Slashdot Mirror
TSA Subpoenas Bloggers Over New Security Directive
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that TSA special agents have served subpoenas to travel bloggers Steve Frischling and Chris Elliott demanding that they reveal who leaked a TSA directive outlining new screening measures that went into effect the same day as the Detroit airliner incident. Frischling said he met with two TSA special agents for about three hours and was forced to hand over his laptop computer after the agents threatened to interfere with his contract to write a blog for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines if he didn't cooperate and provide the name of the person who leaked the memo outlining new security measures that would be apparent to the traveling public. 'It literally showed up in my box,' Frischling told The Associated Press. 'I do not know who it came from.' Frischling says he provided the agents a signed statement to that effect. The leaked directive included measures such as screening at boarding gates, patting down the upper legs and torso, physically inspecting all travelers' belongings, looking carefully at syringes with powders and liquids, requiring that passengers remain in their seats one hour before landing, and disabling all onboard communications systems, including what is provided by the airline. In a December 29 posting on his blog, Elliott said he had told the TSA agents at his house that he would call his lawyer and get back to them."
... is the best security.
There's no place like localhost
When will Obama be inaugurated?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
The terrorists won. And won big!
They spent what... couple million? some of their dumber guys who they could talk into blowing up.
And got back what... The usa crapped itself and spent BILLIONS of dollars on totally useless 'security'.
Man... they won huge!
Wow, couldn't be bothered to RTFS, eh?
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
You're seeing it from the wrong side. They have a leak and they want to find/fix it. Which involves their own agents. In order to find that leak they needed information from the recipient of the leaked info. They would rather not involve other civilians if they could.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
The TSA security directive was never meant to be known by the public, yet would call for new security measures which would require searching or controlling the public in new ways!? That's a bizarre contradiction. How do you secretly MAKE people submit to new body searches or restrain them in their seats an hour before landing?
I don't think they really thought this plan through...
The terrorists aren't even trying that hard.
They're setting their sights too high. Stopping all air flight in the Western world is easy. You don't even need to get on the plane. Walk into an airport with a few pounds of explosives strapped on under your coat. Think of how many people tend to get queued up at those checkpoints.
When they stop you at the security checkpoint, go boom. It'll only have to happen a few times before air flight is completely stopped indefinitely.
Bibo Ergo Sum.
Another proof, to join the seemingly endless list, that Napolitano is totally unqualified to head DHS. A talking head on TV this week made the following reference to her "leadership ability"; She couldn't lead Tiger Woods to a free weekend at a whorehouse!
I am beginning to wonder if there are any qualified people in this administration at all.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Except for the fact that this "leak" is something that all Americans should know to begin with. If the average American doesn't know what the policies of the TSA are, they can't check for abuses. The right and responsibility to check for abuses in government is critical in any sort of a free government.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Terrorism is the use or threat of use of violent to bring about a social, political, or economic change. Any single violent action taken by any terrorist group can not alter any of this. Yes, people will die, destruction will occur, and lives will be change. But it is only in our response to their attacks that our way of life can be changed.
You want to send a chilling message to those who would attack our very society? Find them with our existing intelligence systems. Try them in our existing court systems. Imprison them in our civilian detention system. And build back the Twin Towers just as they were with an anti-aircraft cannon sitting on the top of both of them. Show them the might of a free nation.
Or our politicians (on both sides of the isle) could use these attacks to justify sweeping changes to civil liberties, the judicial system, the creation of a new "security" department, and gross consolidation of federal and presidential power.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Sorry??? where is this 'free government' of which you speak? I remember reading about such things in philosophy but I do not know of any in the real world.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Maybe that's the point - that we're no longer participating in a free government. Without input, there is total control - no way to safeguard against tyranny or corruption. If the guidelines are secret - they can be interpreted any way that the people enforcing them see fit - without control or oversight. I am starting to believe that if they thought they could get away with it - they would just -disappear- this guy like corrupt regimes usually do.
Hmm.... I think Steve and I have different definitions of the word "forced", but it sounds like standard Gestapo - I mean TSA - practices to me.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Which is why I said sort of free. It seems with every year that goes by, the western world keeps slipping into the very sort of tyranny that the world thought they got rid of in the 1800s.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
is the biggest killer in history.
More people died getting TO the front that AT that front.
I think that an online, constantly updated "Cause/mortality bar chart" would be an extremely helpful/useful thing.
Maybe Google should do a little research project, with that "result page" on the data mining processes required to get those figures.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
This is an Associated Press story published on the New York Times site. The NY Times did not report this.
I grew up in a world where the people on the other side of the Iron Curtain had no freedom and where subjected to arrest and detention for any criticism of the government. People there could be arrested and put in strange prisons outside of the legal system. Stopped and searched using obscure references to 'enemy of the state' (sort of translates to terrorist). We were all shocked at the things that happened on the other side of the iron curtain and thought that such things could never happen in our society...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
So the government announces a massive initiative to protect our rights from the terrorists and here we find it harassing online journalists for informing the public about what the government is secretly up to. Not so different from the way it is charged by the Constitution "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," and subsequently creates a legal morass which rewards patents trolls, suppresses innovation with legal harrassment, and extorts campaign donations from perpetual copyright extension. Then there is the initiative to lower health care costs and in improve the quality of care which will raise the costs of medical care and ration medical care. Next up: "Net Neutrality". What could possibly go wrong?
When will Americans wake up and recognize that no matter how noble are the stated goals of politicians that the actual outcomes usually oppose the stated goals?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Now if their detectors were really good, they'd provide biometric tagging, be able to gauge your health and update your medical records too.
That way we'd know the identity of everybody OR you CANT FLY!
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Does anyone else think that the TSA is exhibiting symptoms of: The Stanford Prison Experiment, wiki: here. Basically, when given power and the mandate to do something without proper checks and balances then stupidity or sadism emerges. The Stanford Experiment had to be called off early because normal people when put into that framework extremely mistreated other normal people. So, does the TSA need a good spanking and a bit of restructure?
Shh.
Shocked you say? Amazing how everyone forgets McCarthyism.
You didn't even read the memo. It is instructional material for TSA and airline employees to follow. The target audience was secuity personnel, nobody else. The security personnel are to impliment the instructions.. those actions are public and not hidden. The memo doesn't outline secret rules that air-travelers have to somehow figure out.
The point is the information reached the "media" (if blogs qualify.. they probably do) before it could even be implimented by TSA and airlines. That's a pretty bad leak, right?
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
It's not classified information. It's just called "sensitive" information under 49 CFR 1520. That's a federal regulation, not a criminal law, and it only applies to persons authorized to receive the information, not to the general public. If the TSA finds the authorized person who is the source of the leak, they can charge them a civil penalty, but a non-authorized recipient has no obligation to keep the material confidential.
There are criminal penalties associated with actual classified information, but they don't apply here. Homeland Security has the authority to create classified documents, but then they have to comply with all the requirements of accountability, marking, numbered copies, copying restrictions, approved containers, encrypted transmissions, burn bags, and security clearances. They can't send something to every airline gate agent and baggage handler and call it "classified", because those people aren't cleared for classified information.
Shocked you say? Amazing how everyone forgets McCarthyism.
Yeah, but nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
The "right to privacy", even the concept of privacy itself, is something that is very recent (that explains those TVs and radios left on all day. Imagine them just working in both directions,)
As long as its not INTRUSIVE, OBSTRUCTIVE or PUNITIVE, most surveillance is tolerated.
The fact that some people actually want and need an omnipresent, omniscient deity looming over them means that the possibility exists for a TIA initiative to actually succeed, just so long as its not obtrusive or judgmental. (How you likin' Google now, suckahs?)
The problem most governments have is that they want to have omnipotent powers too. That they can't ever have.
Look at Burma/Myanmar if you want to know what's wrong with governments who think they have omnipotence.
Omnipotence tends to think it can do without omnipresence and omniscience.
Realists DON'T WANT omnipresence and omniscience because they wants to exercise omnipotence without any backlash. (Or they get caught with a "wide-footed stance" in airport bathroom stalls. [Their hypocrisy is costing you billions every year, in so many ways.])
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
They can never take all bloggers off the net.
So the result will only be even more Streisand effect.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
a digitized remake of the Milton Berle (since he's dead) BVD commercial stating that exploding is about the only thing he hasn't done in his BVDs...
Or the maker of "Depends" commercial stating they prevent all sorts of, ehm, "accidents"...
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
"check for abuses?"
and you'll do WHAT, exactly, if you find government abuses?
nothing. sit down, shut up, keep watching your american idol and playing the latest video console games.
shuddup. the man is giving you new orders.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
It's well-known that people overestimate risks which they feel they cannot control, and underestimate those which they feel they have some level of control. Well, it's at least well-known to those who follow Bruce Schneier:
http://www.schneier.com/essay-155.html (see section "Conventional Wisdom About Risk")
Explosive goes into condoms which are then stored in your body cavities.
Show up for the flight very early.
During that time, recover the explosives and PREP THE BOMB BEFORE HAND IN THE PUBLIC BATHROOM. You've already cleared security. They don't care about you anymore (until the headlines hit).
So far, our best defense against terrorism seems to be that they're all rather dumb.
There was no leak-- it was sent to all airlines in the US and many throughout the world, was not classified, nor did any traveler have to sign a NDA before security checks and boarding began to keep such information secret.
Home of the Brave. It's not my usual thing to spout off about people needing to leave the United States of America but gimme a break. A large amount of the federal government practice fear tactics to try and convince the people that they need to give up their freedoms to be safe. And the worst part is, most of these supposed secure measures don't do jack shit. We as a nation need to realize that we'll never be completely safe, that there's no level of TSA gadget that will prevent every single act of violence. We as a nation need to remember that we didn't become a nation by being scared pussies.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
I don't agree with that.
Yes they will win, I agree.
But it will be because we'll be spending so much money on "security" that we will either have to give up whatever operations we have that they disagree with or we'll go bankrupt (well on our way to that right now).
And the attacks don't have to be that damaging. Look at what a nutcase did with a rifle in DC. An entire city paralyzed because a sniper killed 10 people. And rifles are very easy get here.
Welcome to the police state. Pretty soon, we'll have "pre-screened" passengers wearing armbands and we all know where it goes from there
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
This was a quote by Benjamin Franklin and later Thomas Jefferson. obviously it still applies today. I would presume they are both rolling in their graves at the new directives.
And as for obama, he came in at the wrong time. It will take many, many years to undo the last 8. Starting at the rank-and-file of a lot of theses agencies that have quickly grown accustom to stripping libertys in the percieved name of safety, and quickly moving up to their bosses to make things "right". Its amazing how other countries can combat this problem without stripping liberties while preserving safety (it's all relevant of course, you are still more likely to die in an automobile accident, most of which happen within 5 miles of home).
No one is qualified to handle the impossible task of 100% safety/security on airlines.
Is that really the job, though? Aside from improving the flight deck door, there isn't anything that the DHS or TSA has done for safety or security.
But they have constantly reminded us of how scared we should be about the bad "terrorists" who are everywhere "out there". Just go to a major airport and listen to the constant litany of "watch your luggage" / "report suspicious people" / "stand in line and take off your shoes" / "liquids are dangerous".
Maybe that's the point - that we're no longer participating in a free government. Without input, there is total control - no way to safeguard against tyranny or corruption. If the guidelines are secret - they can be interpreted any way that the people enforcing them see fit - without control or oversight. I am starting to believe that if they thought they could get away with it - they would just -disappear- this guy like corrupt regimes usually do.
Don't think for a moment that they wouldn't do that. Goons who are on our payroll and nominally on our side are still goons. The bread and butter of thugs everywhere, whether common, appointed, or elected, is an "ends justify the means" style of thought. Naturally this prevents them from understanding how much they resemble the kind of societies we once stood against.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Actually, this really says nothing about Frischling's level of journalistic professionalism. It would have been far more telling, yea or nay, if he actually knew his sources. His claim is that he doesn't know who left the document in his mailbox, so he's not sending anyone up the river by signing a document attesting that.
If he actually had a name, the act of protecting it or giving it up would be deeply meaningful one way or the other. But testifying a lack of knowledge is neither noble nor reprehensible.
Why should he sacrifice his career to protect, well, nothing?
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
So, when did McCarthy arrest anyone? Oh and when did McCarthy serve in the House as a Democrat on the HUAC? The committee that you reference was lead by a Democrat. The same party that continues to perpetuate its lies. Morrow was full of it, too. Just as Cronkite has admitted to playing the party lines.
You obviously don't know about president Garfield. Obama may be the most disappointing president ever, but he is hardly the worst.
OMG, don't ever let these types into your house. Many years ago I had run-ins with NSA types over crypto. They got invited in, and left "presents" I had to find. Then Customs called, wanting to meet at my new house. NO. NO. At lawyer's ok. With tape recorders running, openly, one copy for them as courtesy. Martha Stewart taught us one lesson: NEVER SAY ANYTHING to a Federal Agent. So you got a deposit in your mailbox. THEY have the technology to figure that out, and they have no reason to meet with you. No, I am not, never was, on the side of the "bad guys", but I was never on the anti Constitution side either. These folks could have checked, and followed the intelligence handed them on a silver platter, by "bad guy's" father - them being in the intelligence business and all - checking on where a blogger's Email came from is THEIR business, not the blogger's.
Why not put their own under oath and interrogate them, then? Because _they_ have a problem, now someone with a wife and kids who only reported what he was told( and broke no laws in doing so ) faces potential fines or jailtime if he doesn't rat out his source which may well hurt his livelihood, anyway.
Because justice is the least of their concerns. And it wouldn't give them the chance to potentially intimidate (by precedent) future journalists who receive similar leaked documents.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
That guy needs a lawyer. But looking at the authorities referenced in the "subpoena", there are some real questions. It's an "administrative subpoena", not one issued by a court. Some agencies can do that. (The FBI has been refused that authority by Congress). The Department of Transportation has subpoena authority for its hearings and investigations, and Homeland Security inheirited that authority when TSA was transferred from DOT to DHS. For all administrative subpoenas, the party served can file a motion to quash the subpoena with a District Court, and the court has to rule before anything happens.
But that section (49 USC 46104) refers to a "hearing or investigation", a formal proceeding presided over by a hearing officer. This is just some "special agent", and the subpoena is signed by someone with the title "Senior Counsel - Civil Enforcement". There's a list of people who can sign these things at 49 CFR 1503.303, and a "Senior Counsel" isn't high enough up the food chain to sign off. A Deputy Chief Counsel or the Chief Counsel is supposed to sign. This probably reflects who the TSA had in the office on December 26. A more senior official probably would have considered the political implications of doing something this embarrassing.
This is a touchy area, related to the "National Security Letter" debacle. See this Congressional Research Service analysis. The FBI got in trouble for issuing demands for documents without statutory authority.
The Associated Press reports that the blogger is going to challenge the subpoena in court.
The incident happened around 11:20 am (EST) and they managed to send out a new security directive on the same day . One would have thought they'd take longer to draft something as elaborate as that. Who knows, perhaps they had it prepared already for such an incident...
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Imply? Thats the truth, so that needs to be worked with when you exist in a Democracy. Various ways have been discovered so far, variations of "off with their heads" like elections and department ministers being reshuffled. In the case of the TSA, perhaps a reshuffling would be appropriate or even further, find someone to outright fire for letting it get this bad.
Shh.
Okay. How do we reliably determine who is "arab/muslim"??
On one hand the US National Security aperatus has reverted to pre 9/11 games ie Not Sharing, usually justified to PROTECT SOURCES, in this case a walk in concerned father, and just after they released an incorrectly redacted PDF which contained all the original screening material, just covered in black, and now Napolitano is dithering in Circles.
... lists with the responsibility get them up-to-date and correct. Web access to all via a web interface.
These idiotic assholes are very lucky I am not president because I would fire all the secretaries, directors, deputy and assistant directors of each of the Departments and Agencies involved in these repeated debacles, in this case CIA, DHS, TSA and anyone else found with dirty hands,
Then I would use the C level pay savings by re-appointing only half these posts to:
Get Schneier to head an office of Risk Assesment of no more than 50 analysts, drawn from existing agencies, reporting to the NSA so we would stop continually fighting the last war.
Get a similar independant thinker to take over and run an Office of Counterterrorist Reference Data, Comprising No-Fly, Watch
Finally, let me point out that all this full-body scan/sniffers is bullshit since the next guy to try this will probably put the stuff up his ass, not in his unter hosen, so that unless you use an NMR machine you are not going to find it. That is exactly why it is vital to listen to people like Schneier, who has been consistently correct, rather that sheeple pacifing politicians. This is too serious for business as usual.
Tell me about it! President Garfield spent half the national budget on lasagna, for God's sake!
Lets hope the bad guys don't watch "Invasion USA".
for those who have not seen it;
lots of mercenaries sneak in the US,
Start blowing up ferris wheels, little league fields,suburban homes, etc.,etc.,
Dress up as cops and shoot up a party in the Latin part of town, blow up a church in a black neighborhood and leave evidence pointing at white supremacists, etc.,etc.,
Chuck Norris saves the day.
Only I don't think even Chuck could save us now.
If you read the 5th amendment, you'll see that people in the armed forces do not have due process rights during times of war.
Since when do illegal enemy combatants get more rights under our constitution than our own soldiers?
The constitution further states that only congress has the authority to create courts and decide what their jurisdiction is. Congress passed laws establishing the military tribunals to try these terrorists. Under what authority does the president expand the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try these terrorists?
So... they subpoena him for the name and he says he doesn't know who it was and signs a paper saying so. Then in order to coerce him into coughing up his laptop for further investigation they THREATEN to interfere with his business? Excuse me but if the warrant didn't cover searching computer media specifically PISS OFF. NO, you do NOT get access to my computer to further your witch hunt. If you want access to that get a damned warrant to search it. Oh that's inconvenient? Sorry. That does NOT make it okay to threaten and intimidate. Bad news for this dude, while they are going over that laptop if they find ANYTHING potentially illegal - say a ripped DVD or who knows what - they can come after him for that. F' that, if they do not have specific access granted to them by a legal document they can take a hike and I'd be damned if I'd even allow them in my house. Talk to them on the porch and hell no you cannot use my restroom or get a glass of water. Cop on the job doesn't get access to JACK, sorry. I don't need the hassle if he spots something he thinks might be hinky. It's MY home, he can goto hell unless he has papers to get in.
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
If by "does nothing" you mean assuming the tax burden to pay for the health care of those who can't afford it..
/sigh
It's a shell game. You are already paying for the health care of those who can't afford it. Hospitals do not turn away the sick and injured, even if they have no means to pay, heck, even if they are illegal aliens, they can get service at any hospital. The hospital offsets those costs by increasing the price of all of their services. The insurance companies, having to pay higher rates for services, increase premiums.
No matter what, someone has to pay the piper. This new bill does little to curb costs. Sure it will subsidize some low income individuals, but it's the same people we were all ready subsidizing through bloated prices and premiums.
So prices should drop slightly and taxes should rise slightly, and at the end of the day, we spend virtually the same (maybe up to 5% less) on health care.
Which is why I'm more interested in a single payer or other NFP options. Because with private for profit insurance companies, like my current policy manager CIGNA, $0.20 of every dollar I pay in premiums goes straight into non-opperational overhead (ie: profits, dividends, bonuses). Compared to the same company back in 1980 when $0.05 of every dollar paid in premiums went to non-opperational overhead.
Under the current system, I have no choice. My employer allows CIGNA to manage our health insurance, and I don't have the money or negotiating power to get a decent policy on my own. Last time I was on COBRA my monthly premiums were over $800 a month and we still got slammed for $5000 for my wife's knee opperation. The time before that I was coughing up $980 a month for unsubsidized membership in the state's employee plan.
If I were elligable for the new insurance bazaar deal, I would at least be able to shop around for the best insurance provider. I might even find one that isn't running a 20% overhead. But, as I mentioned, this bill does nothing for the vast majority of people, so, I'm still stuck with my single option of CIGNA or effectively nothing.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Airline employees are sworn to secrecy? Really? Even the ones who are foreign citizens who fly planes into the US? Wow.....
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
The New York Times reports that the TSA has dropped its subpoenas. Probably because someone with some political sense finally got involved.
I'm reminded of this bit by Frankie Boyle: Look at the shiny shiny
Ever heard about the difference between rule and act utilitarianism? That's the difference between a law decided by a majority, and a case-by-case tyranny of the majority, also.
No, I have not heard of the difference between rule and act utilitarianism; but I will endeavor to educate myself as I understand your analogy describing the difference and it seems an important distinction.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Let me make this perfectly clear. Outside of an airport where these CZAR's have been given carte blanche authority from the prior regime, these people are NOT FBI, CIA, or have any other power outside of providing security for the transportation systems in this country. If one of these "special agents" showed up at my door, I would be calling the local police and have them removed my property, NOT inviting them inside for coffee or tea. People, STOP just giving away the rights and freedoms you have left! We the people need to stop allowing more and more government agencies from being created and just turning over everytime some new three-letter acronym with a badge shows up!
Perhaps I'm just getting old and I remember the bad ole 80's where we had this image of communist countries where men in trench coats would walk up and ask for papers and the citizenry would comply out of fear that they would disappear in the middle of the night. Those who may remember that should also be aware the the step before that is GIVING UP YOUR FREEDOMS FOR GREATER SECURITY.
Benjamin Franklin is probably rolling over in his grave.
My post showed how healthcare would be cheaper then the current system that we already pay for, ergo we dont have to worry about how its gonna be paid for.
Flawed logic. We should be worrying about how things are paid for right now. If someone breaks into your house and steals your TV and your computer, you don't feel relief that he left you your toaster.
Source?
Source your own arguments, if you're going to play that game.
Mandatory checkups, thats cool with me, you dont get the checkup you dont get the heathcare. AOK! Already paid for with the healthcare, no reason to divorce medical checkups from a public option. Just cause they got a checkup doesnt mean they can pay for needed medicine or other services the checkup determines they need. Still falls through to the taxpayer to pay the indignant bill at the hospital.
I prefer the government stay out of what my business is. On that note, certain things that are known to cause bad health AND be addictive in a way that makes it hard for the everyday user to stop, I would support limited measures to curb their use. (FUll disclosure: Im also a smoker whos tried to quit a few times, wish I had never started.)
These two statements are inconsistent. How can you say that you want the government to stay out of your business, and then say that it's okay to mandate health checkups, or to take measures to curb the use of products that have a negative effect on one's health?
Every action the government takes is restrictive of your freedoms in some way; every action in some way "gets into your business". As a society, it's our responsibility to be sure that each of these restrictions is justifiable, according to a unified set of morals. Few would argue that the government is unjustified in setting laws to protect the individual rights and freedoms of its citizens, or from raising a military to protect its citizens from other nations, or from imposing appropriate taxes to support those things. But once we start letting the government legislate based on what is "good for us", we're giving up the necessary freedom of making those decisions for ourselves.
If you're okay with mandating checkups in order to receive government-sponsored health insurance, are you also okay with mandating that you see a doctor if you have symptoms of an illness? After all, the logical principle that's the foundation of your argument (i.e. "mandating public insurance available to all would be more cost-effective than our current system") is just as applicable in both cases; mandating that anyone who runs a fever or has a sore throat must go to the doctor will help prevent the spread of infectious disease. Just how invasive are you willing to allow the government to be?
I dont want to mandate insurance, I want a public option. There is a HUGE difference. I think mandating insurance might even be illegal.
What makes you think that the federal government, paragon of waste and inefficiency, is better able to run health insurance than a privately-held company?
I wholeheartedly support better regulation of the health insurance industry, or more accurately, I wholeheartedly support better ENFORCEMENT of the regulations already on the books. When a company violates the law, it should be punished; instead, our corrupted legal system has forced the government to weigh pursuing said violations against the time and cost associated with the corporation's ability to throw up a wall of lawyers and paperwork. Fix our legal system to limit the ability to stonewall justice with endless motions and hearings and filings and you'll see progress on a lot of our current problems. But more importantly, having the government run an insurance option is NOT going to make things cheaper in the long run. Corporations, at least, are beholden to their shareholders, and those that do not ensure competitive pricing for their services are destined