Obama loosing Health Reform battle

Of course not, it's why I wasn't asking you the question. I'm interested in the truth here.

You throw around the word "constitutional" like a mantra. Unconstitutional means something specific. Not everything in our large system of laws is a constitutional issue. It's kind of my point here. Some of you scream "unconstitutional" at everything you don't like very much when you have no idea at all if it's a constitutional issue.

No, I don't like the sound of "access to bank accounts", that's why I'm trying to find out exactly what it says. Not everything you hear on FOX is true you know. Last week they were saying that the health bill requires everyone to have a "death conference" with your doctor and it was suggested that Obama was advocating euthanasia, which turned out to be bullchit. The bill only allows doctors to be compensated for having such a conference at the patients request.

 

I knew there must be some reason that you didn't want to link it or cite it fully. Here is the LINK.

Go to page 58 and what does it say? In the section entitled ‘‘SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.

It says.

OK, that's an electronically readable insurance card. Nothing about our bank accounts there at all.

Then its later on page 59 it says:

OK, here its says that it enables electronic transfers of money. Just like automatic deposit of your paycheck or electronic bill-paying. Nothing at all about involuntary access to your bank account by the government. This is standard business in the 21st century. Who among us does not use electronic transfers? Paypal is one. We still have individual accounts and all transactions are authorized by account owners with PIN's.

But look at section B, it even allows for paper transactions (checks) as long as the data there sufficient to allow it to be entered electronically. This happens already also. Look at your bank statement and you will see that half of the people who you wrote checks to cashed them electronically by entering the data from them into the system instead of processing the paper check.

As I suspected, if this is the passage that you refer to to it does none of the things you say that it does. It doesn't allow the government to intrude into you bank account, it simply enables electronic transmissions for efficiency.
But don't worry, all you have to do is suggest it and SabanFan believes it. :grin:

Well, this point is moot now, but the Fourth Amendment actually applies to only to criminal law, not civil law, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1855. The Fourth Amendment specifies that any warrant must be judicially sanctioned for a search or an arrest, in order for such a warrant to be considered reasonable.

Not all actions by which governmental authorities obtain information from or about a person constitute a search. For instance, if it is necessary to determine a persons financial eligibility for government health insurance, the government can consult it's records for this information on a persons freely given application for other government assistance. It doesn't require a search warrant for this and never has. But the "Reasonable expectation of privacy" Supreme Court ruling of 1967 would prevent the government from accessing a citizens bank account without his permission.

Bottom line: it's a bogus charge.

 

OK, this list is not from the Health Bill, it is from a critic of the health bill. It also said that page 59 "lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank accts for election funds transfer." Only it doesn't say that at all, as I just pointed out, lines 21-24 are Section C of the above post. Check it out!

Do you really want me to go get what the bill actually says on these pages? Tell you what . . . why don't you use the actual bill when criticizing it instead of what some blogger made up.

Stay with me, amigo! If the critics will only back up their claims with some real evidence, then I can answer them logically. Zulu Shaq really tries, but SF refuses. Such is the credibility gap.