Health Care Bill Violates 4th Amendment Search & Seizure: Lawsuits should be easy $$$

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by bucs90, Mar 21, 2010.

  1. bucs90
    Offline

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    26,548
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    Guys, I'm prepared to make my first lawsuit on grounds of the 4th amendment. You know, that one that prevents police and gov't agents from illegal search and seizure of your person or property? It's why cops must have probable cause and/or warrants to do anything related to a search or seizure. I had prior years of law enforcement work, and have dealt with the 4th a lot. Here is the grounds:

    The government will MANDATE that you purchase health insurance, or face a fine, which unpaid is punishable through arrest (aka threat of violence from armed men if you dont comply). I'll get to that later. But, for now, lets assume you as a law abiding citizen decide to go ahead and buy health insurance.

    Well, you are going to have to get a health screening, right? No company will insure you without one. Pre-existing conditions and all. REMEMBER......if you DON'T, the IRS has the authority to arrest you for non-compliance. With the law mandate, the doctor is acting as a government agent, in particular if you are forced to use a government health clinic for that screening (likely). So, I have a choice: A) Go to jail or pay fine for not complying with gov't mandate, or, B) Submit to a WARRANTLESS search of my person, without probable cause of any violation of any law, by a gov't agent, thus violating my 4th amendment protection against warrantless searches without consent or probable cause.

    BUT WAIT.....before you liberal Obama lovers cry "BUT YOU CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH" you are mistaken. Coercion can NEVER be an element used by the gov't to gain consent for a search or seizure. AND in this scenario, the fine or arrest for lack of health insurance is a threat and coercion to force compliance with the warrantless search of my person.

    And before you liberals begin to whine about "That only applies to cops and the FBI, not doctors" you are again wrong. Read up on your law enforcement deputization statutes. When ANY citizen is requested by any law enforcement agency to provide assistance with enforcement of a law, that person is acting as a "deputy" and gov't agent. It's why a cop can't get his civilian buddy to search you illegally then claim "he's not a cop". And since the IRS is enforcing this, they are a LEO agency, enforcing the mandate for insurance, requesting doctors complete the health screening to make you eligible to purchase insurance. And you are being coerced into compliance with the unlawful search of your person.

    Did the Obama Admin think this through? I'm sure they did. I'm sure they see people as too dumb to find this loophole out or to a lawsuit. Or maybe not. Maybe they were in such a rush the past year to pass this, and were looking at everything except the 4th amendment, since the 4th is almost exclusively a law enforcement amendment, and they made the mistake of tasking the IRS with enforcement.

    But I know this: I'll be the first in line to file this lawsuit. And they may settle for far less than I ask, and I'll then be like you Obama folks: Living off the government.:lol:

    So, there you have it boys. 4th amendment. Unlawful search and seizure. The way out.
     
  2. BasicGreatGuy
    Offline

    BasicGreatGuy Aut libertas aut mors

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,284
    Thanks Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +427
    Where in the bill is it mandated, that an insured must have a required physical screening or face bodily force via a government agent?
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2010
  3. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,557
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,434
    there isn't... he doesn't know what he's talking about.
     
  4. BasicGreatGuy
    Offline

    BasicGreatGuy Aut libertas aut mors

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,284
    Thanks Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +427
    If you file suit using the IV Amendment as your foundation, you will lose.
     
  5. bucs90
    Offline

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    26,548
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    No, I won't. Settle at worst.

    Where does it say? Well, lets see: The bill it thousands of pages long. The men voting on it haven't read it, nor have I. But unlike those voting for it, I'm gonna use some common sense here.

    1- You are mandated to buy insurance.

    2- Insurers are mandated to cover your pre-existing conditions.

    3- To do so, they'll need to screen you for those conditions.

    4- You are coerced to comply due to threat of fine or jail by the gov't.

    1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = Lawsuit and lots and lots of Obama gov't $$$$ for me:razz:


    Or YOUR idea is that the insurers will say "Sure, you're covered, we dont' need to know whats already wrong with you, just send us the bill buddy." Um....yeah.
     
  6. bodecea
    Offline

    bodecea Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    89,155
    Thanks Received:
    10,378
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    #HasNoClothes
    Ratings:
    +23,677
    Keep us informed on how your lawsuit goes. Ask the Mods to make it a sticky.
     
  7. BasicGreatGuy
    Offline

    BasicGreatGuy Aut libertas aut mors

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,284
    Thanks Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +427
    You haven't read the bill but you are going to sue based on assumption. That isn't logical.

    I am not suggesting that the health care bill should not be challenged in court should it become law. I believe it should. But, one should read the document before trying to claim a violation of the law.
     
  8. bucs90
    Offline

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    26,548
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    Will do. You guys should read up on some state and federal Supreme Court law relating to the 4th amendment. Cases have been won for far lesser violations than this. I'm shocked this loophole was missed by Obama Inc. They are wide open for lawsuits.
     
  9. bucs90
    Offline

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    26,548
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    Well, many vote for it and many citizens support it without reading it. I'll concede I haven't read it. But the Democrats have clearly stated the bill WILL do the following:

    - Mandate purchasing insurance.
    - Mandate covering pre-existing conditions.
    - Task the IRS with enforcing this mandate through a fine, which of course is punishable if not paid (just like a traffic ticket).

    Those 3 things are without a doubt true. So, unless the bill also includes a suspension of the 4th amendment, then my case will stand. The only way it wouldn't is if insurance companies did in fact say "Who cares whats wrong with you, just send us the bills". You and I know that won't happen. The screenings will be intensive to know EXACTLY what is wrong with you and how much they will have to pay to cover you.

    The 4th amendment is a beautiful thing and may be cancerous to this bill eventually.
     
  10. Douger
    Offline

    Douger BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    12,323
    Thanks Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Not fucking there !
    Ratings:
    +915
    There went your credibility.
     

Share This Page