Your list is interesting.

- I still don't know what "tort reform" is. What is hoped to be accomplished with giving limited/blanket immunity for damages to the medical profession? By private and CBO estimation, it won't reduce health care costs (as California and other states with damage caps have foun d out).
- Regarding Medicare, I agree.
- Healthcare for 100% of American citizens - we already have the US Public Health Service with hospitals, clinics and services all over the country. Is the issue more one of convenience to services, as we already have "national health care" being provided by the USPHS ?
- As long as a person shows up at an ER, no ER can refuse the person. This is really an issue of payment for ER service. As most of the non-citizens who seek American ER service are from countries receiving foreign aid for one reason or another, let's just reduce the foreign aid to that country $per$ for health care expenses to non-citizens.
- So, do folk get a USPHS Health Care Card on some means-tested or circumstance-tested criteria? The folk then get the medical services from USPHS Plan Participants (like what happens with private insurance now), or file claims with USPHS for payment? Will this generate a USPHS Supplement market?

Again, those "nasty details" again. We already have USPHS, so if there is such a clamor for all-folk access to health care controlled, managed and dispensed by the government, then why haven't ANY of the proposals built themselves on existing architecture? This "it's gotta be new and unique" is so illogical, especially when HHS (and USPHS) have management and delivery systems in place that are already tried and true. I guess it's just not sexy enough for politicians to build on what's already there, when they can instead show themselves as New Age Thinkers.

We spent a lot of money already for HHS and USPHS. I guess we're supposed to consider those moneys as down the sewer, and just start anew with borrowed money and more debt.

2 cents+
 

I have been to a Tea Party and I can tell you that these people are just regular folks who are concerned about our country and their futures. Nobody was paid amd most of our signs were homemade...mine included.

My point exactly.

Check out all of these scary mobs: (Warning..Pictures are frightening)

http://www.moonbattery.com/.

Another scary thought...
 

how would you like to have Nancy or Harry as your "65 & over counselor" (or someone picked by them)?

Dissent was Patriotic
 

A good column by Professor Reynolds

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-52767517.html

So I signed up for the Obama information web site where he sends out his propaganda information. Then as I got them, I forwarded them to the "something fishy" web site saying: "I got this e-mail and this doesn't seem to contain accurate information about your proposals". Wonder how they like that.

Be careful. You could end up with Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi at your doorstep. If that happens, don't forget to remind them to say, "Trick or treat!"

Question
 

How is the spy and report via e-mail different from the wire-tapping that they have harped on about being so evil? At least the wire-tapping was supposed to be only done on known international conversations. Seems like worse than a double-standard to me.

Perhaps the difference is that the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 552a) has specific requirements regarding collection, processing, storage and dissemination of any information regarding the citizenry. None of the requirements of this law appear to have been followed. There are exceptions for law enforcement and intelligence-gathering purposes.

Does "disagreement with proposed health care legislation" qualify as a concern of law enforcement or the intelligence community? ? ?

???
 

I don't know by your question if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me on this one. I understand the first part of your answer, though. It just seems creepy that they can compile a list of dissenters, and especially the way they are going about it. Seems kinda like making a hit list (or maybe I just watch too many movies/TV, etc.) I just get the feeling that it is or is soon to be no longer ok to disagree publically with our government. That, my friend as I see it, is just one more freedom lost. Am I waaay out in left field on this one? Please explain....you seem to have a good grasp on most everything and I know that I don't. Thanks.

We all have a good grasp on what's going on, and darned few are happy with it.

My point was that the laws covering intelligence gathering and law enforcement activities provide a lot of leeway for the government to keep restricted how it goes about collection, processing, storage and dissemination of raw data and product. However, in most other circumstances, the government has to jump through a lot of hoops before collecting, processing, storing and disseminating ANY information on any American citizen or lawful permanent resident. In what's going on with "flag@whitehouse.gov" it sure seems like they tossed the Privacy Act of 1974 into the trashcan.

It would be interesting if a few million Americans filed Freedom of Information Act requests to the White House for information on the collection, processing, storage and dissemination of the "flag@whitehouse.gov" emails. By law, those requests (with the exception of information on named citizens and LPRs) must be honored.

Video
 

The "flag@whitehouse.gov" is in the same category as
 

calling the police in Caimbridge, stupid. (that one went away quick!!).

We are a long, long way from not being able to speak against anything publicly....and especially the government.

The silent majority has, IMHO, way too many folks who really don't know their rights....or if they do they are the normal don't rock the boat crowd....or those who really believe what they see and hear in the media.
The tactics of the WH (I hate that generic reference), the administration (I hate this generic too!!), Obama (ahhh specifics), Pelosi Reid, et al are all intended to provoke fear and hence no action by those who need it the most.

The tactic is blatant, promises (lies), then denial, then threats, then saying or doing something stupid, then back to promises (more lies).....this applies to ALL/most for sure INCUMBENTS regardless of party affiliation.

Remember to consider issue first, individual second and discard party affiliation (a worn out, out dated, non value adding categorization).

btk

I am all for it
 

I am going right now to report something fishy............its the Obama spending habits