Big brother....

[Stang5lgt]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/09/16/obama-collecting-web-users-data/?test=latestnews

:scared:


Why are they keeping track? Huh I wonder how much this is costing us?

[kujito]

yet one more reason for me to not have any sort of account on those sites

[5-90]

Somehow, I can't say this suprises me either.

Recall that this is the same administration that decried the PATRIOT Act as "intrusive" - seems to me like they're doing the same thing, only:

1) It's mining supposedly public data
2) It's being done for no particular reason that they can cite
3) While it's not digging into "confidential" information or wireline comms, it's still likely to be more invasive than PATRIOT monitoring.

How much is it costing us? Too damned much.
Why are they keeping track? Because they think they can.
Why are they doing this? Does the term "Thought Police" ring any bells?

Orwell was right - he was just about 25 years off... I'm seeing plenty of shades of both Animal Farm and 1984 happening - over the last fifteen years or so, but it's gaining momentum rapidly in the last six months...

[RNMedic]

And is anyone really surprised by this?? Come on it is getting just like the UK.

[xj-grin]

precisely why I refuse to play the facebook game... I'm sure you guys have seen the information about who founded/runs facebook? Lots of folks high up in DOJ, DOD and CIA who are in the information mining business, tasked with collecting as much data about americans as possible and storing it in a single federal database... yes, I am currently wearing my tinfoil hat.:scared:

[in4aride]

They are gonna do it whether you know about it or not. It's whatever. As long as I can say what I feel andplay with my toys I'm good. There is always a cycle of psycho bable bullsh!t and then normal kinda life and 'poliltics'. This time it's just in our lawn. But then again look who we have runnin the joint!
Odd how a good prez got shot back in the day but noone has even tried with the one that's about to toss a match on our gasoline soaked country. .02

[jason_h]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

This is just laughable.

Do you really think they aren't going to save that email you send to the White House? What's the difference? Come on, you kind of have to expect that a comment you put on the White House's Facebook page is going to get saved.

Give me a break.

The NSA is also monitoring everybody's private communications, not just international calls or whatever. Oh wait, that was under Bush. Oops. :gag:

[jason_h]

Odd how a good prez got shot back in the day but noone has even tried with the one that's about to toss a match on our gasoline soaked country. .02

Not cool. Not cool at all.

[in4aride]

I'm not sitting here tellin you someone should. I'm saying in our overly effed up society it's suprisi g something like that has not happened yet. I'm almost impressed.
But take it at value.

I think this country is screwed No matter what!
If I get a DUI let alone multiple ones. I'm beyond screwed.
And if I justdecide imma sleep at work or just not show up. I'm out of a job
but that's what we have running things.
Call me crazy, but we need someone who wants to get something done and do e right. Change is nit always a good thing. Especially when you go about making it in ways that is hidden by fear and lies.
The way things are being done and how things are going reminds me a lot of Germany and how 'change' wasmade there. Two completely different scenarios tho. Right? I mean it's not like our govt hides crap from us or is singling out certain races or anything........
There's a lot of cake below the frosting.

[mcantar18c]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

This is just laughable.

Do you really think they aren't going to save that email you send to the White House? What's the difference? Come on, you kind of have to expect that a comment you put on the White House's Facebook page is going to get saved.

Give me a break.

The NSA is also monitoring everybody's private communications, not just international calls or whatever. Oh wait, that was under Bush. Oops. :gag:

Did you even read that article? It doesn't limit it to comments you put on the White House's Facebook page
Side note: WTF is this country turning into? The White House has a fawkin FACEBOOK PAGE?!

And the Bush administration actually had a decent reason for the Patriot Act... this is being done without any obvious reason or explanation to the public.
And, by the way Jason, the Obama administration is regularly doing things that go completely against what it said it would do. Hell, its removing a lot of the Bush administration's laws and actions and then putting nearly identical ones in their place, but that's ok because they came from The One, not the evil Bush, right?
The people you voted for are doing the opposite of what you elected them to do. And then when the other party calls them out on it, you defend the fawkers!
Damn, libs make no sense.

[hurley842002]

WOW, I had no idea the White House, had a Facebook (maybe thats because I don't have one). That is absolutely rediculous.

[jason_h]

Did you even read that article? It doesn't limit it to comments you put on the White House's Facebook page

Oh yeah, and Twitter and YouTube. Yes I read the article. Where in there does it say that's it's logging ALL comments on the entire site? it doesn't. It logs comments on "it's" facebook, youtube, and twitter "sites" as in "pages"

It says something about crawling and archiving, but doesn't say to what extent, so who knows. Oh yeah, Google does that too. GOOGLE IS BIG BROTHER OMG


And the Bush administration actually had a decent reason for the Patriot Act... this is being done without any obvious reason or explanation to the public.

I'm sorry but spying on every single person in the country has no reason. NONE. And I don't think the NSA thing was part of the Patriot Act, IIRC it was a completely separate thing that was never fully disclosed until some whistleblowers came forward after Bush was out (for fear of retaliation).


And, by the way Jason, the Obama administration is regularly doing things that go completely against what it said it would do. Hell, its removing a lot of the Bush administration's laws and actions and then putting nearly identical ones in their place, but that's ok because they came from The One, not the evil Bush, right?
The people you voted for are doing the opposite of what you elected them to do. And then when the other party calls them out on it, you defend the fawkers!
Damn, libs make no sense.

Examples, please? No elected official will do EXACTLY what they said they would do, no matter what party. The White House visitor logs are open now, so that's a start.

[Blue96XJ]

To be "fair and balanced", I've got agree with Jason, it does state on IT'S pages which one could argue is just like snail mail received. If you don't want them to keep it don't post anything.

Should they have stated that a record is being kept, sure, but I kind of assumed they would any way.

Jason, I do not understand how you can be for the a Healthcare Bill that provides access, to large government, into personal bank accounts (clause for IRS to monitor for tax credits), but be against the Patriot Act that monitors for national security reasons. I personally don't like either, but I would also have supported a targeted (you got it racial profiling) aspect before a wide open Patriot Act...just saying...if you and I can't agree on what's fair, how the hell is our government going to decide on what is for everyone?

I'm joining the "throw them all out and start over" lobby because WE need a lot of :helpme:

[in4aride]

Ya WE do. But WE always seem to want to take care of everyone else first...

[xj-grin]

I utterly agree -- when one is hunting for religiously motiveated islamic terrorists, it seems somewhat foolish not to limit that hunt to folks who are actually muslim -- understanding that not all muslims are of middle-eastern heritage. It would be like posting an APB for a 5'10", 185lb man of un-stated ethnicity for a robbery suspect, when everyone knows the guy was white, black, hispanic, whatever -- limiting the pool of who police/military personel have to investigate based on known facts is simply common sence - something most of our elected "representatives", regardless of party, are sorely lacking.

The Patriot Act was an abomination, and unconstitutional on virtually every level. It was passed using the now classic "panic" technique -- we must do something, and we must do it now... similar to tactics now being used to market healthcare "reform" and "cap and trade".

"Hope and Change" -- so far we have President Obama and his congressional minions (1) continuing and actually accellerating Bush's war in Afghanistan, despite history's lessons of failure in such circumstances; (2) continuing and accellerating the ridiculous Bush corporate-welfare-bailout policies for finacial institutions - they're all "too big to fail", don't you know, (3) continuing to hold indefinatelywithout charges, trial or defense those folks that he and others in the executive branch deem to be "terrorists", in violation of both the constitution and the geneva convention, just like good ol' GW, but with kinder labels and words, and (4) as of yesterday, acknowleding that he will continue the invasive, unconsitutional provisions of Bush's patriot act which are set to expire in 2010.

I have absolutely no hope that there will be any change, and our republic-turned-empire will continue to crumble -- unless the people wake up and see what we have allowed to occur.:soapbox:

[ChiXJeff]

Odd how a good prez got shot back in the day but noone has even tried with the one that's about to toss a match on our gasoline soaked country. .02

Take it from someone with a little personal experience here. Be very, very careful with comments like that in public. And even in private.....

[pay no attention to that heavy breathing on the line.]

[jason_h]

Jason, I do not understand how you can be for the a Healthcare Bill that provides access, to large government, into personal bank accounts (clause for IRS to monitor for tax credits),

I've read the bill, it's not in there. Can you show me where it's at? I would never support something like that. Which is why I read the bill. All 1017 pages.


but be against the Patriot Act that monitors for national security reasons. I personally don't like either, but I would also have supported a targeted (you got it racial profiling) aspect before a wide open Patriot Act...just saying...if you and I can't agree on what's fair, how the hell is our government going to decide on what is for everyone?

The Patriot Act was horrendous. As was the NSA spying on personal communications of everybody and their logging of just about all internet traffic.

[jason_h]

"Hope and Change" -- so far we have President Obama and his congressional minions (1) continuing and actually accellerating Bush's war in Afghanistan, despite history's lessons of failure in such circumstances;

During the election most people agreed we didn't have enough troops in Afghanistan. There is some debate going on now as to what the best thing to do is, which is why it hasn't actually ramped up all that much.


(2) continuing and accellerating the ridiculous Bush corporate-welfare-bailout policies for finacial institutions - they're all "too big to fail", don't you know,

Didn't he just make a speech the other day about no more bailouts for Wall Street and not allowing institutions to be "too big to fail?"


(3) continuing to hold indefinatelywithout charges, trial or defense those folks that he and others in the executive branch deem to be "terrorists", in violation of both the constitution and the geneva convention, just like good ol' GW, but with kinder labels and words, and

Well they can't just let them go immediately. Sorting out the huge cluster that is Guantanamo Bay is quite the task. I'm pretty disappointed this is still going on as well though.


(4) as of yesterday, acknowleding that he will continue the invasive, unconsitutional provisions of Bush's patriot act which are set to expire in 2010.

Haven't heard of that one yet. I'll have to look into it. This would be disappointing as well.

[in4aride]

Like I stated. Not saying it should happen. Just impressed that amongst all the supremists(at one end or the other) noone has tried. I figured our screwed up cou try would be supplying thousands of dumb sh!t's biting at the bit to do such a thing.
I could care less what happens. I don't even own a tv cuz I cant turn it on without hearing ridiculous crap on every channel about stuff. I'm here for the ride. I still use everything the same I did before. Ya money and jobs Re harder to come by so I find other ways of makin some. Other than that my life has nit changed that much. I'm too young to have seen any immense chNges. Between having been 21 bravo to workin a normal job I've noticed this country is a joke. We are nothing we put out to the rest of the world. Were feeding kids thousands of miles away when we have KIDS tossing their children in dumpsters in our back yards. We ship food to other countries when I can't drive to work without seeing 10 bums beggin for food. We fight other people wars in their countries when we have neighbors killin each other cuz one has a beard or wears a certain color. But god bless America. Not because were so damn great. But because were turning into a sh!t hole jus like everywhere else.

[xj-grin]

During the election most people agreed we didn't have enough troops in Afghanistan. There is some debate going on now as to what the best thing to do is, which is why it hasn't actually ramped up all that much.

Most people were wrong, and still are if they refuse to learn the lessons of a motived, occupied people trained in guerrilla warfare (i.e. Vietnam -- and in Afghanistan we have the added bonus that our "enemy" is american-trained), or the ability of independent tribally-based warlords to hold off a superior fighting force (i.e the Soviets, in Afghanistan). No good will come from our continued occupation and "nation-building" in Afghanistan and elsewhere...

Didn't he just make a speech the other day about no more bailouts for Wall Street and not allowing institutions to be "too big to fail?"

Uh-huh -- after following the Bush-folly-stimulus (which Obama voted for as a Senator) with the Obama-folly-stimulus, plus authorizing the Fed inject an estimated 11 Trillion dollars into the banking system, none of which has actually been loaned, by the way... so NOW noone's to big to fail? Watch the stimulus flow when the market "corrects" here shortly...

Well they can't just let them go immediately. Sorting out the huge cluster that is Guantanamo Bay is quite the task. I'm pretty disappointed this is still going on as well though.

If we have evidence to charge them with something, anything, then we should so charge them, try them and convict them, whether before a military tribunal, civil court, whatever -- anything would be better than this joke. If we don't have the evidence to charge them, we have no choice constitutionally but to release them, immediately. When the government can imprison, without stated cause, charge, judicial review, or the right of habeas corpus, it can imprison anyone, "terrorists", you, me, anyone they determine to be a threat... such power cannot be consolidated in a free society.



Haven't heard of that one yet. I'll have to look into it. This would be disappointing as well.

I'll save you the effort:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090915/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_patriot_act

I would get used to the words "disappointing as well", although I know you are an optimist as to the President's intent and potential...

[Stang5lgt]

I've read the bill, it's not in there. Can you show me where it's at? I would never support something like that. Which is why I read the bill. All 1017 pages.


Quick google search turned up the info. It was even in New York Times but you continue to be blind. I doubt you read the whole bill. :rolleyes: Is that while you were hanging curtains. Is it on audio book yet on Amazon? Dude you are so transparent it is not even funny. Pretty weak sauce if you ask me. Bush has been out for almost a year. And you are still playing that same old tune. Looks like your boys at Acorn are going down. :D

http://www.infowars.com/obama-health-bill-allows-government-real-time-access-to-bank-accounts/

[mcantar18c]

If you don't want them to keep it don't post anything.

That's like telling someone "if you didn't want that guy to break into your house, you shoulda put bars over your windows"

I'm joining the "throw them all out and start over" lobby because WE need a lot of :helpme:

X2

[jason_h]

Quick google search turned up the info. It was even in New York Times but you continue to be blind. I doubt you read the whole bill. :rolleyes: Is that while you were hanging curtains. Is it on audio book yet on Amazon? Dude you are so transparent it is not even funny. Pretty weak sauce if you ask me. Bush has been out for almost a year. And you are still playing that same old tune. Looks like your boys at Acorn are going down. :D

http://www.infowars.com/obama-health-bill-allows-government-real-time-access-to-bank-accounts/

Oh boy, why don't you go read section 163 then? And don't try to insert your paranoid delusions into it? That article is ridiculous. The only thing it cites is "section 163." No quotes, nothing. Pretty convincing if you ask me. :looney:

Better yet, here:


3 SEC. 163. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION.
4 (a) STANDARDIZING ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE
5 TRANSACTIONS.—
6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Part C of title XI of the So7
cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d et seq.) is
8 amended by inserting after section 1173 the fol9
lowing new section:
10 ‘‘SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE
11 TRANSACTIONS.
12 ‘‘(a) STANDARDS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRA13
TIVE TRANSACTIONS.—
14 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall adopt
15 and regularly update standards consistent with the
16 goals described in paragraph (2).
17 ‘‘(2) GOALS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRA18
TIVE TRANSACTIONS.—The goals for standards
19 under paragraph (1) are that such standards shall—
20 ‘‘(A) be unique with no conflicting or re21
dundant standards;
22 ‘‘(B) be authoritative, permitting no addi23
tions or constraints for electronic transactions,
24 including companion guides;


1 ‘‘(C) be comprehensive, efficient and ro2
bust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper
3 transactions or clarification by further commu4
nications;
5 ‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real6
time) determination of an individual’s financial
7 responsibility at the point of service and, to the
8 extent possible, prior to service, including
9 whether the individual is eligible for a specific
10 service with a specific physician at a specific fa11
cility, which may include utilization of a ma12
chine-readable health plan beneficiary identi13
fication card;
14 ‘‘(E) enable, where feasible, near real-time
15 adjudication of claims;
16 ‘‘(F) provide for timely acknowledgment,
17 response, and status reporting applicable to any
18 electronic transaction deemed appropriate by
19 the Secretary;
20 ‘‘(G) describe all data elements (such as
21 reason and remark codes) in unambiguous
22 terms, not permit optional fields, require that
23 data elements be either required or conditioned
24 upon set values in other fields, and prohibit ad25
ditional conditions; and


1 ‘‘(H) harmonize all common data elements
2 across administrative and clinical transaction
3 standards.
4 ‘‘(3) TIME FOR ADOPTION.—Not later than 2
5 years after the date of implementation of the X12
6 Version 5010 transaction standards implemented
7 under this part, the Secretary shall adopt standards
8 under this section.
9 ‘‘(4) REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC STAND10
ARDS.—The standards under this section shall be
11 developed, adopted and enforced so as to—
12 ‘‘(A) clarify, refine, complete, and expand,
13 as needed, the standards required under section
14 1173;
15 ‘‘(B) require paper versions of standard16
ized transactions to comply with the same
17 standards as to data content such that a fully
18 compliant, equivalent electronic transaction can
19 be populated from the data from a paper
20 version;
21 ‘‘(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in
22 order to allow automated reconciliation with the
23 related health care payment and remittance ad24
vice;


1 ‘‘(D) require timely and transparent claim
2 and denial management processes, including
3 tracking, adjudication, and appeal processing;
4 ‘‘(E) require the use of a standard elec5
tronic transaction with which health care pro6
viders may quickly and efficiently enroll with a
7 health plan to conduct the other electronic
8 transactions provided for in this part; and
9 ‘‘(F) provide for other requirements relat10
ing to administrative simplification as identified
11 by the Secretary, in consultation with stake12
holders.
13 ‘‘(5) BUILDING ON EXISTING STANDARDS.—In
14 developing the standards under this section, the Sec15
retary shall build upon existing and planned stand16
ards.
17 ‘‘(6) IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT.—
18 Not later than 6 months after the date of the enact19
ment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to
20 the appropriate committees of Congress a plan for
21 the implementation and enforcement, by not later
22 than 5 years after such date of enactment, of the
23 standards under this section. Such plan shall in24
clude—


1 ‘‘(A) a process and timeframe with mile2
stones for developing the complete set of stand3
ards;
4 ‘‘(B) an expedited upgrade program for
5 continually developing and approving additions
6 and modifications to the standards as often as
7 annually to improve their quality and extend
8 their functionality to meet evolving require9
ments in health care;
10 ‘‘(C) programs to provide incentives for,
11 and ease the burden of, implementation for cer12
tain health care providers, with special consid13
eration given to such providers serving rural or
14 underserved areas and ensure coordination with
15 standards, implementation specifications, and
16 certification criteria being adopted under the
17 HITECH Act;
18 ‘‘(D) programs to provide incentives for,
19 and ease the burden of, health care providers
20 who volunteer to participate in the process of
21 setting standards for electronic transactions;
22 ‘‘(E) an estimate of total funds needed to
23 ensure timely completion of the implementation
24 plan; and


1 ‘‘(F) an enforcement process that includes
2 timely investigation of complaints, random au3
dits to ensure compliance, civil monetary and
4 programmatic penalties for non-compliance con5
sistent with existing laws and regulations, and
6 a fair and reasonable appeals process building
7 off of enforcement provisions under this part.
8 ‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS ON USE OF DATA.—Nothing in
9 this section shall be construed to permit the use of infor10
mation collected under this section in a manner that would
11 adversely affect any individual.
12 ‘‘(c) PROTECTION OF DATA.—The Secretary shall en13
sure (through the promulgation of regulations or other14
wise) that all data collected pursuant to subsection (a)
15 are—
16 ‘‘(1) used and disclosed in a manner that meets
17 the HIPAA privacy and security law (as defined in
18 section 3009(a)(2) of the Public Health Service
19 Act), including any privacy or security standard
20 adopted under section 3004 of such Act; and
21 ‘‘(2) protected from all inappropriate internal
22 use by any entity that collects, stores, or receives the
23 data, including use of such data in determinations of
24 eligibility (or continued eligibility) in health plans,


1 and from other inappropriate uses, as defined by the
2 Secretary.’’.
3 (2) DEFINITIONS.—Section 1171 of such Act
4 (42 U.S.C. 1320d) is amended—
5 (A) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘with
6 reference to’’ and all that follows and inserting
7 ‘‘with reference to a transaction or data ele8
ment of health information in section 1173
9 means implementation specifications, certifi10
cation criteria, operating rules, messaging for11
mats, codes, and code sets adopted or estab12
lished by the Secretary for the electronic ex13
change and use of information’’; and
14 (B) by adding at the end the following new
15 paragraph:
16 ‘‘(9) OPERATING RULES.—The term ‘operating
17 rules’ means business rules for using and processing
18 transactions. Operating rules should address the fol19
lowing:
20 ‘‘(A) Requirements for data content using
21 available and established national standards.
22 ‘‘(B) Infrastructure requirements that es23
tablish best practices for streamlining data flow
24 to yield timely execution of transactions.


1 ‘‘(C) Policies defining the transaction re2
lated rights and responsibilities for entities that
3 are transmitting or receiving data.’’.
4 (3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section
5 1179(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d–8(a)) is
6 amended, in the matter before paragraph (1)—
7 (A) by inserting ‘‘on behalf of an indi8
vidual’’ after ‘‘1978)’’; and
9 (B) by inserting ‘‘on behalf of an indi10
vidual’’ after ‘‘for a financial institution.’’
11 (b) STANDARDS FOR CLAIMS ATTACHMENTS AND
12 COORDINATION OF BENEFITS .—
13 (1) STANDARD FOR HEALTH CLAIMS ATTACH14
MENTS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the
15 enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and
16 Human Services shall promulgate a final rule to es17
tablish a standard for health claims attachment
18 transaction described in section 1173(a)(2)(B) of the
19 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d–2(a)(2)(B))
20 and coordination of benefits.
21 (2) REVISION IN PROCESSING PAYMENT TRANS22
ACTIONS BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.—
23 (A) IN GENERAL.—Section 1179 of the So24
cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d–8) is
25 amended, in the matter before paragraph (1)—


1 (i) by striking ‘‘or is engaged’’ and in2
serting ‘‘and is engaged’’; and
3 (ii) by inserting ‘‘(other than as a
4 business associate for a covered entity)’’
5 after ‘‘for a financial institution’’.
6 (B) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments
7 made by paragraph (1) shall apply to trans8
actions occurring on or after such date (not
9 later than 6 months after the date of the enact10
ment of this Act) as the Secretary of Health
11 and Human Services shall specify.


So let's see, we have an attempt to minimize the amount of paper "transactions" (you know, statements, general paperwork, etc) and the ability to determine what the person owes (ie copay) at the time of service and whether they're eligible, etc.

It enables "electronic funds transfers." Oooh boy, that's scary. Same type of thing if you pay your utility bill by check over the phone, or have automatic payments set up. *shudder* And it doesn't even state whether that's for patient or provider. electronic payment for the provider instead of a check...boy, what an abomination.

Hmm, rules on how any data collected can be used. No, don't see anything about snooping into personal bank accounts.

So....where does it say they have access to your personal bank account?

And what's with the "burn" on hanging curtains? Big deal, I put up a few curtains. Wow.

[jason_h]

That's like telling someone "if you didn't want that guy to break into your house, you shoulda put bars over your windows"



Uh no, not quite.

[ColoradoRaptor]

No big surprise here, I know for a fact that BIG BROTHER monitors ALL internet traffic for specific( terrorist related ) things and who knows what else...!! We are not alone out here!!

[Yellow01xj]

All I have to say is that the world is turning into THX1138.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THX_1138 :helpme:

[Stang5lgt]

Oh boy, why don't you go read section 163 then? And don't try to insert your paranoid delusions into it? That article is ridiculous. The only thing it cites is "section 163." No quotes, nothing. Pretty convincing if you ask me. :looney:

Better yet, here:



So let's see, we have an attempt to minimize the amount of paper "transactions" (you know, statements, general paperwork, etc) and the ability to determine what the person owes (ie copay) at the time of service and whether they're eligible, etc.

It enables "electronic funds transfers." Oooh boy, that's scary. Same type of thing if you pay your utility bill by check over the phone, or have automatic payments set up. *shudder* And it doesn't even state whether that's for patient or provider. electronic payment for the provider instead of a check...boy, what an abomination.

Hmm, rules on how any data collected can be used. No, don't see anything about snooping into personal bank accounts.

So....where does it say they have access to your personal bank account?

And what's with the "burn" on hanging curtains? Big deal, I put up a few curtains. Wow.
Arguing with you is pointless. So I don't want waste anymore of my time. Funny part is you think you can change our minds. When you loose faith in your fellow man and have more trust in the Government it is a sad day. Cause it is you and me that make this country great not the Gov. The fact that I can start with nothing and become rich in this country that is what makes it great. Instead of worrying about how much someone else had you need to seize the day and make the most out of every talent God gives you. Don't lay there and wait for the Government to spoon feed you. We are all created with different talents and abilities. When you figure out how optimize what you have that is awesome feeling. You are what makes you great not a gov hand out. So stop worrying about what gov is going to give you start worrying about what gov wants to take away from you. :cheers:

[jason_h]

And you think you can change mine :)

You sound like I want the government to spoon feed me. I don't and I never said I did. I don't need health insurance, I have my own. I don't need a tax break, I'm doing fine. I've already gone through school.

Is it so wrong to care about your fellow man? It can't be all about "me me me." Not giving a crap about the people around you is what's driving this country down.

[YELLAHEEP]

Is it so wrong to care about your fellow man? It can't be all about "me me me." Not giving a crap about the people around you is what's driving this country down.

No, not when my fellow man lifts a finger to help himself. Equal work = equal pay = equal benefits - absolutely.

But that's not what socalism is about. It's one for all and all for one - same/same - equal share........ but not for equal work or investment.

So, that lazy bastard fellow man can kiss my keester if he thinks I'm going to allow the Govt to simply force me to let him share in the fruits of my labor. If that lazy bastard fellow man wants his health care paid for then he can waddle his lazy ass over to my place and cut my lawn, clean my gutters, pooper scoop and whatever to EARN those benefits.......

Not caring for the people around us? WTF is Welfare then???? Yeah, THAT's working wonders for our Country now isn't it....... :rolleyes:
Grrrr.

[xj-grin]

spot on. Having the moral fiber to help out your fellow man is something we should all aspire to and something we should encourage others to do. But being mandated to contribute to others, some of whom are not willing to help themselves and therefore not worthy of our charity is neither charitable, nor moral, it is theft, pure and simple. When I am forced to give a significant portion of the "bread" I earn, that is a form of slavery. For christ sakes, British serfs in the middle ages took home more of their wages than the average middle class American does today, and the king may well have been more efficient in the use of such plunder than our bloated, corrupt, and useless federal government is today.

[ColoradoRaptor]

Arguing with you is pointless. So I don't want waste anymore of my time. Funny part is you think you can change our minds. When you loose faith in your fellow man and have more trust in the Government it is a sad day. Cause it is you and me that make this country great not the Gov. The fact that I can start with nothing and become rich in this country that is what makes it great. Instead of worrying about how much someone else had you need to seize the day and make the most out of every talent God gives you. Don't lay there and wait for the Government to spoon feed you. We are all created with different talents and abilities. When you figure out how optimize what you have that is awesome feeling. You are what makes you great not a gov hand out. So stop worrying about what gov is going to give you start worrying about what gov wants to take away from you. :cheers:

:cheers::patriot:

[ColoradoRaptor]

No, not when my fellow man lifts a finger to help himself. Equal work = equal pay = equal benefits - absolutely.

But that's not what socalism is about. It's one for all and all for one - same/same - equal share........ but not for equal work or investment.

So, that lazy bastard fellow man can kiss my keester if he thinks I'm going to allow the Govt to simply force me to let him share in the fruits of my labor. If that lazy bastard fellow man wants his health care paid for then he can waddle his lazy ass over to my place and cut my lawn, clean my gutters, pooper scoop and whatever to EARN those benefits.......

Not caring for the people around us? WTF is Welfare then???? Yeah, THAT's working wonders for our Country now isn't it....... :rolleyes:
Grrrr.

:cheers::patriot:

[5-90]

Helping your fellow man is a bloody noble goal, and one we should all aspire to.

However, socialism has been misdefined above - "all for one and one for all" is a comment on esprit de corps.

If you want a more accurate definition of socialism, use this one - "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs."

An effective economic system would be a combination of capitalism (which would create wealth) and very limited socialism (mainly following the model that Thomas Paine outlined in Common Sense so many years ago - pensions for the elderly and disabled.)

Problem is, we're swinging entirely too far toward socialism. Government has no business running business - their only involvement should be preventing people from getting screwed.

And the idea of a business "too big to fail?" Leave them alone and watch - if they make it through the crisis, they were too big to fail. If they don't, they weren't. Easy!

And government funding (read: taxpayers' money) should never go into personal enrichment - I know I didn't authorise paying all of those mega-bonuses out, nor would I have. They may have been owed under contract, but I'm inclined to think that the conditions under which the contracts were granted no longer applied, and that would mean that the contract would be subject to renegoation (besides, most of these people should have been termed for cause anyhow - and if you're termed for cause, that should negate any bonuses you were previously entitled to receive.)

[jason_h]

You guys seem to be turning my arguments for healthcare into full-blown socialism. I never said anything about "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs."

You can't tell me that the 47 million uninsured people in this country are just "lazy." Health insurance and care is expensive. And if you're making minimum wage cleaning toilets, it's pretty tough to provide for your family and fork out hundreds of dollars a month for insurance. That's what I'm talking about when I say caring for your fellow man.

I too don't agree with the banking and auto bailouts and the taxpayer money going to big bonuses, etc. Unfortunately it started under Bush and would've continued no matter which candidate won the election. One can only hope they start calling in these loans real soon.

[jimgrms]

You guys seem to be turning my arguments for healthcare into full-blown socialism. I never said anything about "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs."

You can't tell me that the 47 million uninsured people in this country are just "lazy." Health insurance and care is expensive. And if you're making minimum wage cleaning toilets, it's pretty tough to provide for your family and fork out hundreds of dollars a month for insurance. That's what I'm talking about when I say caring for your fellow man.

I too don't agree with the banking and auto bailouts and the taxpayer money going to big bonuses, etc. Unfortunately it started under Bush and would've continued no matter which candidate won the election. One can only hope they start calling in these loans real soon.


11 or 12 million are undocumented aliens and a fairly high percentage make a wage that they can afford health ins but would rather spend the money on toys and even more just don't need to work and the gov pays them not to

[hurley842002]

You can't tell me that the 47 million uninsured people in this country are just "lazy." Health insurance and care is expensive. And if you're making minimum wage cleaning toilets, it's pretty tough to provide for your family and fork out hundreds of dollars a month for insurance. That's what I'm talking about when I say caring for your fellow man.


I can tell you a good majority of them are! I have a problem with people who attempt to raise families, and are making minimum wage scrubbing toilets, or any other minimum wage Job for that matter. DON'T HAVE KIDS IF YOU CAN'T SUPPORT THEM!!! Thats a huge part of our problem. I didn't choose for you to have kids, why should I have to pay for them. Trojan perhaps? I'm 25, with 0 kids and a Good paying Job (which I pay for healthcare thru), I don't have a degree that Mom and Dad paid for (I don't have a degree at all for that matter, just a couple of certificates). I am a contributing member of society and I've done it all on my own, with no support from the Government. Sure i've hit a few bumps in the road, but nothing I wasn't able to get back on track from. I get tired of hearing people defend families with 5 kids, and no plan in life other than to work a minimum wage job, and let the Government cover the rest.

[MSITHero]

Arguing with you is pointless. So I don't want waste anymore of my time. Funny part is you think you can change our minds. When you loose faith in your fellow man and have more trust in the Government it is a sad day. Cause it is you and me that make this country great not the Gov. The fact that I can start with nothing and become rich in this country that is what makes it great. Instead of worrying about how much someone else had you need to seize the day and make the most out of every talent God gives you. Don't lay there and wait for the Government to spoon feed you. We are all created with different talents and abilities. When you figure out how optimize what you have that is awesome feeling. You are what makes you great not a gov hand out. So stop worrying about what gov is going to give you start worrying about what gov wants to take away from you. :cheers:

BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO!!!!!

I could not have said it better myself.


No in regards to the topic.... The White House is required by law to keep those records. Any time any person makes a communication with the White House staff it has to be recorded. This is the law. A WH Facebook, Twitter etc account is considered as sending communications to the WH. They only record your info if you communicate with them.

For the record I can not stand Obama or the change he wants to bring to this country.

[5-90]

You guys seem to be turning my arguments for healthcare into full-blown socialism. I never said anything about "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs."

You can't tell me that the 47 million uninsured people in this country are just "lazy." Health insurance and care is expensive. And if you're making minimum wage cleaning toilets, it's pretty tough to provide for your family and fork out hundreds of dollars a month for insurance. That's what I'm talking about when I say caring for your fellow man.

I too don't agree with the banking and auto bailouts and the taxpayer money going to big bonuses, etc. Unfortunately it started under Bush and would've continued no matter which candidate won the election. One can only hope they start calling in these loans real soon.

I wasn't trying to change your argument - simply apply a better definition for socialsm than the one you'd presented. That's all.

And I think you'll find that most of the "undocumented workers" (Gawd, I hate that phrase) don't really even make MW. They're here illegally, they're going to be exploited (generally speaking) rather badly. Why do you think so many of them live in one place, once they get one rented?

The medical care system we have is just fine. The problem is the medical payment system - in short, insurance coverage. This problem has a few sources -
- Insurance companies, like other large companies, are sociopathic fictional entities whose sole responsibility is to the shareholder. Oops.
- FDA approval for just about anything is onerous and expensive. The process should be streamlined, but not "made easier." Just made "simpler and less expensive."
- Doctors fight with the insurance companies so they can get enough to keep their office/practise running.
- We fight with the insurance companies to get them to pay the bills - in short, to do the job we pay them for in the first place! (Reminds me, I've got another bill I've got to fight sitting on my desk somewhere... I'll have to make that call on Monday.)
- And, the insurance companies usually win - under the "Golden Rule." "He whosoever hath the Gold shall make the Rules."

Economically WRT gov't and big business, I still stand by what I'd said before.

[MSITHero]

You guys seem to be turning my arguments for healthcare into full-blown socialism. I never said anything about "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs."

You can't tell me that the 47 million uninsured people in this country are just "lazy." Health insurance and care is expensive. And if you're making minimum wage cleaning toilets, it's pretty tough to provide for your family and fork out hundreds of dollars a month for insurance. That's what I'm talking about when I say caring for your fellow man.


This healthcare bill you support is a MASSIVE Socialist grab! That's why they say you support socialism.

As Jim stated 12 million of those are illegal, a good portion of them do not WANT insurance. Think about all the very very low risk people out there say 21 year old etc that do not NEED insurance and do not want it. They make up a good number of that 47 million as well.

Hell I am 32, if I did not have kids I would not pay for health insurance. If it was just me I would not worry about it. If I got sick then I would pay out of my pocket to get treated. I am responsible for my own life I do not need others to be responsible for me.

If someone needs medical insurance they can get off their ass and get a job that enables them to buy medical insurance.

[MSITHero]

Personally I think we should all go back to the day when there was NO medical insurance. We had a Doctor and we went to see him/her. The Doctor treated us and gave us a bill and we paid it. Costs would go down if there were no insurance companies any more. Think of all the extra layers that are added and costs because of dealing with Insurance companies.

[5-90]

Personally I think we should all go back to the day when there was NO medical insurance. We had a Doctor and we went to see him/her. The Doctor treated us and gave us a bill and we paid it. Costs would go down if there were no insurance companies any more. Think of all the extra layers that are added and costs because of dealing with Insurance companies.

No argument here - I can recall when a visit to the doctor - without insurance - ran something like $20. $30-40 if you needed a physical.

Then again, I can also recall when drugstores were the size of the "restricted pharmacy" section of drugstores these days, and you could actually get a scrip filled in five or ten minutes.

If you're healthy, there's no reason to have anything beyond cat coverage ("catastrophic medical" - if there's a large incident where you get seriously clobbered, you're covered. Routine stuff is out-of-pocket.)

If you're not generally healthy, or have persistent issues, then insurance coverage is handy (if not necessary.) I've got plenty of post-traumatic physiological/neurological issues - I've been clobbered a few times too many. My wife has asthma and is now getting tested for Cushing's (we know something is wrong, we just haven't figured out what is wrong...) but that would get expensive OOP fast.

And don't get me started on my MIL - she's got Medicare as a primary, AARP Supplement as a secondary plan, and Medi-Cal on top of those. She gets a walk on farkin' everything.

Which is the bit that really bothers me. For about a ton-forty every month, she gets covered additionally by AARP - and gets a walk. So, howcumzit we can't make that happen for everyone who has insurance? That's the idea behind medical coverage - reducing costs, when you know you're going to have plenty (I was involved - one way or the other - in seven doctor's appointments last week. Five this coming week. I've had months where, between the three of us and all of the specialists involved, I've been involved in thirty to forty appointments in a calendar month - which is all of twenty working days. Tests, appointments, specialist referrals, ...)

For some of us, it's a necessity. We can still be productive, but we're not, strictly speaking, "healthy" anymore (OK - most of us are productive. I'm trying to be productive. I'm also trying to get my MIL to get off her fat arse and do something besides stare at me all day - I know I'm not that interesting, and I work better without an audience...)

I'd prefer a system where effective insurance could be made available to those who need it for a reasonable cost, and those who don't need it won't get clobbered when they go in for the annual physical or whatever. Dental coverage needs to improve all around, but vision coverage (via VSP, generally) is usually pretty good (I make lots of use of that one, believe me.)

I do not agree with the idea of fining people who decide to not carry coverage, or who decide to carry "cat coverage" only (frankly, everyone should be able to carry cat coverage for a nominal fee. One solid illness or major injury can bankrupt just about anyone.) They may also not be able to afford coverage (which is a mistake in the system, and will not be corrected by fines.)

Insurance is a gamble either way. If you don't get insurance, you are placing a bet in favour of yourself. If you do get insurance, you are placing a bet against yourself. Which is correct? Who knows? I certainly don't.

One thing I do know - at the moment, I'm betting against me, since I seem to come out ahead that way (some of the meds have exhorbitant prices - for myself and for my wife. Her Advair would run somewhere around $400/mo; my Depakote, even generic, somewhere around $300/mo. And those are just the big-ticket ones. I've got six prescriptions, she's got five.

(My MIL has a round dozen, by the by. If they can pay for all of those, why can't they pay for all of ours?)

[MSITHero]

There is always people who need more insurance. You are one of them. But it should be up to you to provide the insurance. Not that I am saying you are not saying that. It is our own responsibility to provide for ourselves.

[5-90]

There is always people who need more insurance. You are one of them. But it should be up to you to provide the insurance. Not that I am saying you are not saying that. It is our own responsibility to provide for ourselves.

More or less what I was saying - except you should not get fined (as they're kicking around) for not carrying coverage. For whatever reason.

This is a separate problem from the simple fact that costs need to be brought to heel - and I'm sure there are a number of ways to do just that (the FDA approvals process and the insurance companies are merely a good place to start.)

[MSITHero]

I agree with you the choice to have insurance should be mine not the governments.