Congressman at Town Hall: ‘The Federal Government Can Do Most Anything in This Country’

Govt. Contempt and slavery in America...did he call her a -Snip-?

www.breitbart.tv

Pro-Obamacare Congressman Pete Stark outraged attendees at a town hall meeting in Hayward California recently when he responded to criticism surrounding the constitutional basis of government run health care by claiming that the federal government had the power to do anything.

An attendee asked Stark to explain his claim that health care was now a right rather than a privilege in light of the fact that government imposed Obamacare “infringes the inalienable rights of other people” under the Constitution. The attendee pointed out that to mandate others to provide a service was a form of

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.prisonplanet.com

Mod Edit - Please Review This Link.

[edit on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:15:54 -0500 by MemoryShock]

[edit on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:16:38 -0500 by MemoryShock]

The woman posses opinions on the constitution regarding health care. She makes some very good points and exposes this political lifer for what he is, a contemptuous fascist with no regard for the constitution!

Forward to 3:17 of the video. After being schooled by the lady in the audience it sounds like he says..."I'm glad you're here to save it (the USA), that b*tch".

Whats does it sound like he say's to you?

www.breitbart.tv
(visit the link for the full news article)

NO THE FEDS CAN'T DO ANYTHING THEY WANT.

The constitution prohibits them to.

And if they don't respect or AMEND the constitution, THEY ARE TRAITORS.


I hope that this piece of dirt is kicked out of congress in november. IMO he would deserve worse than that... but eh.

I do not hear him calling her a B word..

I do find it shocking that a congressman does not seem to know and understand the basics of our Constitution.

I think all people employed by the Gov which is we the people should take mandatory classes on the Constitution.

Most anything they want, eh?

Someone may want to remind the good congress critter that so too can the voters come November...

It truly is a shame that all too many of our congress critters have this same attitude.

...unfortunately, so do many of the wanna be critters who are clammering to replace them come November...

Those of you who vote, choose carefully. Those of you who don't? Shush.

reply to post by Florida Muck Monster


Wow your right it does sound like he called her a bitch! I couldnt believe it when I heard it but....wow. What also sent chills down my spine when I first watched this this morning was the look on his face as she was speaking...it almost looked like a man who simply didnt care what she had to say...knowing his political future was in the toilet but for some reason he still didnt care....I wonder what "reason" would compel him to be so flippant about the confrontation with this woman?

This guys is a peice of trash. He doesn't even care that everyone is booing his comment and he sounds like hes on some type of opiate the way he talks slow and very kiddish like. I have no doubt that if this guy was given a drug test he would fail 100%. Like ive said before,you REALLY think these people give 2 S**ts about you? No. As long as he gets his check from whoever gives him one for agreeing and pushing there policy he couldn't care less.

Originally posted by Florida Muck Monster

Forward to 3:17 of the video. After being schooled by the lady in the audience it sounds like he says..."I'm glad you're here to save it (the USA), that b*tch".

Whats does it sound like he say's to you?

Yep! He said it. He also said ".... makes me feel very uncomfortable."

Who is this woman? Can anyone find out? I nominate her for candidacy in the 2112 Presidential Elections.

The woman's argument is specious. Giving all citizens the right to health care does not constitute slavery of any one individual to provide services, anymore than a child's right to an education constitutes slavery of teachers or principals.

Even before health care reform, a doctor has always been obligated to serve in an emergency situation, without checking the patient's insurance, ability to pay, or etc. Outside of an emergency situation, however, he or she is free to accept or decline any patients he or she wishes. They can insist on cash only if they choose. Health care reform will not change that.

Health care reform concerns insurance coverage to pay for treatment for as many citizens as possible. Doctors who accept this insurance may be obliged to comply in certain ways in their treatment, but that will not change the fact that any doctor can refuse to treat patients with government insurance if they choose, just as presently they can refuse Medicare or Medicaid patients if they wish and if they feel they are not adequately compensated by this form of insurance.

Even before health care reform, all hospitals have been required to treat emergencies regardless of the patient's ability to pay. This will continue under health care reform. Outside of emergencies, though, a hospital can decline a patient who is not adequately insured or decline to take government subsidies if they so choose.

In the future some hospitals may be required to measure up to certain standards if they are to receive government-subsidized insurance payments, but again, they can opt to refuse to accept patients with this type of insurance if they like.

Doctors, nurses and other medical personnel will still be free to work where there are no patients with government-assisted insurance if that is their choice. If they do choose to work in such a hospital or institution that accepts government-subsidized insurance that will be completely voluntary. If they can't find one that fits their bill they have the freedom to take up another profession.

So there is no question of involuntary servitude here, or anyone being asked to work without pay.

There are at present many laws where government compliance is mandated. For example, no individual or corporation is permitted to pollute the public water supply at will. All males are required to register for the draft. There are many more I could name.

Why is health insurance reform now being singled out as unconstitutional "slavery?" Can it be because it fits with someone's political agenda?

BTW: I heard no disparaging words at the end of his comments.





[edit on 2-8-2010 by Sestias]

Don't get your hopes up on changing anything in November or any other time. ALL candidates are chozen by the Party conventions. To even get to be a candidate you have to have backers, who are all business men who all belong to one of the "Social Club"..i.e. The Masons, The Knights of Columbus, Skull & Bones etc. They are all sworn to the currently obvious agenda. i.e. NWO.

As to the Constitution....it wasn't written for We The People in spite of what you have been told all your life, and all the pretensions that politicians go thru.

Read this article: The Constitution Con.

www.taroscopes.com...

reply to post by Sestias


It's amazing that you focus on the woman who asked the question and don't say anything about this idiot Congressman's answer, except to defend him saying that you didn't hear him call her a name (which I heard, BTW). Are you saying that any person with suspicious motives asking a question shouldn't be taken seriously, even if the question is valid?

Originally posted by Sestias
The woman's argument is specious. Giving all citizens the right to health care does not constitute slavery of any one individual to provide services, anymore than a child's right to an education constitutes slavery of teachers or principals.

Wrong, teachers ARE paid to teach children. Tell us this, how can a doctor keep their license to practice, if they break the Hippocratic Oath by refusing services to any individual that may not have the money to pay?

Even before health care reform, a doctor has always been obligated to serve in an emergency situation, without checking the patient's insurance, ability to pay, or etc. Outside of an emergency situation, however, he or she is free to accept or decline any patients he or she wishes. They can insist on cash only if they choose. Health care reform will not change that.

They can only refuse if they do not have the medical knowledge to treat a given sickness, then they MUST call in other doctors who can treat it. Read the Hippocratic Oath. When did it become the norm, for anyone to become a doctor, just for the money? If they did, they should be put out of business.

Health care reform concerns insurance coverage to pay for treatment for as many citizens as possible. Doctors who accept this insurance may be obliged to comply in certain ways in their treatment, but that will not change the fact that any doctor can refuse to treat patients with government insurance if they choose, just as presently they can refuse Medicare or Medicaid patients if they wish and if they feel they are not adequately compensated by this form of insurance.

Any doctor, who refuses to treat anyone, regardless if that person has insurance or not, should be taken before the medical board, and have their license to practice revoked.

Even before health care reform, all hospitals have been required to treat emergencies regardless of the patient's ability to pay. This will continue under health care reform. Outside of emergencies, though, a hospital can decline a patient who is not adequately insured or decline to take government subsidies if they so choose.

Then that hospital should not be in that business. When did the medical treatment of human life, become a money thing? That is no more than the doctor putting the want of money before a life of a human being.

In the future some hospitals may be required to measure up to certain standards if they are to receive government-subsidized insurance payments, but again, they can opt to refuse to accept patients with this type of insurance if they like.

If the government can`t even live up to the constitutional standards of this country, how are they going to judge medical standards?

Doctors, nurses and other medical personnel will still be free to work where there are no patients with government-assisted insurance if that is their choice.

Then they are not following the Hippocratic Oath they took. The practice of medicine is about helping all people who are sick, not about the bucks they can get from them.

If they do choose to work in such a hospital or institution that accepts government-subsidized insurance that will be completely voluntary. If they can't find one that fits their bill they have the freedom to take up another profession.

Very much so. As I stated before, if they are in it for just the money, then they should think again about going into another field.

So there is no question of involuntary servitude here, or anyone being asked to work without pay.

There are at present many laws where government compliance is mandated. For example, no individual or corporation is permitted to pollute the public water supply at will. All males are required to register for the draft. There are many more I could name.

Why is health insurance reform now being singled out as unconstitutional "slavery?" Can it be because it fits with someone's political agenda?

BTW: I heard no disparaging words at the end of his comments.

This is about placing more tax burdens on those who still do have a job. That, is your slavery issue.

But how is forcing others to pay for those who do not have the money to do so, not slavery?
If Joe Blow can only afford to pay for X insurance, and it doesn`t pay the full hospital costs, and he doesn`t have the money to pay the remainder, why doesn`t the hospital just take that as a tax write off? And, if Joe Blow can only afford X insurance, and it doesn`t fall into the Y insurance, how can the government force that person to pay for something they can`t afford?

If any doctor, who can not afford to take what money they are given, may be living way beyond their means. Some will say, that they have to pay back student loans they had when they went to school. If that is the case, then maybe it is a case of a school that is way to high priced, or, loans that have way to high of interest rates.


Edit to add; As for the Congressman, I believe he just made the case for people to boot him out of office. It`s called open mouth, insert foot.




[edit on 2-8-2010 by FiatLux]

[edit on 2-8-2010 by FiatLux]

Yet another shining example of the careerist type which is rife in every corner of government from the local to the federal level. The woman took him to task and he failed the test miserably, end of story. It would be nice if he lost his job the next election cycle but people are just too stupid to realize that there needs to be a massive house cleaning all around.

reply to post by FiatLux


The Hippocratic Oath is centuries old and is thought to have originated in the 4th century B.C.E. It applies already to the medical profession and is not contingent on health care reform.

The Oath does not include any stipulations regarding reimbursement; the closest part to it states a physician is obliged "to avoid violating the morals of my community." Although I think treating all patients regardless of ability to pay is the highest of ethics, the fact is many doctors today do not accept patients who do not pay them enough for their liking. I know my Medicare coverage, and thus I, have been refused on more than one occasion. Health care reform will not compel doctors to treat patients unpaid.

Wiki: Hippocratic Oath

I focused on the monetary aspect of the medical profession because that is what is being threatened, according to the woman in the video. She is claiming that health care reform amounts to "slavery" -- i.e. it enforces compulsory and unpaid labor. This is just fallacious.

Agreed that the congressman did not give her a very adequate answer. However, the point of the thread was the woman's contention that health care reform violates the thirteenth amendment, which abolishes slavery.




[edit on 2-8-2010 by Sestias]

reply to post by black cat


As I said to FlatLux, the point of the thread was the woman's statement that health care reform would enforce slavery upon doctors and other medical personnel in opposition to the Thirteenth Amendment. I challenge her on that and call her argument specious.

Of course she should be taken seriously, as a concerned citizen who has a right to speak her mind. That doesn't make her argument any more valid though.

reply to post by Sestias


Sestast. you wrote..."Agreed that the congressman did not give her a very adequate answer. However, the point of the thread was the woman's contention that health care reform violates the thirteenth amendment, which abolishes slavery"...

I think you missed the point.

The "point" is that career politicians do not have respect for the constitution. She brought up some very interesting points. Regardless of your interpretation of the Constitution the congressman reveals a lack of respect for the constituent (called her a bitch) and disdain or contempt for the constitution.

A major aspect of the Constitution is it's ability to limit the authority of the federal government over states and their citizens.

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by FiatLux

 

The Hippocratic Oath is centuries old and is thought to have originated in the 4th century B.C.E. It applies already to the medical profession and is not contingent on health care reform.

Ah, but the real question is, how much will Health Care reform affect the medical profession AND the Hippocratic Oath?

The Oath does not include any stipulations regarding reimbursement; the closest part to it states a physician is obliged "to avoid violating the morals of my community." Although I think treating all patients regardless of ability to pay is the highest of ethics, the fact is many doctors today do not accept patients who do not pay them enough for their liking. I know my Medicare coverage, and thus I, have been refused on more than one occasion. Health care reform will not compel doctors to treat patients unpaid.

To be a doctor, one must love and want to help ALL human life. That is the reasone for the oath. And when the doctor places money before the care of the human life, that in turn violates that oath, by refusing treatment for that human life.

Wiki: Hippocratic Oath

I focused on the monetary aspect of the medical profession because that is what is being threatened, according to the woman in the video. She is claiming that health care reform amounts to "slavery" -- i.e. it enforces compulsory and unpaid labor. This is just fallacious.

Agreed that the congressman did not give her a very adequate answer. However, the point of the thread was the woman's contention that health care reform violates the thirteenth amendment, which abolishes slavery.

Go back and listen at 43 seconds into it. She states, "give or provide those services(the doctors)OR, pay them for us(the government using tax payer money)". The last part of that is also added slavery for the tax payers, and not just the doctors.

Originally posted by OhZone
Don't get your hopes up on changing anything in November or any other time. ALL candidates are chozen by the Party conventions. To even get to be a candidate you have to have backers, who are all business men who all belong to one of the "Social Club"..i.e. The Masons, The Knights of Columbus, Skull & Bones etc. They are all sworn to the currently obvious agenda. i.e. NWO.

As to the Constitution....it wasn't written for We The People in spite of what you have been told all your life, and all the pretensions that politicians go thru.

Read this article: The Constitution Con.

www.taroscopes.com...

Let's not forget the lawyers either. The 13th amendment would have kept lawyers out of public office, but it is still not ratified. The lawyers also have to pass a BAR exam for their papers too, which is nothing more than an alliegence to the corporate government.
I also agree 100% about your info on the CONstitution. I have an ATS thread about how 2-faced it actually is, as well as an article on Wordpress. It merely gives us the illusion of control when we have none.

Children do not have the right to an education. In fact The Department of Education is just one gigantic communist propaganda machine feeding American kids doctrines of the State. We would be better off with it and the detrimental effect it has on the future leaders of America.

Do you really want what currently passes for "Congress" teaching your kids? Most of the crumb bums should be rotting in prison!

Right to healthcare, phhht. Sure thing, comrade.

Originally posted by Sestias
The woman's argument is specious. Giving all citizens the right to health care does not constitute slavery of any one individual to provide services, anymore than a child's right to an education constitutes slavery of teachers or principals.

So there is no question of involuntary servitude here, or anyone being asked to work without pay.

Ok - lets address that right away. Where in the constitution does it say free education is a right? Its not - and it is the same type of socialism as health care - and the standard of education has suffered greatly since the government took this over.

Also - you seem to be missing the point regarding health care making someone a slave. It is not the doctors or nurses, it is everyone who has to pay the taxes to fund it. Taxes that are not voluntary, and are backed by force.

There are at present many laws where government compliance is mandated. For example, no individual or corporation is permitted to pollute the public water supply at will. All males are required to register for the draft. There are many more I could name.

Why is health insurance reform now being singled out as unconstitutional "slavery?" Can it be because it fits with someone's political agenda?

You are quite correct regarding 'there are many laws .. etc' and you will find most of them are unjust and not within constitutional bounds - that they make a precedent for further erosion of that document is self evident.

Addressing the statement regarding pollution, of course there is a law regarding pollution. While the individual laws are probably twisted and useless, the principle is sound. The air and water belong to everyone - they are common property - so any individual that damages that property is liable to repay damages to the people who own it - ie everyone.

Regarding a draft, well that is the most disgusting form of slavery ever. People will fight to defend their country - but to force people to fight foreign wars of aggression .. that is worth a revolution.

If you take away all the government interference - you will find communities and families will pull together to fill the gaps. Government payouts form an incentive for certain behaviors - and it is usually detrimental.