Security Alerts…

I did not know that the USA could have different Security Alert status positions at the same time…

Come to find out, the USA posts a terror alert (you can add it to your page too)… See the right column? Right now, the USA is “elevated” or yellow while the USA AIR warning is “Elevated” or red…

Take from this? Take the train…

Terrorists…

I see people saying that terrorists are religious fanatics or “crazy” people. I think terrorists are those that talk others into killing because they think they are too valuable to lose for the cause… You know… The adult who would convince a child to go kill those the “adult” finds offensive (for whatever reason) because the adult is to cowardly to “fight” those they, themselves, oppose… See here for an example…

Funny how people like that always want someone else to go fight “their” fight…

Stuff

We may make mistakes more than once…

This saying applies to people, companies, and states (countries). One reason to study history is to know about past mistakes, try to avoid future/current mistakes, and to learn from past mistakes so that we become … better.

Hopefully every USA citizen has read these two documents…

Declaration of Independence — More information available here.

Constitution of the United States of America - Much more information available here.

Okay… Not perfect, but I like it and it is my blog…

Obama and BP just came to grips and agreed on 20 Billion USD fund to compensate those affected by the Oil Spill…

Let me put this into perspective as to how cheap that agreement is…

See here…

BP’s 2009 Annual Summary

Look at the Profit before interest and taxation….$26,426 Million.

BP made, in 2009, 26 Billion USD in profit.

It seems to me that 20B USD as a fund isn’t enough…

On that track, they will still make a profit in 2010.

Doesn’t that seem, somehow, wrong?

I’m sure you are all aware that Helen Thomas has “retired.” I think she was forced out due to her opinions.

Funny about that, everyone has them, but we don’t accept those that are contrary to ours…

That makes us as biased and intolerant as those we complain about doesn’t it? If not, I’d like to hear what you think is logic…

My comment to those Jews and Arabs who are exchanging barbs about this:

The people who are replying in an angry tone or with profanity are not people who want peace or who think critically. Let me explain…

There is very little that is “right” or “wrong.” Mostly, it is a matter of what your culture finds “acceptable.” You have your opinions, and everyone else has their opinion. If you think you are always “right,” you are ignorant… What is “right” for you could be “wrong” for everyone else. Again, why do you think you are always right? Do you think Hitler killed the Jews he did because he thought he was … wrong?

The road to hell is paved not with good intentions but with those who “knew” they were “right.”

People are entitled to their opinions. Even if they are widely divergent from yours, you should try to understand their reasoning (if any). If you can not try to do so, are you not as “wrong” as they are since you have your opinion? Are you “wrong” to all of the people who called Palestine home? If you never listen to those who disagree, how do you ever learn? How do you correct your misunderstandings? How do you ever alter your view?

“Terrorists” are defined by the victors or those in power. Do research or do you forget those “freedom fighters” who killed many–not just people in the military or members of a police force. Again, the act is terrorism. The reason for the act is irrelevant isn’t it? Think!

She, like everyone else, is entitled to her opinion. Nobody else has to share her opinion, and you can think she is wrong. You can think the complete opposite. Who cares? You could think 2 + 3 = 4, and you still wouldn’t be right…

The point? Take “their” side. You ran them out of their home (USA to native Americans, Jews to Palestinians, Palestinians to Jews, etc.). Who “owned it when?” Someone live there before the Jewish religion was formed? Perhaps we should return it to those with Neanderthal DNA…

Why is there a need to “hate” anyone? Jew, Arab, etc? While I think the Muslim religion is off the mark (such as requiring conversion or “taxing” those who are not Muslim), I do think people should have the ability to worship as they want so long as it doesn’t bother others.

I do think education will go a long way to changing the Muslim religion… If not, I don’t think it will survive the education of its followers. Who can support the conversion (forced or not) or the “taxing” or unfair treatment of non-believers when they don’t other religions should “tax” them or treat them differently? Logic is a funny thing… How do you justify a double standard?

Think critically. Don’t hate someone because they have an opinion or it is okay for them to hate you for your opinion. Accept that people disagree with you. Accept that you are not always “right.” Learn to communicate. If you have forgotten your history, the Jews and Arab Muslims have the same ancestors… You are simply picking a time and culture that you don’t share with each other and claiming each is “right” while the “other” is “wrong.”

That sounds like my two kids arguing…

Get over it. Grow up and sit down and talk. Listen and learn. You aren’t different, you just have different beliefs. I bet you and your spouse don’t agree on everything. One might have voted left, one right. One might like education for women, one may not. One may love mathematics, and one may like literature…

Everyone is an individual. However, we need to learn to live together… If you are going to hate someone for an opinion, then you can’t complain when people hate you…

Critical thinking. Why is it that nobody tries anymore?

You can not like what she has to say, and you have a right to say as much. However, she has a right to her opinion and a right to speak her mind.

Before you jump down my throat, understand that there is lots in each “bible” that makes no sense…

Jonah swallowed by a whale? Sure, it is documented that a child was swallowed and lived, but I don’t know that Jonah was actually swallowed… Does it matter if it is absolute truth to learn the lesson the story teaches?

Remember, it was HUMANS that wrote the texts, and we are not perfect even if you think God is… If he is perfect, I wonder how it is we are unable to think critically and solve problems–instead we act all “emotional…”

Could Jesus walk on water? I don’t think so, but do all of his teachings mean nothing if he would sink?

Why do Muslims not want you to worship an idol but get angry when you deface the image of Muḥammad? I still don’t understand that… I understand Muslims think Muḥammad wasn’t the son of God and think he was just a prophet. However, I don’t know whether Muslims get upset if an image of Jesus or Moses is defaced. If not, what is the reasoning for the double standard?

I won’t even go into some of the “religions” like Scientology that … Well, go Google/Bing/Yahoo that for yourself…

My point is that we are all individuals. Get every “group” (muslim, jew, catholic, etc.) together, and I doubt you will find any two who agree on every issue. If we can agree on that issue, why is it that people in each of those groups finds it so easy to “hate” someone in another group simply because they disagree?

People need to think critically rather than be controlled by what others think. If you let the opinions or actions of others control you, are you really following your religion?

If you don’t believe in religion/God, a double-standard should not be acceptable to your logic.

If think a double-standard is acceptable, I’d love to hear how you justify it… Do you think you are “better” than others and, therefore, can tax non-believers? How about if the other groups did so to you or others of your religion? How would you feel then about them and their practice? Think now… Don’t cave in to the ease of feeling offended. God wants you to think–that is why you have reason that differentiates you from the other life on the planet. If you aren’t religious, you hare reasoning that is documented as being “higher” or more developed than that found in other life on the planet. If you are responding emotionally, how is that helping? Remember, think…

Think Critically.

How would you feel if you were not given the same rights as everyone else simply because you believed in a different God? How would you feel if it was the same God (Jews, Muslims, and Christians) but didn’t practice the worship of that God in the same manner?

Could it be God asked each of you to worship differently?

Summary

Remember, the road to hell or damnation is not paved with good intentions… The road to damnation is not admitting your “right” may be “wrong” for other people. When you “know” you are “right” and “others” are “wrong,” how are you different from Hitler (because he “knew” he was “right”) when you treat others to a different standard just because they don’t meet certain conditions (religion, appearance, etc.)? Remember, Hitler didn’t kill Jews, homosexuals, and others because he thought he was wrong.

Hitler thought he was “right,” and he used his “justification” to do terrible things. While you might not kill so many, how is your view that “they” are “wrong” any different than Hitler’s view of the Jews or the homosexuals? You hate them because they are them and not you? You hate them because they are different or hold different beliefs? Be better than Hitler…

Tolerance and understanding. God knows. He knew we would be thrown out of Eden, and he knew we would be tested. I don’t think he knows whether we use the greatest tools he gave us (reason and freedom of though) to save us and the world. Realistically, it doesn’t look good does it?

If a child hits your child, do you suggest your child go hit the other child back? If not, you should not hate others just because they disagree with you or your views.

Failing to think critically makes everyone look … like children. Hopefully, the majority of the people on this planet can put aside childish things.

In Closing

Everyone has an opinion…

If “We” don’t like or accept those opinions that are contrary to ours, aren’t we as biased and intolerant as those we complain about just because they are “wrong?”

Stop arguing like children. Put away childish things. Growing up is hard work. So is Critical Thinking.

What say you?

I’m surfing along a wave on the ocean called the Internet, and my board catches on an article on the Clean Water Act.

The article states

Rep. James L. Oberstar, chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said he’s trying to return the law to where it was before 2001, when the Supreme Court issued the first of two rulings that said the Clean Water Act’s use of “navigable” limits the government’s oversight to major rivers, lakes and similar waterways.
…
“Clean, safe water is a right for all Americans,” said Mr. Oberstar, Minnesota Democrat. “Unless we act, the law can’t ensure that right. Because of the Supreme Court decisions, companies have spilled oil, carcinogens and bacteria into the lakes, rivers and other waters without being fined or prosecuted.”

Critical Thinking?

Is “spilling oil, carcinogens, and bacteria” on upland soil acceptable to Mr. Oberstar? Spilling oil, carcinogens, and bacteria on upland areas where kids play is not acceptable to me or others I have talked to regarding this topic.

Trying to limit the dumping of pollution by protecting water is like reducing the wearing of jewels in an attempt to reduce theft…

So why make a limited argument that does nothing to stop the “dumping of oil, carcinogens,” or other compounds and items that we don’t want dumped … anywhere?

Logic

No dumping = clean water and clean uplands.

Sticks and Stones…

Why hasn’t name-calling been left back in the fifth grade?

The article states Mr. Oberstar said

“I think our opponents are just in some weird place where they’re frantically trying to fix the facts to the conclusion they’re trying to drive,” he said. “What is it that they think they’re going to gain politically and otherwise by being against motherhood and apple pie?”

I tell my kids not to act all “high-and-mighty.” I think I’ll have to suggest that Mr. Oberstar isn’t for “motherhood and apple pie” just because he is for “clean water.” Give me a break…

My Thoughts. Yes, I have a few…

Name-calling makes your argument look weak on the merits (which it its). Stop…

Pulling on emotions does not address the science or logic, and using emotional responses makes me think your argument is weak (which it is). Use logic, critical thinking, and science to support your position.

I am not against clean water. Actually, I am for the appropriate regulation of water.

However, I have pointed out that regulating water does nothing for keeping upland areas clean, non-polluted, and appropriately used. We need to think bigger and protect the forest, not just the trees “we” are interested in protecting or using…

Summary

What we want to do is stop the dumping of oil, carcinogens, and other “pollution.” We want to stop the dumping everywhere, not just in water because dumping it anywhere will affect Man and the rest of the environment. Why wait the 150 years it might take the pollution to get to the water before being able to do anything about the pollution? That just doesn’t make sense…

Lets regulate the disposal of pollutants so that we can keep waters (including wetlands), uplands, and the air clean.

What say you?

An article on TechCrunch, of all places, discusses segregation…

The author states

A quick look at my browser history shows that in the past 24 hours I’ve visited BBC News Online, the New York Times and the Guardian. Liberal news organisations all. But in that same time period, I’ve also checked in to the Murdoch-owned Sun newspaper, the Drudge Report and even Fox News (several times). According to the study, then, I’m an open minded person with a balanced news diet. But of course I’m nothing of the sort. In reality, my reasons for visiting FoxNews.com are the same as those of most of my cheese-eating, US-hating, Osama-hugging, socialist liberal friends – I’m checking in on the enemy, hoping to find something outrageous to back up my pre-existing biases against the American right. And before any Proud Hannity-waving Patriots reading this get too outraged by that confession, admit it: you visit the Guardian and the New York Times for precisely the same, if polar opposite, reasons.

Ah… No it isn’t.

What you say about your activity and browsing history says something about you and not about anyone else. You see, you aggregate everyone in with you because you are ashamed of your behaviour.

Fine, but don’t assume you are no worse than anyone else. You might be better than some too…

However, you are generalizing, and generalizing causes many problems…

There is ONE race.

The Human Race.

We are not cats and dogs that can not breed. Biologically, there may be differences between different people from different places, but the skin color is not the dividing factor. The skin color is similar to wider hips, different teeth structure, and other anatomical differences.

You see, we are what has evolved through our ancestors. Whatever gene may have given them an adaptive advantage is displayed in us today. It could be an adaptive disadvantage but one that has survived! Color may be one of those, but color is then just like other adaptive advantages depending on when/where our ancestors developed.

Don’t go jump on “black” was here first, so “white” is more advanced!

Hogwash. Meat-eating animals are said, by experts, to have been here before plant eaters. Does that make vegetarians more “advanced?” No, it means that it took time for evolution to allow for the development of the 7 stomachs or other advantage that allows animals to adequately use vegetative matter as a food source… Alternatively, it could mean that it took a while for eating vegetables to be an advantage over eating meat…

Think Critically rather than just assume…

What I think

If you are “white,” go visit Disparaging Terms (no longer active, my apologies–this site was run by Darrell and was an interesting read regarding said terms). Go visit Afrospear. It is another nice site about customs and people you might not be aware of but who are, contrary to what you might have ‘heard,’ exactly like you (just close your eyes and think about what they are going through).

Go visit different sites to LEARN how you have been brainwashed and how you have assumed certain truths even though you have no idea whether what you have been told is true…

Read “Public Opinion” by Walter Lippmann.

Think Critically.

How can you be so ignorant to think a person’s skin color makes them better or worse than another person with another skin color?

Where do you draw the line?

What is an ethnic group? I don’t like the term “race” because I think we are one race-human. What distinguishes us? If a white person marries a black person and has a kid who marries the child of a Japanese person and a Mexican, what is their child’s race? Assuming it is “black” because there is some black in there is just as stupid as labeling them white.

What we need to do…

We need to look at our similarities rather than our differences. We are human.

Looking out for “our own”-whether the “Mexican” hotel workers described in the post on TechCrunch or other “groups-means we are focusing on one part of who we are at the expense of the whole. We will NEVER get to view us as similar if we focus on the differences.

My Solution

One law to guarantee fairness for all. No special treatment for any group–we all have the same protection under the law.

We can’t correct past errors by giving people special treatment or other value. Rather, we have to erase the incorrect action, the cause of the past bad action–the discrimination.

Realistically, we can’t give the USA back to the Souix and other tribes. We can’t track or pay anyone for all past transgressions. What we can do is guarantee, to the best of our ability, that everyone is entitled to the same treatment under the law.

If we don’t attempt to guarantee equal treatment to all, aren’t we focusing special attention on some group? If we focus ‘our’ attention on ‘our group,’ aren’t we guilty of the same behavior that caused ‘us’ the injustice, the discrimination, in the first place? We would be, in effect, putting ‘ourselves’ first ahead of ‘others.’ Isn’t that what we are trying to avoid?

What say you?

Bill Thompson has a post over on the BBC where he argues copyright law needs to be severely limited, in his words

This has got to stop. We have to say “enough is enough” to those who hold copyrights in songs and images and words and videos. We must refuse to remake the digital world in order to serve only their interests.

Right…

Why does he argue this is important?

He states

It would be a tragedy if the network the people of East Africa found, now that they have fast fibre links to the rest of the internet, was locked-down, limited and restricted by laws passed to placate fearful Western rights holders and they decided, as a result, that it wasn’t worth joining.

Lack of Logic and Reason

Bill does not seem to realize that freedom is helped by Copyright. Wait, you say. That can’t be! I can’t download all the movies, books, and songs I want! How is that free?!

Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up…

I have an idea for (a book, a movie, or a song). I go through the “trouble” to take the time to create this “content” to release it to the world. I can release it into the Public Domain if I so want, but I might want to be compensated for the “trouble,” time and effort, it took for me to create this “work.” So I release it as copyrighted material.

The material gets out there and is purchased or licensed (for a fee) by those who appreciate the content enough to pay for it. Those who don’t want to buy it are not forced to buy anything.

My “content” goes through marketing, publishing, and distribution–all employing many people. This “content” I copyrighted and made available for purchase or license is helping support jobs (perhaps yours?).

Yet, Bill argues copyright should be severely limited so that “people of East Africa” can have access to all of this data-not to “placate fearful Western rights holders,” but to support their rights to their own copyrighted material that is now available to the rest of the world due to their “fast fibre links to the rest of the [I]nternet.”

People, everything in life is not free. If everything was free, how would you get paid? Nobody would be selling anything?

Does the “content” being a digital file rather than an actual CD or DVD make it “less valuable” for those who want the content or does it simply make the distribution of that content easier and less restrictive?

I don’t think Bill suggests you walk into the local market to steal the candy you want without paying for the merchandise. Yet, he suggests that “digital content” should be freely-available without legal protections?

He states

There is so much more to online life than watching ripped-off copies of big-budget movies or looking at low-resolution cameraphone videos of bands.

What does he mean by “ripped-off?” Does he mean “stolen” or simply “copied?” It makes a difference doesn’t it?

While there IS more to the Internet, Copyright should still protect “content.”

Why?

Google can not copy my material and reproduce it on their site in its entirety. Why? Copyright laws prevent that type of “cut and paste” copying of copyrighted material.

If Copyright were weakened, all of those who create “content” may make NO money from the content itself since Google, Yahoo, or any wahoo with an illegal site (e.g., illegal torrent site for example) could copy all of the content and post it on their site. People would flock to these sites to get all of the data in one place. As a creator of “content,” would you keep creating if all of your work and time was benefiting someone somewhere else rather than you?

Not unless you were already independently wealthy and didn’t care…

BBC…

The post states Bill works for the BBC. I wonder how much of their content copy-righted material Bill has released to YouTube-especially if the BBC was protecting their legal right to some of that material.

Last time I looked, the BBC took Copyright pretty seriously…

Copyright Notice
All rights, including copyright, in the content of these BBC web pages are owned or controlled for these purposes by the BBC.

In accessing the BBC’s web pages, you agree that you may only download the content for your own personal non-commercial use.

Except where expressly stated otherwise, you are not permitted to copy, broadcast, download, store (in any medium), transmit, show or play in public, adapt or change in any way the content of these BBC web pages for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior written permission of the BBC.

Doesn’t that make Bill right?

No. As a matter of fact, that makes Bill wrong.

Here is why…

The legal Copyright lets the BBC (the content provider) dictate who can use what content and how they can use it.

Notice the BBC allows you to ‘

In accessing the BBC’s web pages, you agree that you may only download the content for your own personal non-commercial use.

That likely makes Bill happy since it means the people of East Africa (and everywhere else) can use the copyrighted material owned and provided by the BBC for non-commercial use. This Copyright Law protects the BBC from someone putting all of this data up on their server in hopes of attracting everyone to their site to get content. BBC makes money, Bill can keep his job, and people who have NO creative talent can not benefit by “stealing” everyone’s content.

Bill should be supporting Copyright Law. Just because he doesn’t think everything should have a cost doesn’t mean he is right.

Want to see him agree?

The BBC site states

Bill Thompson is an independent journalist and regular commentator on the BBC World Service programme Digital Planet. He is currently working with the BBC on its archive project.

Ask Bill to agree to not sign any contract for any “independent” journalism that gives the distributor or contractor any ability to limit the distribution, publication, or other legal right to the “content” Bill is asked to create for the company hiring him. Basically, ask Bill to release all of his work into the Public Domain.

My guess is that Bill will not agree to reduce the value of his “time” and “effort” such that he can not afford to do what he likes to do.

In Closing

Copyright Law isn’t the problem. The problem is the removal of the “fair use” clause under USA law and similar provisions for such use under International Law.

If I purchase a DVD of “Criminal Intent,” I feel as if I am buying is the ability to watch the content-the movie. In reality, you are purchasing a license to view the content (movie) on the enclosed media (the DVD). I know, that doesn’t seem logical…

If you copy “Criminal Intent” to your iPhone or other device, you are in violation of the DMCA in the USA and other international laws.

The “fair use” provisions would protect you from prosecution when you copy the movie in case your kids destroy the media on which the content is distributed. Again, the public thinks they are purchasing the right to view the content rather than view the content on the media provided.

While I don’t think any distributor or Copyright holder would sue you if you bought the movie and copied it to any device, they could. Either way, you have NO right to distribute the content over the internet to thousands/millions of other people. You can lend your DVD to others (so long as you don’t view the content while you have loaned the DVD out to your friend). A single person still controls the media and the content on that media–remember, you have no right to charge admission for others to view that material…

Taking gum without paying for it is a crime in the UK. Taking content without a legal right is also a crime. Just because we don’t want to pay for a Jaguar doesn’t mean we can just go take it without paying. Just because I think East Africa might appreciate Bill’s work doesn’t mean that he is willing to give away his work without being paid.

Even if Bill gives away his work for free, Copyright Law lets HIM decide that nobody else can sell his material either–guaranteeing the “free” nature of that material.

You see? Copyright allows the content creator to decide whether or not to protect the content and to what extent such content is to be protected.

Doesn’t that just seem fair?

Australia has banned, yes…banned, small-breasted women from appearing topless and in pornography because, as stated in the Inquisitr…

The ban (RC) on small breasted women in adult publications has been made by the Australian Classification Board allegedly on the grounds that such images could be construed as child pornography, even where those publications comply with American law and keep certification that performers are over 18.

Wow… Australian governmental officials try to make women realize what “real” woman look like (those without plastic surgery or those suffering from Anorexia) while baring “small-breasted” women because they look “young” due to their breast size…

Specifically, Think about the Children states…

The National Classification Code dictates that anything that describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not) in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult is Refused Classification.

Again, wow…

Ignorance and paranoia abound. Do people, or parlimentarians, stick their head in the sand and hope to save the world by trying to get everyone else to stick their head in the sand too?

Simply amazing…

According to the news, “Two police officers who had pulled over a suspicious vehicle were shot and wounded by the driver, and the suspect was killed when the officers returned fire, Baltimore police said Sunday.”

Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III stated

the officers who were shot and other officers who have been working to get guns off the street and make the city safer. He has directed officers to target enforcement efforts toward “bad guys with guns” in the city long plagued by violence.

Nowhere in the article is it stated whether the gun was registered to the owner/wielder or whether this was an illegal gun in the hand of a criminal. If it was an illegal gun, where did the gun come from?

Many seem to come from police sales…

Funny that…

Starbucks is getting heat right now over people openly carrying firearms into their stores where it is legal to open carry firearms anywhere unless prohibited by legal means. Gun blogs, such as Alphecca, are posting the story and providing discussion about the issue.

The Brady Campaign is using a scare tactic to try an limit the carrying into Starbuck locations. If Starbuck caves into the Brady Campaign, I’ll never buy at Starbucks again…

Here is my issue…

Statements such as the following by Paul Helmke lack any critical thinking…

The decision by Starbucks to welcome guns in its restaurants where the law permits represents a public health risk. While food-borne illnesses are estimated to kill 5,000 Americans each year, more than 30,000 of us are killed annually by firearms. Guns represent a public health threat at least as great as food poisoning. Firearm fatalities are consistently ranked as one of the leading causes of death among young people in America. As Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health wrote in 2004, “Across U.S. regions and states, where there are more guns, children are at a significantly greater risk of dying.”

Showing large numbers of deaths without a reason
Of the 30k that are killed, lets see what constitutes that 30,000 deaths…

Newbius has a page that discusses the CDC statistics on deaths. Go read it and be educated… That is government data there, and the data is not provided by the “gun nuts”–whoever they may be.

It is all a lack of Critical Thinking
The reasoning seems to be that firearms could cause death, so we should deny entry of such ‘dangerous’ items into Starbucks…

Should we not allow anyone to enter Starbucks since we all carry E. coli? Should we deny entry to those 1,000,000 or so individuals who carry the virus that causes AIDS? Should we deny entry to … You get the idea… SCARE TACTIC!

Don’t get me started about denying drive-thru service since automobile accidents cause about 35,000 deaths per year in the USA…

Don’t be fooled. You are just as likely to be shot by someone in Starbucks as you are contracting AIDS because Starbucks serves those with the virus that causes AIDS. You are much more likely to die in a car accident than end up with the two examples from the last sentence–perhaps you should stop driving to be safe?

Think critically. Fight for everyone’s rights rather tan jump on a bandwagon that has no thought to their reasoning–especially when there is NO logic for the reasons they give…

I’ll tell you what I think…

I wrote earlier about what is “scary.” I still think we act childish–flippant, critical, belittling, and other derogatory actions. Why do we act this way?

The media shows it is acceptable and, even, profitable.

Joy Behar on Glen Beck - “I think he is frequently rediculous. somebody who frequently yells, “Fire!” in a crowded theater. But I believe in free speech, and, as long as there are no weapons involved, he is fine.

Remember Joy (and Glen), that weapons don’t get up by themselves and shoot people. People, often when mad and upset, pick up guns and kill people. So communication between people would be better if it was civil.

Calling people “ridiculous” and “stupid” does not solve any problems. Calling Glen ridiculous when she says the same type of things he says appears to say “It is okay if I do it but not if you do it.”

Sort of like Polanski…

Instead of “joining the crowd,” why doesn’t someone confront this media blitz that generates profits by appealing to the entertainment crowd with a show that promotes a serious discussion without detracting from the discussion?

Realize that we are over 300 million people. Why does anyone expect that every other person (all 299,999,999 of them) will or should think exactly like me? Why is it that “they,” whoever “they” are, are always the ones who are “wrong?”

Why can’t they just have a difference of opinion that might be based on the experiences of their life? Why do most people have to classify something else they have not experienced and do not understand as “stupid” or “ridiculous?”

Examples

Abortion, Firearms and Hunting, Politics, Environment, Money, …

The list goes on.

People can be for or against each of these “issues.” Each person may have a personal story about why they have their opinion. However, most people appearing on television or in the media appear to think the “other side” is just wrong without any concerted effort to understand their position.

Where is the empathy?

I guess I shouldn’t expect empathy from everyone. However, where is the civility?

Do you think getting mad is solving any issues?

Actually, practice shows it does…

Here is the rub.

People accept a lack of civility as a “First Amendment Right.” People accept people having a right to be critical of others and to exclude them from “their group.” People expect the freedom to (whatever) without any regard to how the exercise of that freedom may affect anyone else.

People who complain get results because people cave to their yelling, criticism, or other action, and I think caving in to this type of behavior is rewarding bad behavior rather than rewarding good behavior.

Exercising their First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech may alienate a child and, in effect, help them find an outlet using violence. Virginia Tech, Long Island, and other recent examples come to mind.

Often, the person committing these violent outbursts was a victim many times over prior to committing any violent act. At some point, most people will “pop.”

Don’t focus on the act–however violent and terrible. Focus on what caused the act, who is responsible, what helped cause the problem, and how can we change so that these outbursts are less likely to happen.

cough

Calling people “stupid” and “ridiculous” does not solve any problem, and speaking in those terms says a lot about the speaker and nothing about those spoken about.

However, most listeners and viewers don’t realize that people speaking say something about the person speaking. Rather, people seem to think that the spoken work (much like the printed word on the Internet) is full of truth.

Where is critical thought?

Please teach your children that someone saying, “X is stupid” only means that a person said “X is stupid” and does not mean that “X is stupid.” Rather it means the speaker is hoping that others will think X is stupid, and the real question is why does the speaker want people to think that way? What do they have to gain?

And you all thought putting a “spin” on a story was only what politicians did? Funny, I seem to recall that putting “spin” on a story started in school…

Unfortunately, there is no real focus to teach kids to think critically–anywhere that I can find.

Summary

Need proof?

Even the Library of Congress, on a page dealing with the discussion of the Emancipation Proclamation, stated that the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery in the United States of America.

If you think that is true, you need to go read the document… You might be surprised.

We are “taught” things that we accept as “truths.” What we should be doing is accepting what others say and then questioning…

Critical thinking and Empathy - the only way to enlightenment.

Wow…

Not much I can say but he shouldn’t have yelled that at that time…

I am not sure saying that ever helps your position, regardless of whether you are arguing, do you ever like being told, “You Lie?”

Remember, be honest.

Why do people keep insisting the Health Care Plan may cover Illegal Aliens?

Let me explain…

The House Bill does state nothing in the Bill is supposed to make payments to illegal aliens.

The exact language is

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Great! Argument closed, right?

Not so fast…

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, passed in 1986, requires emergency rooms have to treat all who enter, regardless of their ability to pay SO LONG AS there is an emergency medical issue…

What is an “emergency?”  MSN has a post that states

According to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), an emergency medical condition means:

(A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in:

- placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy

- serious impairment to bodily functions, or

- serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or

(B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions:

- that there is inadequate time to make a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or

- that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

Interesting…

Furthermore, the Act, according to Wikipedia, specifies that

Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient’s citizenship or legal status.

What does this all mean?

If the Hospital can’t ask if they are a citizen, how do we know payments won’t be made for those not legal residents of the USA?  How can we track this information?  How can we prevent anyone who is not a citizen from getting their medical coverage under the proposed plan?

We would, in effect, have to alter the language of the an existing law so that people could ask and document citizenship and legal residency status.  It does not mean that ERs would not be required to still provide treatement, but we would be able to assure ourselves that the public health insurance system would not be paying for those procedures.

Of course, I don’t understand why private hospitals should be required to provide those services if the government isn’t going to pay for them.  Seems that is a double standard…

Illegal Aliens are already treated in USA Emergency Rooms, and their children born in the USA become USA citizens.

What is left unsaid is that the ER is often not paid for those medical services, and the Hospital, like any other firm or government, can not continue to operate in with a negative cash flow…

They must obtain payment from others or raise their fees to make sure they are not always negative due to a Federal Law that says they MUST provide emergency medical coverage to anyone, regardless of their citizenship or their ability to pay.

Let that sink in for a moment.

I want everyone to have coverage and be safe, but I understand that we can’t get any medical procedure we want or cover everyone because WE still have to pay for the coverage and the procedures. It matters not that you don’t write a check when you get the procedure because you write a check to the USA government when you pay your taxes.

If you don’t pay taxes, someone else is paying for your coverage… Before you get too happy, remember what happens when the government runs out of money for any particular item…

The “front lawn” in DC is full of weeds and has a broken irrigation system. The people in charge of the Vietnam Memorial are spending $96,000.00 to fix a broken irrigation system and to remove weeds and “fix” the lawn.

This is the government we trust to run Social Security, Medicare, and the VA… According to CBS,

For Medicare, the threshold when benefits exceed program income occurred last year. For Social Security, that threshold will be crossed in 2017, one year earlier than the 2018 date projected in last year’s report.

There are legal requirements for the USA government to provide funding, but we don’t know what funding will have to be provided to keep Social Security operating. Will it be 1 Billion or 3 Trillion? Forecasting, as we have all seen, is difficult to do accurately.

What we need to do is:

1.  Get out of debt - do this by living in a frugal manner and by not spending on “wants.”

2.  Put 10% of your net income into retirement accounts - whether cash, bonds, stocks, a mix, etc.

Other than that, there is very little you can do, so you might as well do what you can.

Ask yourself if living “large” now is better than living in any decency later.  Of course, I am not sure that works with us in the USA since we appear to be all about NOW and not about any long term plan…

I recall the message: “Change”

The word was everywhere: on posters, on television, spoken on the radio, on t-shirts, … You get the idea. The USA citizen voted on the premise of a change in the way politics had been conducted.

Now I ask a question…

Where is the change?

Don’t get me wrong. Democrats have different priorities from Republicans, but I don’t really think the USA citizen voted just to get a Republican out of office. Rather, I think we wanted to see something different from “politics as usual.”

So, I ask again: Where is the change?

A story from the AP talks about stimulus money being distributed to border crossings–an area that admittedly needs funding. However, funding in that program has some unexpected beneficiaries…

How it is supposed to work

The AP story states

In 2004, Congress ordered Homeland Security to create a list, updated annually, of the most important repairs at checkpoints nationwide.

The repairs at the top of the list were supposed to get money first in order to reduce those “most important repairs” that were documented and needed…

How it still works

But the Obama administration continued a Bush administration practice of considering other, more subjective factors when deciding which projects get money.

Before you say that “Bush did the same thing,” I want you to realize you are making a stupid and non-reasoned argument. That argument sounds like a child who argues, “He hit me first!”

Two wrongs do not make a right.

“Change” was supposed to mean we didn’t do “politics as usual” and avoided these situations where it appears as if favors are being passed around to benefit “party members” rather than fixing those “most important repairs.”

This is not “change.” This is “more of the same.”

I don’t see how you can argue any different. I’d love to hear your reasoning…

Money…

While repairs are needed in many places, we should be fixing those areas that need money and repairs first.

Let me quote from the article…

A border station in Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s home state of Arizona is getting $199 million, five times more than any other border station. The busy Nogales checkpoint has required repairs for years but was not rated among the neediest projects on the master list reviewed by the AP. Napolitano credited her lobbying as Arizona governor for getting the project near the front of the line for funding under the Bush administration. All it needed was money, which the stimulus provided.

How much campaigning could she have conducted under the stimulus as governor? Somebody want to go look that up?

More importantly, why was she lobbying for repairs to go anywhere except those areas that needed the repairs the most? Obviously, she was lobbying to provide her and her supporters with benefits–money.

Isn’t this idea of supporting you and “yours” over the needs of the nation that led to the outrage against lobbyists from both parties who get money spent on “pet projects” that benefit few people who are supporters of those lobbyists?

Isn’t this “more of the same?”

Isn’t that “the problem?”

But, there are more examples…

A checkpoint in Laredo, Texas, which serves more than 55,000 travelers and 4,200 trucks a day, is rated among the government’s highest priorities but was passed over for stimulus money.

This is where some of those “most important repairs” are located, and this project go nothing, zip, nada, …

The Westhope, N.D., checkpoint, which serves about 73 people a day and is among the lowest-priority projects, is set to get nearly $15 million for renovations.

Nice… That is $205,479.45 per person, on a daily basis, or $562.96 per person, on a per year basis, passing through the checkpoint. Now THAT is a toll…

And lastly…

The Whitetail project, which involves building a border station the size and cost of a Hollywood mansion, benefited from two key allies, Montana Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester. Both pressed Napolitano to finance projects in their state. Tester’s office boasted of that effort in an April news release, crediting Baucus and his seat at the head of the “powerful Senate Finance Committee.”

Nice…

If you want “Change,” …

If you want real change, you are going to have to get rid of all of those people in Washington that are responsible for these types of self-serving actions that weaken the United States of America.

“But wait,” you say. “Senators are supposed to represent their districts…”

Not quite…

Go read Article I of the Constitution. Here, I’ll provide you a link to the USA Government web-site so you won’t think I have created a “fake” Constitution…

Article I, Section VIII states

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

What I don’t see is “represent their state to the detriment of other states or of the United States of America.

A review of Congress is at MSNBC, and I’ll let you decide how “good” that review is since you will agree or disagree based on your party lines (you should really think critically rather than based on your “interests” or “feelings.” However, most people can’t get past that… It is hard to do…

However, I laughed at

After a few brief years of nonpartisanship in the 1780s, political parties emerged in Congress during the 1790s. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led the Democratic-Republican Party, which advocated limited federal government, a minimal role for the government in the economy, and a foreign policy that allied the country with France. Alexander Hamilton led the opposing Federalist Party, which favored a strong federal government, a strong role for the Treasury Department in the economy, and a pro-British foreign policy. The Democratic-Republicans dominated Congress after Thomas Jefferson won the presidency in 1801. This party was the forerunner of today’s Democratic Party, although in the early 19th century it was sometimes called the Jeffersonian Republican Party, or simply the Republican Party.

While that may have been the case, the Democratic Party of today does not “advocate for limited federal government or for a minimal role for the government in the economy.” Quite the opposite is true today.

Studying history makes you open you eyes and say, “Reaaaallly?! Wow…” Then you turn the page and continue to be amazed…

Summary

Vote people who “use the system” out of the system. Otherwise, there is no incentive or future for “Change” …

A new AP article by Calvin Woodward states there are many myths being adopted regarding the proposals regarding health care and government’s involvement in said health care.

Lets look at what Calvin talks about…

I. THE POLL: 45 percent said it’s likely the government will decide when to stop care for the elderly; 50 percent said it’s not likely.

THE FACTS: Nothing being debated in Washington would give the government such authority. Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.

Did he mean to say “stop care for the elderly” or did he mean provide “end of life counseling?” You see, the “poll” says one thing yet the “facts” talk about another. This is how the conversation gets “confused.”

There is nothing wrong with end-of-life counseling. However, if you don’t want it, you should be able to “not get it.” It does help those who care for people in comas to allow those people to die, if that is their wish, rather than be “brought back” to a continued vegetative state.

That is not what I want, but I support the right for people to have a different opinion and outcome that I want for myself.

However, those asked might have taken the question to mean that some sort of rationing would occur to those over a certain age or having a certain condition. As I have stated, why would we think that every medical procedure would be conducted/done to save a life regardless of the cost? It simply can not happen in a financial analysis. There has to be limits on what is covered. If not, where is the money coming from if the federal plan will cover all of these things that private insurance is not covering?

Again, I would sign up for a federal plan if Congress proposed to give every USA citizen the same health care options they enjoy as a Federal Employee.

However, Congress is not suggesting the usa citizen gets the insurance that Congress enjoys. Rather, Congress is proposing health care options for USA citizens that they would not choose as an option if it was offered to them.

There is an inherent problem with that in my opinion…

II. Illegal Immigrants.

I haven’t seen a proposition to cover illegal immigrants. However, I do know they do get coverage at ERs. How is that?

III. Abortions

THE POLL: 50 percent expect taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for abortions; 37 percent don’t.

THE FACTS: The House version of legislation would allow coverage for abortion in the public plan. But the procedure would be paid for with dollars from beneficiary premiums, not from federal funds. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.

Have abortions covered. Those that don’t like them should realize that the USA Government does not justify its actions based on religious beliefs but on actions that should benefit every USA citizen.

If it is legal, it should be provided. Of course, your mileage may vary…

Summary

We don’t know which proposal Calvin is discussing–this is another issue that confuses the debate. Are we talking about the Senate or House of Representatives proposal? They are about 400 pages different in length…

There are other proposals as well.

Obama needs to state which he is supporting and go support the bill.

Those talking about bills need to be specific about which bill they are discussing. Just realize that Senators talk about Senate proposals and Representatives talk about House Proposals.

My biggest problem with the article is that the author states

The judgment is harsh in a new poll that finds Americans worried about the government taking over health insurance, cutting off treatment to the elderly and giving coverage to illegal immigrants. Harsh, but not based on facts

The fact is that H.R. 3200 does, in fact, promote all new people covered be on the federal plan–in effect taking over health care.

As I stated in an earlier post

I. SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE,.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.

Go back and read that portion of the House proposal that is posted above and tell me how new employees can be covered under a private plan, say by Blue Cross Blue Shield, after the new law is passed…

Facts are lacking all around. You have to go read these proposals for yourself if you want to know. Even then, it may not be clear without pulling up other federal laws and regulations.

As I have said before

Accept, but question…

There was a law passed…

It affects you more than you know…

It requires certain participating doctors and their companies to maintain electronic medical records–to make everything more efficient you understand…

I am going to do this in two steps: (1)provide the language of a particular section of that law; and (2)describe, a day or two later, what my take on that language may mean to us all.

What I want you to do is to realize that Congress, and those that have been elected by us to be in Congress, may not read entire bills or may not be aware of all of the provisions even if they were read…

So, without further ado…

SEC. 13405. RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN DISCLOSURES AND SALES OF HEALTH INFORMATION; ACCOUNTING OF CERTAIN PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION DISCLOSURES; ACCESS TO CERTAIN INFORMATION IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT.

(a) Requested Restrictions on Certain Disclosures of Health Information- In the case that an individual requests under paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) of section 164.522 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, that a covered entity restrict the disclosure of the protected health information of the individual, notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of such section, the covered entity must comply with the requested restriction if–

(1) except as otherwise required by law, the disclosure is to a health plan for purposes of carrying out payment or health care operations (and is not for purposes of carrying out treatment); and

(2) the protected health information pertains solely to a health care item or service for which the health care provider involved has been paid out of pocket in full.

(b) Disclosures Required to Be Limited to the Limited Data Set or the Minimum Necessary-

(1) IN GENERAL-

(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraph (B), a covered entity shall be treated as being in compliance with section 164.502(b)(1) of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, with respect to the use, disclosure, or request of protected health information described in such section, only if the covered entity limits such protected health information, to the extent practicable, to the limited data set (as defined in section 164.514(e)(2) of such title) or, if needed by such entity, to the minimum necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of such use, disclosure, or request, respectively.

(B) GUIDANCE- Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue guidance on what constitutes `minimum necessary’ for purposes of subpart E of part 164 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulation. In issuing such guidance the Secretary shall take into consideration the guidance under section 13424(c) and the information necessary to improve patient outcomes and to detect, prevent, and manage chronic disease.

(C) SUNSET- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply on and after the effective date on which the Secretary issues the guidance under subparagraph (B).

(2) DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM NECESSARY- For purposes of paragraph (1), in the case of the disclosure of protected health information, the covered entity or business associate disclosing such information shall determine what constitutes the minimum necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of such disclosure.

(3) APPLICATION OF EXCEPTIONS- The exceptions described in section 164.502(b)(2) of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, shall apply to the requirement under paragraph (1) as of the effective date described in section 13423 in the same manner that such exceptions apply to section 164.502(b)(1) of such title before such date.

(4) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as affecting the use, disclosure, or request of protected health information that has been de-identified.

(c) Accounting of Certain Protected Health Information Disclosures Required if Covered Entity Uses Electronic Health Record-

`(1) IN GENERAL- In applying section 164.528 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, in the case that a covered entity uses or maintains an electronic health record with respect to protected health information–

`(A) the exception under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of such section shall not apply to disclosures through an electronic health record made by such entity of such information; and

`(B) an individual shall have a right to receive an accounting of disclosures described in such paragraph of such information made by such covered entity during only the three years prior to the date on which the accounting is requested.

`(2) REGULATIONS- The Secretary shall promulgate regulations on what information shall be collected about each disclosure referred to in paragraph (1), not later than 6 months after the date on which the Secretary adopts standards on accounting for disclosure described in the section 3002(b)(2)(B)(iv) of the Public Health Service Act, as added by section 13101. Such regulations shall only require such information to be collected through an electronic health record in a manner that takes into account the interests of the individuals in learning the circumstances under which their protected health information is being disclosed and takes into account the administrative burden of accounting for such disclosures.

`(3) PROCESS- In response to an request from an individual for an accounting, a covered entity shall elect to provide either an–

`(A) accounting, as specified under paragraph (1), for disclosures of protected health information that are made by such covered entity and by a business associate acting on behalf of the covered entity; or

`(B) accounting, as specified under paragraph (1), for disclosures that are made by such covered entity and provide a list of all business associates acting on behalf of the covered entity, including contact information for such associates (such as mailing address, phone, and email address).

A business associate included on a list under subparagraph (B) shall provide an accounting of disclosures (as required under paragraph (1) for a covered entity) made by the business associate upon a request made by an individual directly to the business associate for such an accounting.

`(4) EFFECTIVE DATE-

`(A) CURRENT USERS OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS- In the case of a covered entity insofar as it acquired an electronic health record as of January 1, 2009, paragraph (1) shall apply to disclosures, with respect to protected health information, made by the covered entity from such a record on and after January 1, 2014.

`(B) OTHERS- In the case of a covered entity insofar as it acquires an electronic health record after January 1, 2009, paragraph (1) shall apply to disclosures, with respect to protected health information, made by the covered entity from such record on and after the later of the following:

`(i) January 1, 2011; or

`(ii) the date that it acquires an electronic health record.

`(C) LATER DATE- The Secretary may set an effective date that is later that the date specified under subparagraph (A) or (B) if the Secretary determines that such later date is necessary, but in no case may the date specified under–

`(i) subparagraph (A) be later than 2016; or

`(ii) subparagraph (B) be later than 2013.’

(d) Prohibition on Sale of Electronic Health Records or Protected Health Information-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), a covered entity or business associate shall not directly or indirectly receive remuneration in exchange for any protected health information of an individual unless the covered entity obtained from the individual, in accordance with section 164.508 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, a valid authorization that includes, in accordance with such section, a specification of whether the protected health information can be further exchanged for remuneration by the entity receiving protected health information of that individual.

(2) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the following cases:

(A) The purpose of the exchange is for public health activities (as described in section 164.512(b) of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations).

(B) The purpose of the exchange is for research (as described in sections 164.501 and 164.512(i) of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations) and the price charged reflects the costs of preparation and transmittal of the data for such purpose.

(C) The purpose of the exchange is for the treatment of the individual, subject to any regulation that the Secretary may promulgate to prevent protected health information from inappropriate access, use, or disclosure.

(D) The purpose of the exchange is the health care operation specifically described in subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (6) of the definition of healthcare operations in section 164.501 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations.

(E) The purpose of the exchange is for remuneration that is provided by a covered entity to a business associate for activities involving the exchange of protected health information that the business associate undertakes on behalf of and at the specific request of the covered entity pursuant to a business associate agreement.

(F) The purpose of the exchange is to provide an individual with a copy of the individual’s protected health information pursuant to section 164.524 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations.

(G) The purpose of the exchange is otherwise determined by the Secretary in regulations to be similarly necessary and appropriate as the exceptions provided in subparagraphs (A) through (F).

(3) REGULATIONS- Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to carry out this subsection. In promulgating such regulations, the Secretary–

(A) shall evaluate the impact of restricting the exception described in paragraph (2)(A) to require that the price charged for the purposes described in such paragraph reflects the costs of the preparation and transmittal of the data for such purpose, on research or public health activities, including those conducted by or for the use of the Food and Drug Administration; and

(B) may further restrict the exception described in paragraph (2)(A) to require that the price charged for the purposes described in such paragraph reflects the costs of the preparation and transmittal of the data for such purpose, if the Secretary finds that such further restriction will not impede such research or public health activities.

(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- Paragraph (1) shall apply to exchanges occurring on or after the date that is 6 months after the date of the promulgation of final regulations implementing this subsection.

(e) Access to Certain Information in Electronic Format- In applying section 164.524 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, in the case that a covered entity uses or maintains an electronic health record with respect to protected health information of an individual–

(1) the individual shall have a right to obtain from such covered entity a copy of such information in an electronic format and, if the individual chooses, to direct the covered entity to transmit such copy directly to an entity or person designated by the individual, provided that any such choice is clear, conspicuous, and specific; and

(2) notwithstanding paragraph (c)(4) of such section, any fee that the covered entity may impose for providing such individual with a copy of such information (or a summary or explanation of such information) if such copy (or summary or explanation) is in an electronic form shall not be greater than the entity’s labor costs in responding to the request for the copy (or summary or explanation).

After Reading, I have to say, “Hmmmmm.”

So, the left is supporting and highlighting Barney Frank.  The right is angry…

Are they all 5 years old?

She has a question.  However phrased, she is asking for an answer, and his response does not help answer the question or make him look concerned about how he needs to respond to a question at a town hall meeting.

Again, this is the place to voice support and opposition to the proposal.

I think everyone needs to stop back because they all sound like my kids arguing..

One:  ["Why are you supporting this Nazi policy?"]

Two:  ["On what planet do you spend most of your time?" ... "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table."].

Which is 7 years old and which is 10?

Why not say something like

I don’t equate trying to provide health care to all USA citizens as being a NAZI tenant or policy.  I know many are opposed to the idea of government in the health care system, but there is a desire for improvements to the system.  Improvements being considered are governmental health care, altering private systems, and others.  While I am supporting __________, I hear you when you say you do not support the bill.  I respect your opinion and freedom to so choose, but the majority of my constituents support some modification to the health care system and government provided health care. I hope you agree that providing health care to all USA citizens is worth discussing even if you don’t agree with the proposed method.

Simply exchanging insults such as …

Why are you supporting this Nazi policy?

On what planet do you spend most of your time?” … “Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table.

makes everyone look bad in my humble opinion.

I can understand anyone disagreeing with either speaker. However, why does anyone support exactly what they said?

Let me clarify something…

My kids argue better than those two in the video…

Someone carrying a firearm at a political event…

What do you think?

Let me tell you what I think…

The truth

Let me point out a few thoughts…

1. I think everyone at the “political event” had an opinion;
2. Most people at the event likely wanted to “get attention” about their view;
3. Arizona is one state where such “open carry” is legal;

So, anyone carrying a firearm legally should be no different than someone yelling their opinion–both are exercising their rights guaranteed by the bill of rights.

Reasoning

Just because someone disagrees with his position doesn’t mean he is “nuts” because he has a gun. A person may be nuts regardless of what side of the street they are located, and possession of a gun has nothing to do with them being “nuts.”

We in the USA have the First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech. This freedom protects us and allows us to “speak our mind” SO LONG AS we do not slander anyone… Slanderous statements subject you to civil prosecution or, in rare jurisdictions, criminal prosecution (in some parts).

So, slanderous statements made by someone at an event is not supported by society and can subject you to prosecution because slanderous statements are not something we want to protect.

Shooting someone at an event may be illegal–it does depend on whether you shoot someone in defense of your own life. However, carrying a gun at a political event, where legal, is as legal (in that jurisdiction) as speaking your mind on your opinion–so long as your spoken statements are not slanderous…

Go read that again, please… Try to understand the legal rights being discussed and remove your “emotion” from the discussion/analysis.

Summary

You have rights in the USA. The right to an attorney (always take it and do NOT talk to police..), the right to remain silent (do so after requesting your attorney…), the right to speak your mind, and the right to own and possess a gun.

Go ask your Congressman or Congresswoman a question

I bet most of the politicians don’t know what the amendments to the constitution provide for or protect.. Don’t agree? Go ask them. I dare you.

Constitution, what it is for

The USA Constitution is a shield that protects everyone’s rights rather than a sword to remove any right from anyone not in the majority or in the White House. We need to remember that our founding fathers did revolt to form this country–they did find the situation at that time “oppressive.”

The founding fathers wanted us to have the ability to fight off a government that became “too oppressive” to those governed. I don’t think we are anywhere near that point at this time…(so back off…).

However, why does any politician seem to be fond of saying speaking up at political rallies and “town hall meetings” is “un-American” or “disruptive.” Why is it our politicians seem to want to take away the rights that even our constitution guarantees? I mean if we can’t speak out in opposition to a political position at a “town hall” event where the topic IS that political position, where are we supposed to discuss these issues?

Think about that…

Double Standard Politicians

Many of the politicians who say “speaking your mind in opposition to their position” is un-American and unpatriotic have supported “disruption” and protest in the past. To support it when you are “not in power” and to oppose it when “you are in power” is an obvious double standard–it is okay for me to do but not okay for you to do.

It is an easy step for them to next say you can’t speak your mind because it is causing opposition to your government. Congress can pass a law to make that illegal.

You are not saying that is not possible… I give you HISTORY… Go read it for yourself. Go read it somewhere else where you might be willing to see reason.

Wikipedia states

United States

[edit] Civilian

There have been 24 attempts in the United States to regulate speech that has been deemed seditious. In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, the fourth of which, the Sedition Act or “An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States” set out punishments of up to two years’ imprisonment for “opposing or resisting any law of the United States” or writing or publishing “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” about the President or Congress (but specifically not the Vice-President). The act was allowed to expire in 1801 after the election of Thomas Jefferson to the presidency. He was Vice President at the time of the Act’s passage.

Under the Espionage Act of 1917, section 3 made it a crime, punishable by 20 years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000, to wilfully spread false news of the US military with an intent to disrupt their operations, to foment mutiny in the ranks, or obstruct recruiting. The act was amended in 1918 by the Sedition Act, which expanded the purview of the Espionage Act to any statement criticizing the government. The act was upheld in 1919 in Schenck v. United States, but was largely repealed in 1921, leaving laws forbidding espionage and allowing military censorship of sensitive material.

In 1940, the Alien Registration Act or Smith Act was passed, which made it a crime to advocate or teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same. It was often used against Communist organizations. The act was invoked in three major trials, one of the Socialist Worker’s Party in Minneapolis in 1941, resulting in 23 convictions, and again in what became known as the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 in which a number of pro-Nazi figures were indicted but released when the proceedings ended in a mistrial. A series of trials of 140 leaders of the Communist Party USA was also predicated upon the Smith Act beginning in 1949, and lasting until 1957. Although the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of 11 CPUSA leaders in 1951, the court reversed itself in 1957 in Yates v. United States by ruling that teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation. Although unused since at least 1961, the Smith Act remains US law.

Laura Berg, a nurse at a United States Department of Veterans Affairs-run hospital in New Mexico was investigated for sedition in September 2005^[13] after writing a letter^[14][15] to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed unwarranted by the director of Veteran Affairs, local human resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an FBI investigation. Ms Berg was represented by the ACLU^[16]. Charges were dropped in 2006[1].

[edit] Military

Sedition is a punishable offence under the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 94^[17].

Again, if you don’t think this is true, go do your own research. Just try to think critically before responding…

Reuters has a post that states

The Federal Court of Justice said it had rescinded a conviction against a man fined 4,200 euros ($5,993) for possessing 100 T-shirts due for sale emblazoned with the words “Blood & Honor” — a translation of the Hitler Youth slogan “Blut und Ehre.”

The reasoning?

The display of Nazi symbols is forbidden in Germany, but the court said the= context of the original phrase had been sufficiently distorted to render its usage legal.

“By translation into another language, the Nazi slogan, which is characterized not just by its meaning but also by the German language, is fundamentally transformed,” it said.

Is this right?

I think it is right… How can you eliminate a phrase that was not unique to a group that committed atrocities without giving that group command of or control over your language?

How long is “long enough?”

How long does a country or a people need to wait before letting use of a phrase or symbol back into common usage? Does it matter if the word, phrase, or symbol was a symbol of hate against any particular group or just a symbol of their movement?

Summary

How is history taught if all of the Nazi words, phrases, and symbols are illegal in Germany? How do we make sure we don’t repeat the errors made before “our time” if we continue to erase vestiges of history to be “politically correct?”

I suggest we don’t let anyone control the words that can be used in a language. Rather, I think we should educate the population and hope it takes…

You may think much of the arguments going on between “illegal downloaders” of music and movies and the MPAA and RIAA does not affect you or your family. However, a court rulings may affect you.

Let me explain. No, there is too much, let me sum up…

Since a “picture is worth a thousand words,” I will try to use words to draw a picture, an example if you will, that will illustrate what I mean…

I go to Blockbuster and buy, paying with cash to avoid interest on my purchase, a copy of Taken–a wonderful movie with Liam Neeson. I have two DVD players at home–1 in the kids “play room” and one in our living room.

However, I am not always at home… The television may not be “available” when I want to watch the movie. I might want to watch the movie on the plane. I might want to watch the movie as I wait for a client out in the middle of nowhere.

What can I do if I don’t have a DVD-equipped laptop or portable DVD-player?

Under the DMCA, I can do nothing even though I have legally purchased the DVD.

Why?

When I buy the DVD, I do not “purchase’ the movie. What I purchase is a license to view the content, the video, on the DVD as allowed by the license.

Yes, wrap your mind around that for a moment.

USA Copyright Office position

I have written about this before, but that post has been “lost” in the “cloud” of the internet and database failure… I am trying to get all that data back from the Wayback Machine (check it out if you aren’t aware of what it is…).

In that post I noted:

The United States Copyright Office states in a report that

We believe that there is a strong case that the making of a buffer copy in the course of streaming is a fair use. Fair use is a defense that may limit any of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights, including the reproduction right implicated in temporary copies. In order to assess whether a particular use of the works at issue is a fair use, section 107 requires the consideration and balancing of four mandatory, but nonexclusive, factors on a case-by-case basis.

In examining the first factor - the purpose and character of the use - it appears that the making of buffer copies is commercial and not transformative. However, the use does not supersede or supplant the market for the original works. Buffer copies are a means to a noninfringing and socially beneficial end - the licensed performance of these works. There is no commercial exploitation intended or made of the buffer copy in itself. The first factor weighs in favor of fair use.

The second factor - the nature of the copyrighted work - weighs against a finding of fair use because musical works are generally creative.

The third factor - the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole - would also be likely to weigh against fair use since, in aggregate, an entire musical work is copied in the RAM buffer. Since this is necessary in order to carry out a licensed performance of the work, however, the factor should be of little weight.

In analyzing the fourth factor - the effect of the use on the actual or potential market for the work - the effect appears to be minimal or nonexistent. This factor strongly weighs in favor of fair use.

Two of the four statutory factors weigh in favor of fair use, but fair use is also an “equitable rule of reason.” In the case of temporary buffer copies, we believe that the equities unquestionably favor the user. The sole purpose for making the buffer copies is to permit an activity that is licensed by the copyright owner and for which the copyright owner receives a performance royalty. In essence, copyright owners appear to be seeking to be paid twice for the same activity. Additionally, it is technologically necessary to make buffer copies in order to carry out a digital performance of music over the Internet. Finally, the buffer copies exist for too short a period of time to be exploited in any way other than as a narrowly tailored means to enable the authorized performance of the work. On balance, therefore, the equities weigh heavily in favor of fair use.

This argument is for the storage of content in RAM–as in when you watch the DVD on your computer, the storage of the dvd content in RAM is a ‘fair use’ and such ‘equities weigh heavily in favor of fair use.”

Note it did not say that such use WAS legal.

Post Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) Analysis

It does not appear, from their document, that making a backup or making a copy of content on a HD or other solid media (Compact Flash, SD, etc.) is considered fair use by the United States Copyright Office. Although I think and argue that such storage, by definition, is covered by the fair-use doctrine, I think the Court would agree with the U.S. Copyright Office that only the temporary storage of copyrighted content (in the example given, they talk about the content on a DVD) in a computer’s RAM may be fair-use of the copyrighted material. Note that the ‘permanent storage’ of content on an MP3 layer or other device (PDA, mobile phone, etc.) does not satisfy the U.S. Copyright Office’s analysis as being fair-use of copyrighted material.

Where does that leave us?

In a place that makes no logical sense and is void of reason…

The reason I “buy” a movie is to watch the content–lets call the “movie” “content” to differentiate the actual movie (video) from the DVD on which the movie is packaged and distributed.

To me, the content is stored on a DVD. The buyer does not really care how the media is packaged–iTunes simply downloads music now with no “package” and with no copy protection…

So, I buy the content to see the movie. If I want to copy that content to my mobile phone, why can’t I? I have bought the right to watch the content… Haven’t I?

According to the DMCA, you have no right to “rip” the movie from a legally purchased DVD so that you can watch it on your iPhone or on any other system UNLESS the DVD is in the drive and the content is being read from that DVD-since that content is stored, however briefly, within a device’s memory does meet the “fair use” test.

As I stated earlier, the law does not always make sense.

Why Influence is mentioned

Movie companies and the MPAA are the ones that pushed the DMCA through Congress. While buying on iTunes does not violate the DMCA, the ability to purchase non-protected content might be more of a threat than saying I have to pay more for the right to see content I have purchased on a DVD on my iPhone or other mobile device is difficult for me to swallow…

I see movies that “include” a digital copy, but that movie often is at least $5.00 more expensive than the same “movie” that does not include that digital content. Is that “fair?” Even iTunes may charge more, but it is to get the version of the song in a non-protected format for use, say, on a non-Apple music player…

While I doubt any movie company would sue a person who ripped a legally-purchased movie to their mobile device for their own use, they can… Let that sink in for a minute…

Is there a solution to this mess?

There was a proposal called H.R. 1201, Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act of 2005, that was introduced into the House… It is sitting there…

Current Court Cases

A court has ruled that Real, the company that makes the Real Player, has violated the law.  An article here states

“The court appreciates Real’s argument that a consumer has a right to make a backup copy of a DVD for their own personal use,” Patel wrote, but noted that “a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.”

Dan Glickman, chairman and CEO of Motion Picture Association of America Inc., said in a written statement Tuesday that the ruling “affirms what we have known all along: RealNetworks took a license to build a DVD-player and instead made an illegal DVD-copier.”

“This is a victory for the creators and producers of motion pictures and television shows and for the rule of law in our digital economy,” he said.

You may be asking, “How does buying a movie but making a copy of that movie for backup purposes or to view it on your mobile phone a victory for the creators and producers of motion pictures and television shows?”

The Answer: The creators and producers of motion pictures and television shows can now charge you for the “digital copy” and charge you for viewing said content on-line even if you have purchased the DVD. In other words, it guarantees more income for those parties.

Don’t get me wrong. I know the DMCA makes moving the content to a mobile phone illegal. I just don’t think the members of Congress thought about this or had conversations with the EFF or with more “middle-of-the-road” consultants who would explain the situation as I have…

When a person buys a movie at Blockbuster that is stored and packaged on a DVD, that buyer is intending to purchase the content on that DVD–the video of the “movie.” The buyer is not intending to buy the right to view the content (video) while the DVD is in the drive. I am all for creators, producers, directors, gophers, distributors, and all of the others who are involved in the making and distributing of content to make a living. What I want to guarantee is that money I have spent for content that does go to those listed does not prevent me from enjoying the content because of how my content was packaged (on a DVD, memory card, VHS, etc.).

Looking at this in another light, the DMCA would have made the VHS illegal. If that would not be a barrier to technological innovation, I don’t know what would meet that definition…

What we are looking for here is a method to prevent the illegal distribution of content to those who have not paid for said content. What we want to allow is for people who legally have purchased said content to have the ability to watch that content–even if the media on which that content was distributed is destroyed.”

Doesn’t that make more sense?

Summary

You see, the law, often, is not logical or based on any good science. Law is what people in Congress decide should be the law.

My Rant

James Madison is supposed to have said

There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.

Perhaps he should have said that

There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the laws passed by Congress are the standard of right and wrong or provide a “benefit” to those governed.

James Madison is also supposed to have stated

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

I’d like Congress to reign in on passing laws that benefit even the “majority” of those governed but that might reduce the preferences of those in the minority. You see, the Republic of the United States of America is a Republic for a reason. We are supposed to be protecting the rights of everyone, not just the numerical majority or those with money to influence votes (See Federalist Paper #10). While we can pass all sorts of legislation and get it through Congress, the question is does that legislation reduce anyone’s rights? If it does, we might not should be passing the legislation if the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, taken into context with historical events, are to be protected for all citizens.

Like the Second Amendment… James Madison stated

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

At the time of the passing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, people were well aware that a government could be so overbearing towards the citizenry that an armed populous would be required to remove that tyranny. If citizens, now or then, did not have “arms,” there is less of a guarantee that any tyranny, if it were to arise, could be overthrown. You have to remember why the text was added and what they went through and wanted to guarantee for future generations.

Remember, most of those “Founding Fathers” probably thought, initially, that there was nothing wrong with the way the British were governing the country. Only when the government oppressed the citizens did the Founding Fathers deem action was necessary to guarantee rights for everyone–not just the majority.

In Conclusion

The problem is that while Congress seems to be saying that “the other side” should not organize rallies in opposition to certain Laws, the public has no access to Congress in a manner that will get them to change their mind. The MPAA and their members (Disney, ABC, and other content producers/distributors) have deep pockets and write big checks.

Think this isn’t how it works? If not, why aren’t all political contributions made anonymous or prohibited? We all know ideas are sold, and the currency, often, is not based on reason or logic.

Not so complex…is it?

There is a lot of information, good and bad, out in the “cloud” and on the Internet, about what the Health Care Bill proposes to do and cover and what it won’t do and/or cover…

Here is a link to the 800-lb Gorilla straight from the House of Representatives web-site. Yes, it is large…

I really advise everyone to go read this bill. It isn’t about enjoying the reading or that the reading is fun. However, this, like all bills, affect you and everyone else. Shouldn’t we know what Congress is passing whether or not they know what they are passing?

Here are a few things that concern me:

I. SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE,.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.

(b) Grace Period for Current Employment-based Health Plans-

(1) GRACE PERIOD-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

(B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS PLANS- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the following:

(i) Any coverage described in section 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5).

(ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), including coverage under a specified disease or illness policy described in paragraph (3)(A) of such section.

(iii) Such other limited benefits as the Commissioner may specify.

In no case shall an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the coverage or benefits described in clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable coverage under this division

(2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- During the grace period specified in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health plan that is described in such paragraph shall be treated as acceptable coverage under this division.

(c) Limitation on Individual Health Insurance Coverage-

(1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED- Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage.

So, lets look at these issues:

1. “`Grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met.” This means the health care provided by your employer is allowed after this law is passed.

That is good. I was worried, like most, that our “choice” or our ability to chose to NOT participate in the public plan would be removed…

2. (A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

Wait. Now it is saying that I can keep my current insurance through a private party, like BCBS, only if the company does not enroll any individual in the plan after the effective date of Y1 of the plan? I thought I could choose to not participate and keep the insurance my employer offered. If not, am I not forced to the public option?

3. (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

Wait… Now, my employer does not have the freedom to change plans within BCBS because doing so would be a change of a term or condition? Thus, if the renewal for the BCBS came in at a very expensive number, they company could not choose to reduce the plan from a 90/10 to an 80/20 and still let me get coverage through work? Instead, I would be forced to participate in the government plan?

4. (2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED- Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage.

   Is Federal Insurance “Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage” or is it not affected, at all, by the new proposal? I want to know whether federal employees can keep electing to take under the FEHB or whether federal employees will be required to join the health system proposed by H.R. 3200. Anyone have that answer?

My suggestion

Why not give the “not what you call insurance” that is provided under the FEHB to all citizens of the United States so that everyone can get the same insurance you, congressmen/women, can get? Why not let what is good for the goose be good for the gander?

Summary

I don’t know whether this is expected to be removed, but this appears to get rid of private insurance companies and/or force new hires to participate in the government plan even if the company offered health care, previously, as part of their employment package…

Why?

I don’t know.

Why not give everyone the same insurance government workers have?

I don’t know. Why don’t you ask them at the next town meeting?

Let me know whether you are now part of the “extremist right” because you have a valid question that might be different from “theirs”–whether or not they are democrats like you or not…

Regardless of your party, you should quote Ms. Clinton who said

There cannot be true democracy unless women’s voices are heard. There cannot be true democracy unless women are given the opportunity to take responsibility for their own lives. There cannot be true democracy unless all citizens are able to participate fully in the lives of their country. [July 11, 1997]

I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.

I’ll also provide a few by James Madison:

There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.

The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to an uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.

and finally

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

This can cover so much, and I hope you realize that you need to be aware of your “situational awareness.”

However, I specifically want to refer to people hiking/walking/working near international borders…

We have had several incidents along international borders where “USA Citizens” have been “taken” captive by countries for “entering the country illegally.”

I would love to have the following information:

1. Were the two reporters (Laura Ling and Euna Lee) in North Korea when they were “taken?”
2. If they were in NK, why didn’t they know they were in NK?
3. If they were in NK, then aren’t they guilty of “entering NK illegally?”

I think I will only have an issue if #3 turns out to be true…

I don’t see us releasing “detained” non-residents when leaders from Central and South America come to visit the USA… Do we have an issue here?

Would we be saying that NK isn’t, somehow, fair so that our work to gain their release is acceptable when we don’t release people who come across our border? Does it matter WHY the person came across the border?

Similarly, if the three hikers were “taken” while in Iran, should we make it a national crisis to gain their release? If we always work to “gain their release,” what incentive is there for anyone to be aware of their “situational awareness?”

I sympathize with their situation, but I see Lisa Ling state

But Lisa Ling noted that there are humanitarian reasons to seek the release of the journalists: Her sister Laura suffers from a stomach ulcer, and Lee is the mother of a young daughter.

Say what?

Many prisoners have kids and/or medical problems, and I don’t know whether those qualify for “humanitarian reasons for release” unless we plan on giving the same treatment to everyone else…

What do you think?

How far should governments go to secure the release of citizens held by foreign governments?

How much “interaction” should be allowed by private citizens, who are not on a governmental visit, who interact with countries that are on the terror list? I mean, I would be afraid that I would be arrested by the USA government if I went to Iran or North Korea stating I was going to try to secure their release…

Did Clinton break any laws if this was a “private” trip? Does it matter that it was a “mercy mission?”

Speak up because I think we are moving to a point where personal responsibility, for anything, is being pushed away so that we count on our government, or someone else, to provide “those things” for us…

What say you?