

Donald R. Laster Jr

Under the healthcare legislation those provisions were rendered null and void.

Continuing examination reveals that the Act also violates the 14th Amendment that provides “equal protection and equal treatment.” For example, unions, various government employees, select corporations, business, and foundations have received waivers. Along with the violation of the 14th Amendment, states such as New Jersey, Tennessee, Ohio, and Massachusetts also received special exemptions, which violate Article 1, Section 9 concerning “capitation taxes” by disproportionately discriminating between individuals and states.

The 1st Amendment speaks against respecting one religion over another. But Muslims need not comply with the legislation. They’re exempt based on their claim that the Quran and Sharia law forbid the purchase of insurance. However, if a Muslim goes to the hospital, the law requires that he/she be treated—at the taxpayers’ expense. This also sets a dangerous precedent that allows Muslims to be excused from obeying constitutional laws in favor of Sharia law and Quran.1

The 9th and 10th Amendments assure that our citizens and our states have rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. These sovereign rights are disregarded under Obama-care, since under this Act the federal government denies the states and their citizens their individual sovereignty.

In addition to all the constitutional violations, this Act inadvertently grants the government the authority to create a monopoly in violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act, since it will eventually put all private insurance companies out of business and create a single payer system run by the government. It also renders the HIPPA legislation null and void.

Additionally, ObamaCare grants the President the authority to create a Civilian Military Corps, which violates appropriate restrictions set forth in Art. 1 Sec. 8. It also violates the “Posse Comitatus Act” by allowing the President to deploy his corps of troops in any state without first getting permission from the governor in which he declares a public crisis, and it allows the President to institute an involuntary draft, and/or conscript personnel from State National Guard Units into active service under his command by-passing Congress.

The Act also grants special funding to minorities, a thing that violates Title VII of the “Civil Rights” legislation. So much for one America and race relations.

A matter of great concern is that government officials will dictate which doctor you can see, when you can see them, and what they can and cannot prescribe. That includes what medical devices will be approved, whether or not you will be allowed to be admitted into a hospital, and what your physician will be paid.

On the positive side (that is if you are here illegally), illegals get free healthcare, and we get 160 new bureaucracies at a cost of 2.5 trillion dollars, which will cause insurance premiums to skyrocket.

It may not be the change many had in mind when they voted for Mr. Obama, but it is in keeping with his campaign promise to spread the wealth.

In conclusion, it is hard to find anywhere in this Act where healthcare is improved or made affordable for anyone other than illegal aliens or Muslims. It does, however, further encumber an already heavily regulated system with more bureaucracy and less choice.

While there have been scores of legal challenges against Obama-care, not one listed the violations cited above. It took two pro se, tea party individuals to expose these violations.

For full details, see Purpura v. Sebelius, District Court, (DNJ) 3:10-CV-04814-GEB-DEA at Eagle on the Air.com.


1Note: the relevant part of the Social Security Act exempts any religious sect or division that has somehow established itself prior to 31 December 1950. But if any modern pastor, rabbi, or other cleric determines that a new enlightenment, or even a proper reading of the fundamental documents of Christianity or Judaism, says that it is unlawful or unobservant to rely on an insurance policy that human beings underwrite, that cleric must consider himself “accursed,” or however a cleric might wish to say “out of luck.”

Website | + posts

RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.

4 Responses to The Healthcare Act could be hazardous to your health

  1. kay sieverding says:

    You might be able to challenge the Healthcare Act on this basis:

    An article by J. David Cummins, a Wharton professor, states:

    “Bermuda has developed a regulatory system which involves a high degree of cooperation between insurance companies and regulators and involves lower regulatory burden in comparison with jurisdictions such as the U.S. and the U.K…. Bermuda also
    has a business-friendly tax regime in that it does not impose an income tax … The advantages can be summarized as speedy incorporation, no corporate income tax, and a lower intensity of regulatory oversight than alternative jurisdictions such as the U.S. … There is no requirement for Bermuda ownership of exempted companies…. the level of regulatory burden is lower than in traditional regulatory jurisdictions such as the U.S… one of the hallmarks of the Bermuda regulatory system is the spirit of cooperation that exists between the insurance industry and the regulator. This is in contrast to the more cumbersome and adversarial regulatory system in the U.S. and many other traditional regulatory jurisdictions. However, one potential downside to the close relationship between insurers and the regulatory authorities in Bermuda is an unusual lack of
    transparency with respect to insurer financial reports. In the U.S., statutory regulatory reports are publicly available and widely used in economic and financial analyses of the insurance industry. This degree of transparency, which is valuable in facilitating market discipline as a regulatory mechanism, is completely absent in Bermuda.
    In Bermuda, no information on individual insurers in classes 1, 2, and 3 is released…”

    Medical insurance companies are also based in Bermuda.

    State insurance regulations are ineffective. For instance Mutual Insurance with an address in Bermuda claims to sell insurance all over the United States. In one instance a law firm in Colorado billed a law firm in D.C. over $47 K for a law suit defense in Colorado which Mutual Insurance had Bermuda has insured. (These verified bills are in PACER in Colorado 02-cv-1950 document 755) The lawyer in D.C. Jerome Schaefer was listed as the president and CEO of the insurance company in Bermuda, Mutual Insurance. However, not only does the State of Colorado not have any documents about the insurance company they claim that they don’t care that Mutual Insurance Ltd located in Bermuda sold insurance in Colorado.

    There are other cases of insurance companies selling insurance in the U.S. without filing documents with the states that according to state law are required. For instance, most states required that when “surplus insurers” sell insurance in their state they prove that the insurance they sell is not available from an “authorized insurer”. The authorized insurers are required to provide market conduct information including the ratio of claims paid to total sales that surplus insurers are not. Underwriters at Lloyds London is currently claiming to sell surplus insurance in 50 states in which they are not as “authorized insurer”.

    The National Association of Insurance Commissioners no longer allows the public any access to any information about insurance companies in the United States.

    At the same time, a lawsuit filed in federal court to enforce insurance costs a minimum of $100,000 to file if the plaintiff has insurance, (according to a 2010 speech by Colorado federal judge John L. Kane).

    Over 95% of the public cannot afford to pay $100,000 + for a lawyer filed lawsuit in federal court. As a result 9% of lawsuits filed in federal court not including prisoners are filed “PRO SE”. Many of these are filed by individuals with advanced college degrees.

    However, essentially all PRO SE lawsuits filed in federal court are “dismissed”. There is only one record of one pro se litigant winning any damages in and federal court in the last 10 years. US Courts keeps records on pro se law suits but has stopped releasing statistics on pro se lawsuits. Many federal courts order their clerks not to accept papers filed by people who aren’t lawyers, (except for bankruptcy). Generally, pro se litigants are not allowed oral hearings in the district courts and most federal circuit courts have policies of never allowing pro se litigants to have oral hearings. Congress required that mediation be offered to ALL non prisoner civil lawsuits but to the best of my knowledge ALL federal civil courts have written policies that NO pro se litigants under any circumstances may receive mediation services. Furthermore pro se litigants are subjected to abuse and intimidation. Federal courts frequently order them to pay law firm legal bills with no “order to show cause” or any “rule 11 c. 6” orders finding fraud on their part. Basically, the federal courts dismiss their claims and then order them to pay tens of thousands or sometimes over 100 thousand dollars simply because their case was “dismissed”. The reasons for the “dismissal” are not always even stated or the reasons stated are sometimes not supported in fact, which the pro se litigant can’t challenge because they are not allowed oral hearings at either the district or the appellate court level. Pro se litigants are also sometimes summarily imprisoned for suggesting that they have a right to decision on the merits — they are imprisoned sometimes by the courts with no criminal charge and no bail hearing no matter that they are polite in court and, your honor this your honor that, stand up sit down when and where they are told.

    Thus the Healthcare Act is potentially forcing citizens to buy worthless unregulated insurance sold in violation of the McCarran Ferguson Act and U.S. Courts policies will deprive them of any mechanism to enforce the insurance contracts. The funds that they will waste on enforceable insurance sold without adequate regulation could be used to pay income tax or to pay cash for medical services.

  2. […] E. Purpura and Donald R. Laster Jr filed their case against the health care reform bill (HR 3590) in the fall of 2010. They said it was […]

  3. […] Hazardous to your health […]

  4. […] The health care reform bill is hazardous to your health […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.