Slashdot Mirror
Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned
schwit1 writes "The Obama administration is seeking to reverse a federal appeals court decision that dramatically narrows the government’s search-and-seizure powers in the digital age. Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Justice Department officials are asking the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its August ruling that federal prosecutors went too far when seizing 104 professional baseball players’ drug results when they had a warrant for just 10. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
That it's taking people this long to realize nothing ever changes.
and as such is just like pretty much all of the others. The question isn't whether he's everything the advertising billed him as, it's whether he was a better choice than the alternative.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
In before "Bush III"...oh, crap, beaten by the summary.
Pay attention closer next time. Obama wasn't saying "change", he was saying "chains."
Painting faces on the places I can't reach. You know I could use somebody. You know I could use somebody. Somebody like you, Obama, Someone like you know and all you know and all you speak. _+_+ OSI
Osi Osi Osi Osi Osi
Seriously... When will Americans realize that both parties have exactly the same goal: To control and manipulate everything that every citizen possesses or can produce - even thoughts/minds/beliefs - for their own gain alone.
Screw investing in gold - invest in lead and brass....
Same as the old boss, indeed. What amazes me is that we're still a two party system and that people continue to think that their vote matters.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
I liked him when he ran for president. Then he failed closing gitmo, didn't manage to push healthcare through, and I kinda attribted that to "circumstances", like FOX "News". But now he doesn't sign this landmine treaty thingie, he doesn't promise any kind of CO2 reduction goals, he extends the PATRIOT Act and now this. I'm utterly disappointed.
I would regard it as a credible difference if, when you asked Obama the reason, he gave an intelligible answer, regardless of whether the answer was one you liked or not.
What I'd like to see from Obama is saying to his insiders, "OK, I see why you want this and I'll back you on it, but you're going to have to explain yourself to the public a lot better than you used to".
That's what I hated most about Bush, how entitled he felt about operating in the shadows. From a leadership perspective, bad policy is often better than no policy. I accept mistakes. The problem was that the little cretin never stood up for his reasons. That old excuse "national security" sounds exactly the same whether you pronounce it in English, Chinese, or North Korean.
It's the surrounding discussion that makes the difference.
"The government is asking the court to review the case with all of its 27 judges, which it has never done. If the court agrees to a rehearing, a new decision is not expected for years, and the August decision would be set aside pending a new ruling. Either way, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say. "
So if they agree to re-evaluate the ruling, the current ruling is "set aside", meaning as if it never happened? Ain't that about a bitch.
He is with the federal government.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Some would argue that since we get the same basic results from either party, we really have a one party system and its all smoke and mirrors between the 2.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So, because a warrant won't let them go on a fishing expedition for other crimes, they don't pursue the crimes that they do know about? That's like a kid saying: "If you don't play by my rules, I'll take my ball away".
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
This story is misleading in what it leaves out: this wasn't just a narrow decision saying that this particular seizure violated the "plain view" test. The 9th Circuit Court apparently decided to go far beyond deciding the case based on those precedents and instead set out specific detailed new rules to be followed in computer searches.
Even if the Supreme Court were to do something like this, it would probably be considered by many to be overstepping its bounds a bit; the usual process is for the courts to declare that the search was unconstitutional, after which another branch of government will introduce policies or legislation to ensure that future searches aren't likely to be thrown out for the same reason. Here the court took it upon itself to create those policies.
The problem with trying to apply old precedents to this matter is that digital databases can be so much vaster than any real place being searched. If the cops have a warrant to search the safe in someone's house for something illegal, they aren't allowed to go search the cupboards. Only if the evidence is in plain sight as they go about their business are they allowed to use it.
This is very relevant. What if the cops bust in to your house looking for marijuana in your safe, based on an anonymous tip, and don't find anything? Maybe they find you've stored chemicals in your kitchen cabinets in violation of federal law for storage, or maybe you've got some prescription med bottles for a person who is no longer living in the house. If the cops are allowed to rifle through everything a private citizen owns, and they get creative, they can almost certainly find SOMETHING to charge you with. Their perspective is "since you were accused, you must be guilty of SOMETHING...let's find what it is because I don't want to go back to the station empty handed"
Well, now, if suppose you were a credit bureau like Equifax. If the cops had the authority to search your database to get someone's credit record in order to prove illegal activity, they could search the records of every citizen in the united states because those records are in "plain sight" within the database! Bet they could find SOMETHING if they are allowed to basically open an investigation against every citizen of the country.
And for those arguing "if we're soft on crime, we're letting teh criminals win". The U.S. has already declared and imprisoned more of its citizens for being 'criminals' than any other nation on earth as a % of population. Now, I'm not saying that a large percentage of those people are innocent, just that this extreme level of imprisonment is not an appropriate way for society to deal with those who misbehave. (I think the percentage of innocent people is probably between 3 and 10 percent)
Anyone who wants to give power to the state - like Obama, just about every Democrat, and way too many Republicans - has to TAKE it from WE THE PEOPLE.
Want to lower health care costs and expand benefits? Take away the PEOPLE'S FREEDOM TO MAKE THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE CHOICES.
Want to pay for giant social programs and/or wars? Take away the PEOPLE'S WEALTH.
All this talk about him being the same guy as the last one...? Just because his actions related to 4th amendment are like Bush's, doesn't mean it's a one-party system all of a sudden. Take a look at healthcare and foreign policy. I think this boils down to the fact that ANY PRESIDENT will take as much 4th amendement liberties as the can if it helps him protect the country. Is it right? No, and it's our obligation to fight it. But I'd say it's not surprising in the least. If he can avoid having a major disaster/attack during his first term, that completely makes up for any loss of support he gets for being a dick about the 4th amendment. Does it guarantee no terrorist attacks could happen? No, but I'd say the conditional probabilities work out in his favor, politically.
Again, I'm not supporting it. We need him to know that these policies are unpopular. But to say that our extremely liberal president is suddenly just like Bush because of his stance on a single issue like this, is ludicrous.
I think he has both sides of the line pissed enough now that he will never be elected again.
the attempt to appeal the decision, TFA states that the court said they illegally obtained the names because the authorities 'actively scrolled to the right side of the spreadsheet'... Isn't that defense like "Sir, you had a warrant for my computer and found marijuana on the table... you actively looked at the table when your warrant was just for my computer". I think this is an example of the American Justice not working. If a file that incriminates people subject to the warrant also incriminates other people, I don't see how this is an abuse. The judge's decision was absurd. And don't get me wrong, I usually don't like big brother stuff, but on the other hand, tying the hand of the authorities when they're trying to do a decent job is not going to help the situation either.
This... doesn't actually sound that objectionable. Scrolling to the right breaks the Fourth Amendment?
What the current government want so far:
The current government is so power-crazy that it's become suicidal in its attempts to speed through legislation over half the country opposes, regardless of how it's going to affect the 2010 elections. You'd think they'd take their foot off the pedal and slow down a bit to address the #1 issue voters have right now, unemployment.
Must be some mistake. Let's give the guy another Nobel price, I'm sure he'll deserve it later...
...if Bush had done this people would be reacting differently. Hope and Change is a joke.
Doesn't Zero's wife look like a man? Maybe it is a man.
Hasn't he been saying that he's into transparency this whole time? What? Did you guys think it was a one way street? We're lucky there aren't webcams in all our bathrooms.
Happy now? This is what you all wanted... For the past decade I've read post after post after post about Bush spending too much or having too tight an iron fist on privacy issues.
Well, you all voted for change...
Now you have the highest spending EVER. Now you can see the beginning of security corruption as well. At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy. Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he's going to do it.
When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt. And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Thanks for the insightful post. So tired of "OBAAAAAMMA DONE DID IT AGAIN!" headlines here on Slashdot. you get a slew of people spouting off their opinions on things they really know absolutely nothing about yet they get emotionally involved because some fucking journalist tells them how to think. It is worse when a journalist forces an opinion down your throat then it is the government actually being corrupt.
... but only for a while until the money-changers sneak back into the temple. That's why you have to have them periodically, like defragging and virus-scanning your hard drive. We seem to have fallen behind on the schedule... we haven't had a decent game-changing revolution in a while, have we? Now we have a bunch of people muttering "let them eat cake" again. Does anyone still know how to make guillotines? We'll need quite a few this time.
They all know their jobs and the limits of their office and mission. For various reasons, both good and bad, they seek more power and expansion of current power. I hold that there was great wisdom in the limiting of those powers from the very beginning. That wisdom was established by previous abuses of such overreaching powers of the previous government the founding fathers were living under. They knew where all the government power abuses lead to because they had lived with those abuses until they could tolerate it no longer. This is how the U.S. Revolution began!
The people in various offices seek to repeat those same abuses by seeking to go beyond the limits that were artfully and successfully crafted by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. They may have good intentions, but the evils that can result from it outweighs the benefit of prosecuting one or two more child rapists. And yes, I said it. Protecting the constitution is FAR more important than protecting children from rapists.
in the next breath, if ?we? fail to monitor some evile critters' (including our own (illuminati etc...) psycho activities, many (more) of us might get hurt... or even worse, mistaken for evile when not doing so? yikes, maybe just stop doing stuff that even smells evile? there must be some limits to this freedumb thing?
no matter, the lights are coming up all over now. fortunately, many of us, despite our questionable training, are on the not wrong side of history.
In youth a man will lean to the left unless he has no heart. With age (and experience) a man will move right unless he has no intelligence.
I voted for McCain/Palin too. I knew Mr. Obama would lead the country into socialism.
What's the point of the jab against the Obama (and Bush) administration(s). The point of the article was made in the first part of the summery it just seems like it was troll-bait. I know this is 'just a blog' and not a newspaper or something, but what is wrong with a least pretending to be impartial?
Does this guy talk about war with Iran? The last guy wanted it and so did his replacement.
Does this guy consider negotiation to be appeasement? The last guy did and so did his replacement.
Is this guy screwing with the Russian border? The last guy did and his replacement thought it was a good idea, too.
Don't like what you lost under the previous administration? Pissed that this guy said he was going to make a difference but he isn't doing it? Well, the next time you think about complaining to the public, remember the other guy wasn't even promising to try to make a difference and he actually thought you were an idiot for wanting change.
Once again the editors have demonstrated that, as much as geeks like to complain about lawyers not understanding technology, techies have far greater problems understanding legal issues.
I could go into a ton of detail as to the potential issues with the Ninth Circuit's approach, and the reasons why it makes sense for this case to continue through the process of judicial review. However, that would be redundant, because Orin Kerr, who's an expert on the topic, does an excellent job of doing it for me. Incidentally, it only took one Google search to pull up his analysis:
http://volokh.com/posts/1228354570.shtml
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
The title of the story is, "Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned" except that the story has nothing to do with Obama and calling this the 'Obama Administration' is a bit of a stretch as well.
It is Elena Kagan, not Obama. Her job is the United States Solicitor General. She is represents the US as a prosecutor for the Supreme Court. Isn't she just doing her job?
I don't understand how one person doing what they are suppose to be doing means Obama is against our rights. The connection just isn't there for me.
I suppose, just for completeness, somebody ought to point out that the headline says "Obama" wants the ruling overturned, whereas the actual text states, correctly, that it is Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, who wants the ruling overturned. While it is true that Kagan was appointed by Obama, nevertheless I expect that Obama himself probably has never actually given an opinion on the subject.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
That's apples-to-oranges. During bad times *is* the time to spend. Bush spent during (relatively) good times. Ideally a "rainy-day" budget surplus is built up so that the gov't can spend it as stimulus money when the private sector goes into a funk. It's roughly comparable to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. You don't suck oil from it when you can get it elsewhere.
But, Bush spent the rainy-day fund when it wasn't raining. Stimulus spending can work. Look at China for example, they have a yearly-adjusted growth rate of 8% despite slumped exports. But, China has sufficient cash for such, thanks largely to our lopsided trading. Without the US stimulus spending, we could be at say 20% unemployment right now.
Table-ized A.I.
Currently, as most people here have probably already figured out, we're just starting to get our laws caught up to the new digital age. I'm currently taking a couple computer forensics classes, so I've heard my instructors go on a few rants about the current state of legislation in regard to digital evidence and cyber crime investigations. For instance, in Michigan, you don't even necessarily have to have any computer back round to be a certified computer forensics investigator. All Bob the computer-illiterate rape investigator would need to do is have a few year investigating those rape cases, be over 25, and a few years of experience investigating those rape cases.. or any other sort of crime.
The main issue Obama seems to be going at is the interpretation of "in plain site." While I think it makes perfect sense that if you don't get a search warrant to look for pictures of naked children at my house, and you don't see child porn on any screens, then your search warrant sure as hell better include my computer before you snag my hard drive and start looking for my child porn stash.
However, if you make an image of someone's hard drive (you never work with the original), I don't see how everything on that image isn't in plain site, or what reasonable expectation of privacy that person would have. Though, with the way things work, if I'm looking at an image I've legitimately for evidence about a murder and see a folder called "evil child pr0nz", I pretty much need to get a warrant before looking at it, otherwise I'm risking getting that evidence thrown out. TFA states an example about how the government, while looking at the spreadsheet of how 10 players failed their drug test, also noticed that there 104 other people who failed their drug tests and then copied all that information. HOW is this not considered in plain site, because all they had to do was copy and paste the information of those 10 players??? Exactly what does the investigator have to see on a computer for it to be considered in plain site? A big flashing banner that says "LOOK IN '***!!C:\PR0NZ' FOR CHILD PRONZ!!***"??
If these same results had been printed and stapled together then there'd be no argument at all. The document would be the item described in the warrant and the whole document would be seized and ultimately presented intact in court (becoming a matter of public record). "Why should a digital document be any different?", is what the Govt. seems to be arguing.
Seems there's a bit of a double standard on both sides: the court is ignoring its own precedents in "won't someone think of the children" cases, and the Govt. is toting the equivalence line while actively pursuing ACTA, which is prescribing a massive divide between works in digital form and on paper.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
Therefore all votes are evil? So we shouldn't express an opinion at all then?
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
If you want change, why vote for a centrist?
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
9th Circuit essentially stated (maybe not held) that there is no plain view in computer searches. They embedded this ruling (which all the lower courts in the 9th Circuit will follow) in an opinion in a case that the feds have no very good chance of appealing successfully because of procedural error (law of the case doctrine).
The 9th Circuit has included some really wackazoid dicta in their opinion. They're telling the magistrates that they shouldn't be giving computer search warrants to the feds unless the feds WAIVE the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. This seems incredibly weird to me.
If the Supremos take this case it will be a strong indicator that they disapprove of the breadth of the 9th Circuit's ruling.
This case is screwed up on at least a couple levels.
And, FWIW, this has abso--lutely nothing to do with Obama. The 9th Circuit went way out on a limb in this case (I think). Be interesting to see if the Supremos chop that limb off.
...half white = non white??
...that when he was talking about increasing openness and accountability, he meant from himself?
So if you think those wars were a justification under Bush, but not Obama, then that just makes you a big 'ole hypocrite.
"My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."
Read the whole thing for yourself, or watch the footage. It was all about the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Nothing he said there was even remotely in support of socialism.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/spread-the-weal.html
Why on earth would you vote for Palin? She's narrow minded, bigoted, hateful, hypocritical and more. WTF? I can't see any up side to Palin being in charge of anything!
I truly am lost that she is seen as an asset to anybody.
As opposed to McCain himself, who seems capable, stable, fair, sensible. I can see why someone would vote for McCain.
But Palin? What do you see from close up that can't be seen from over here?
From the SaveJPL.com website:
On Monday, November 2, Solicitor General Elena Kagan filed for a writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court, requesting a review of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals injunction that protected employees at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory from intrusive, open ended background investigations under Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 (NASA et al. v. Nelson et al., No. 09-530). If granted, the writ would permit the Supreme Court to hear arguments and rule on the legality of government investigations into the private lives of federal contractors who do non-classified work. On June 4, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a motion from the Department of Justice for an en banc hearing (a hearing before a large panel of the Ninth Circuit) that sought to overturn an injunction issued last year against NASA and the California Institute of Technology by a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. The panel's ruling was unanimous in favor of the JPL employees.
I thought Bush lost the election, but here we have him in blackface.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Another inflammatory headline that anti government jackholes will rally around without bothering to read or think about.
This sin't about just siezing computers without warrent, this isn't about grabbingh people off the street, and this isn't about lies to cover an agenda.
This is about the definition of 'found in plain sight' during a computer investigation. In the case they want to get reviewed the law enforcement officials open a spread sheet they had a warrant to look at, and happened to scroll over in the spread sheet. The court said that's not the same as in plain sight; which is ridiculous.
What, exactly, is unreasonable about this observation? People are positively EXPLODING with blind, frothing rage over a fine-grained court case which has not even filtered to the supreme court. The headline is highly misleading, and it's an utter travesty the blurb made it to the front page of slashdot without editors toning down the utter partisan hackery.
I wish I had not spent my final mod point on that hilarious post a few hours ago..
This is one of the most insightful posts i've seen in a political thread in a very long time.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
On both counts.
on strategy, you might reflect on having a depression, bailing out the speculators, and starting to put in austerity programs to pay for the bailout. when the austerity is no longer tolerated by the population, what is the usual strategy?
this circumstance is why i think greshman's law should be repealed.
This appeal probably more to do with the sort of lawyer drawn to the prosecution field than anything related to the politics of the executive branch.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
... if it had been a top level comment instead of nested 6 or 7 levels down. Most folks probably don't have their browser set to "full screen" and the darned post got split every two words by my browser. :-)
Besides, why not just link to the content instead of reproducing it here?
Warrants for inspection of computer databases should come with specific search string queries attached.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
im dropping my support for obama.
Read radical news here
You might find that there are two or more sides to most stories when critical thinking and 2 sec of research are applied:
Their story (with characters identified in video):
http://www.seiu.org/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&tag=Kenneth%20Gladney&limit=20
Also,
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/7/763227/-SEIU-attacked,-then-arrested-at-Healthcare-Townhall-while-Kenneth-Gladney-lawyers-up-to-sue-SEIU
Look at all the jackasses that come out of the wood work.
Yes we can.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
So that's what happens when you always vote for one of the 2 parties that represent the Establishment ... I bet the sheep will run back to the Republicans in droves.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
(I think the percentage of innocent people is probably between 3 and 10 percent)
Golly, that's a bleak outlook on society.
I for one was surprised when it became clear that Obama, a Democrat, was an ardent Corporatist with a long history of benefiting large Corporations in his bills resulting huge financial gains for them. This almost always implies that the politician is receiving rich personal gain for what he does. We have also learned that he talks the good talk but usually delivers something completely different. In fairness, there have been a couple of good calls out of the White House but for the most part it's "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Still, what would McCain have been like?
People talk as if voting to avoid Palin makes some sort of sense, that it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that she should never be allowed near the White House. There are closed minds and minds that are sealed shut forever. People criticize the section of the electorate that votes as a reflex, without consideration. What is the difference between those and those who make decisions with minds frozen shut? Palin's strengths don't fit the McDonald's menu of strengths that people use to evaluate politicians. If her good points aren't on the menu, she must be a loser. Then people complain about the same old politicians.
I completely disagree that Obama is delivering Universal Health Care. He may have promised it but the current Bills are about 95% Republican. They are all about forcing people to buy policies from the current Health Insurance Cartel at whatever Big Health Insurance feels like setting the price at. That kind of Pro-Business, Pro-Profit solution to a problem is as Republican as it gets. Republicans might balk at the Mandatory aspect though and I suppose they would never have manipulated things so that the uninsured could be covered. I may be wrong but I guess Republicans believe in a kind of twisted Darwinistic Survival of the Fittest when it come to the Uninsured. Or that as Rush Limbaugh has said if you do not have Insurance you should just go to Canada.
Really the main goal of a politician is to get as rich as possible as quickly as possible. Ideally without getting their hands dirty. The best way to get rich is to get on the payroll of huge Corporations and to do as they say, introduce the Bills they write and generally serve as their proxy. Ever wonder why with all the Representative and Senators supposedly working for us why we are Not Represented? It's because they are working for the opposition, not us. Remember all politicians retire rich!
Ever wonder why both parties seem so alike & produce such similar legislation? They have much more in common than their differences. The congressmen are almost all serving huge Corporations not the citizens. Both parties are on the same payrolls. Think about this - why did we go to Iraq? One major reason is that a lot of Companies would make Millions if we did.
He may have promised it but the current Bills are about 95% Republican.
The current bills are 100% Democrat. Never forget that.
I may be wrong but I guess Republicans believe in a kind of twisted Darwinistic Survival of the Fittest when it come to the Uninsured.
A good portion of them believe in personal responsibility. If most people consume more health care than they could possibly afford, then that isn't being responsible, is it? That's the future the US risks under current universal health care proposals in Congress. At least other countries that have gone this route have brakes in place (cost control, demand restrictions, etc) to reduce the speed with which their health care costs grow.
My point is that the Bill looks like what a Republican might be expected to write with a few changes. Especially considering the Bill is a Corporate solution to Healthcare, ironically using the very Companies that triggered the call for Healthcare reform in the 1st place.
I'm aware the the Republicans are currently opposed to anything and everything the Democrats are doing so of course the Bills have no Republican support or sponsorship.
As for the uninsured, Republicans may be right about some of them - people who wish to be uninsured. But what about those that cannot purchase insurance at all either due to financial reasons or due to pre-existing conditions? Would Republicans just advise these people to seek hospice care (paid for by them of course) or to try emergency rooms? Just asking - all I've heard is Rush's suggestion.
Probably the exact same but with an added layer of sociopathy.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
All the efforts to empower common man will be resisted because legislative, judiciary, administration & business community will not allow their clout to be diluted and they want you to be subservient forever.
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
How's that hope and change working out for ya?