lol.. You are in the same trap and thinking you are getting somewhere. Nowhere have you shown that United Healthcare's actions or any of them would have happened without the ACA's regulations making them happen.
It's like congress passed a law saying you cannot cross the street on Sunday and you observing no one crosses the street on Sunday then cite everyone stopping that practice on that day as the reason instead of the law's requirements.
The ACA requires many changes. The Cleavland Clinic is nixing a crap load of jobs because of it. Local hospitals are giving doctors the boot in favor of nurse practitioners. Nothing you mentioned can be shown not to be directly because of the ACA's requirements.
Corporations are executed all the time. Almost every state has a list of corporations that it has dissolved and or prohibited from operating within it's state.
What you seem to be confused on is that you actually think a corporation is somehow sentient. It isn't, it requires people inside the corporation to pull the levers and move the switches that make it run. Those people are the ones who are criminally liable for killing people if you can prove it. If the CEO says, "screw the safety cables, get the whatever online" and then something happens causing the death of 5 people, the CEO and everyone under him is criminally liable. Now, if the safety cables get prematurely fatigued and break causing the death of 5 people, then it is more or less an unfortunate accident and penalties are less severe.
But please, stop pretending the corporation is some sentient being capable of doing anything on it's own.
Nothing you said counters anything I said except you said "seem" in the process to be purposely ambiguous in the process. All of the Bush Era policies that the democrats cries until their faces turned blue has been embraced and extended under Obama from warrantless wire taps all the way down to No Child Left Behind. Even after campaigning on not having industry insiders in high level government offices, Obama quickly put his insiders into them.
It doesn't matter how many times he did it. It being done was why the money was spent so his being caught likely would let his buddy know not to do it again.
Anyways, the courts determined all this, not a couple kids on the school yard so to re-argue it as if it was is sort of pointless. The law and the courts supported it happening that way and so it did.
Here is how you get around it. Once you reverse engineer their effective device, create an app that uses the effective device and register the copright. Then expose how to defeate your effective device and their effective device will cease to be effective. Their device or measure will likely not be registered or protected as it is a trade secrete. Just don't advertise it breaks yheir stuff.
The law is a direct result of the WCT or WIPO Copyright Treaty. The judge is likely interpreting "effective" within respect to that. It is under article 11 I think but i'm on my phone right now and it is a bit hard to check.
Anyways, i believe effective would mean anything non trivial or ancillary at the time of creation. So if a cipher is so easy to break that they teach doing so as part of security lessons, using that couldn't be effective. But requiring something that isn't known or readily done could be if it isn't blatently obvious.
One of the problems with being attacked is that you really do not know the intentions of the attackers until after it is over. There really is no understanding of they are only going to do X unless you have some sort of insight into the attackers.
This is sort of the problem with the travon martin case. His girlfriend says he was only going to get an ass beating but zimmerman didn't know that when he was getting his ass beaten and being told he was going to die. His over reaction to that basically allowed him to get away with killing a person as reasonable where if you knew his life was not in danger, it would have been criminal.
We made similar mistakes with 9/11 where until then, it was assumed hijackers wanted the passengers alive which is why box cutters had so much power. If you expected to live, why would you risk death stopping what was thought to end up as a big inconvienience. It wasn't untill one flight realized what happened with the others that it became worth it and that flight went down in PA.
Lol.. no it does not. But it also does not mean you escaped without costs. Those costs can be reasonable if they just compare similar costs of remedies in similar situations. So lets say that most people only spend 2 million to achieve the same thing if under the same constraints like energeny service instead of contract scheduling and 24 hour monitoring until it is safe from the threat. You can reasonably be expected to be liable for that and possibly more if there was no options reasonably priced.
You are not going to find a lot of logic and reasoning in this that is sympathetic to the criminals. This is by design as a deterent. But it is really no different for anything else when damage or impending damage happens. Try getting an insurance claim provessed after a hurricane if you refused to spend the money to board the windows up. My neighbor had a tree limb fall through the roof of his house last spring. He spent morre getting someone out at 3am to tarp it to keep the rain out then it finally cost to fix it. Of course the homeownwers insurance paid for it because they require you to take reasonable steps to mitigate the damage.
It takes a real idiot to ignore the recent history of tbe US. Perhaps that is who you think you are talking to. But the democeats have taken just about anything the evil republicans have done and put new meanings to the word evil. Outrage over bush posibly listening in on citizens phone calls has turned into welcomed complacency of obama scraping every possible piece of information availible to support a war on terror that he himself said was over.
You tools really amaze me. But..but...but the republicans are worse doesn't fly when history and fact directly show otherwise to anyone paying attention. And even if it was remotely true, stop using it as justificatiin to accept the evil of the democrats.
And it was until a bunch of lawyers hot togethr and planted Rosa Parks on a bus to make a case the law was unjust. But don'T think for a minute she wasn't arrested, charged, and went through the legal system in order to make that happen. In the end, not minding your place on a bus was ended by the justice system which sort of makes me wonder what your point is in connection to someone breaking a law that has nothing to do with race, discrimination, or getting shot doen in court.
Actually they do. Had a meth head that kept breaking into my fathers garage and stealing tools to pawn. Installed some cameras and actually caught some kid about 15 or so doing it. The judge orderd him to pay for the cameras plus all the tools stolen over the 5 or 6 break ins. We sued his parents and got a judgement for $15k in all.this was around 2000 or so. It covered the instalation of the security system, cameras, and time taken off work to rush homr and see what was stolen this time.
I don't know why you were modded down. In my home town, as a prank arouns graduation, the seniors would dump liquid soap in a fountain so it would bubble all over the place. It was visible on the main drag. Another aspect was putting that art celulous over the lights illuminating it to match the school colors (blue and gold). It took about 50 graduates in order to do it without getting picked up by the cameras. One year, they put sensors in the foutain that went off when the soap changed the ph levels enough alerting the city to what was happening. Out of about 100 students that participated 6 where caught- 4 who hadn't even dumped the soap yet and they had to pay for the entiee security theator that ensued for a midemeanor act of mischief. The sad part is that this had happened for so long, everyone thought the city was in on it and we just needed to watch out for the caretaker who would be upset because he had to clean it later.
I learned then that you aren't 2% guilty. If you participate, you are 100% liable and that liability includes what they spent in response to your actions. This was back in the late 80s early 90s. Nothing new with this kid outside of what was vandalized.
Something tells me that wasn't whAt you were after.
Anyways, i'm wondering how the payments compare to radio with say a single station snd 400,000 listeners. I know BMI collects and pays differently for college radion verses commercial radio.
They will know more than that. They can determine if you have an affair, a medical condition that could potentially harm your ability in other areas like how AIDS patients were originslly treated as outcasts with leprosy or something.
Of course stuff like that may not matter to people who think the government should be in charge of their medical and all those aspects of life. But when your neighbor gets killed in a drug deal gone bad, disapeArs, and the government decides because you purchased lime for you garden, kives for your kitchen, large garbage bags, a shovel, new mattress and area rug for your bedroom, all within thE last 2 months- one of which your neighbor was missing, and decides you killed her because you also looked at a page about scott peterson, you will think differently about those dangers.
There have been people convicted for crimes primarily on circumstantial evidence. Traditionally, something connected them to the crime outside of that but what happens when there are no leads and they search your metadata and decide you are the most likely match for the criminal behind it? I know, you have nothing to hide.
Try looking at the differences in implementation. Of course placing cameras in the houses of children to monitor their behavior like in england would be unnaceptable but those other countries do things differently. So try looking at the situation and actually thinking before jumping to far right propaganda as excuses yo be intelectually lazy.
Not to mention the safety nets encourage single parent families by doling out benefits disproportionatly for single parents verses families. This is even true with the ACA where people claimed they are considering a divorce because their combined income as a family did not qualify for federal subsidies where theirr indevidual incomes did. Then there is the trophy culture of some who think the number of kids you claim means you are a man verses raising them like men traditionally had to.
I know you are working hard at trying to blame capitolism, but the reality is that more socialist safety nets are associated with the problems than anything. This even goes back to the Carter years where seniors where divorcing and shacking up tk maximize their benefits because the inflation took their retirement income and halved it.
Right. There is a difference between no skund and not being able to hear it. Also this chamber locks out about all other external stimulus except for gravity.i would think that might be a bit different then just being deaf
Yes, because Hungary, Slovenia, Estonia, Czech Republic, and China (Hong Kong) are all known to have higher standards of living then the regular Joe's in the US.
Perhaps there is something else involved like the family units or even cultures in some US areas or even among certain people?
I was with you until the 9/11 and secrete FISA courts. The Secrete FISA courts were instituted during the 70's with the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that came about because the cops were using the government's ability to spy on foreigners to get taps on citizens without warrants that the supreme court finally said was needed in the late 1960's. The idea of keeping them secrete was that spies couldn't use public records to piece together who and what was being looked at and the data processing capabilities wasn't capable at the time of finding patterns in every single court in the US to determine this without exposing someone actually trying to do so. In short, the secrete courts was a way to get warrants without tipping off the spies trying to find out how much we know and where we were getting our information from.
Sigh... I have seen that. I also have seen statements that United Healthcare decided to pull out of California individual markets and give up on the market there when evaluating the changes it needed to do to policies to be compliant with the ACA. You act as if the two are not connected when they are by the time and happenstance of the situation. Sure, United Healthcare may have eventually gave up and pulled out, but at what time and would it matter to this person when it happened? All the biased links you present do not answer that, they just suppose it was inevitable because California gives tax favorites to other companies and their participation rate was low so it is somehow better that a cancer patient lose their coverage now and not be able to find one that allows her to see her doctors then wait until some later point in time when that access may or may not be necessary. There is also no reason to believe that if United Healthcare pulled out of the California market that the coverage already in place would be removed. United Healthcare is staying in the corporate markets so they will not be completely disappearing. Yet it is magically assumed that they wouldn't maintain existing coverage for those already with them.
You see, the difference would be between saying no one is going to be covered and we aren't pursuing any more business. It is like a doctor saying I'm shutting my doors and treating no one again verses I'm not accepting new patients.
But I understand why you would want to blame everyone but the ACA including the victims. It is in the nature of a partisan tool. As long as your beliefs survive anything goes no matter what right? I mean the fact that her and about everyone else's policy had to be changed in order to meet the ACA qualifications had absolutely no impact on whether or not her existing coverage would be cancelled or not because people recognized they couldn't compete with other providers who get special treatment from the government. Even though they were able to provide this person and about 8000 more coverage until the policies had to be changed to comply with the ACA.
Nothing said was not true. the argument, or one of the main arguments for the mandate is exactly that people with insurance are paying for those without when not everyone without gets treatment they cannot or do not pay for. Therefore, people who have never done so are now obligated to pay a third party in order to try and make the greedy people's insurance cheaper or face a penalty under law with no due process rights involved at all.
Marking something a troll cannot ever get around that simple fact.
But corporations don't routinely give disability insurance any more, and most people aren't making enough to pay for disability insurance and accumulate a 6-month cushion. This is a problem of the increasing inequality, which means that people in the middle and bottom are earning less.
You went bla blah blah then you agreed with me in part while trying to make some other obscene statement. You then get creative in blaming anyone who might be detrimental to your cause and substitute opinions over facts in a statement that if compared to anything else would be obscene to the senses. Seriously, they were going to do it anyways so Obamacare making it happen sooner doesn't count? How about if we arrest someone for rape and murder because they were going to do it anyways and the law allowing topless women on the beach would escalate it? How about killing our citizens in foreign countries because they are with known terrorist so we know they will eventually commit a terrorist act. Oh wait, we are already doing that.
Listen, I never said there wasn't problems with the old system. Your entire rant about bullshit is just about the same as far as I am concerned. I am more concerned with the lack of improvement and the inability to find exceptions to help those harmed by the supposed attempts to improve it. You can try to justify it all you want but even you haven't stopped to think this through. Like what would stop the federal government from banning abortions? Don't say Roe v. Wade because it relied on an expectation of privacy that the government didn't have the right to invade. Although with Obamacare, the government is intrinsically involved in your medical care with everything concerning what insurance providers will cover, how much they have to cover, to the IRS and HHS having and managing copies of your entire medical history. That 4th amendment expectation of privacy is gone and so is Roe v. Wade's protection against government intrusion. But that's not the only way it can be destroyed. Suppose the courts find that there is still some magical veil of privacy, then the feds can simply tax everyone who gets an abortion 90% of their annual income and the 90% of the gross revenue of anyone and any company who performs an abortion. I mean the due process-less penalty for not having insurance was upheld as a tax and the government's unlimited powers to tax. So even though it might be technically legal, no one could afford to get or give the procedure giving an effective ban on it.
But go right ahead and act like it is the best thing since sliced bread in its carnation. I certainly wouldn't think anything like that would bother you.
Slashdot Mirror
lol.. You are in the same trap and thinking you are getting somewhere. Nowhere have you shown that United Healthcare's actions or any of them would have happened without the ACA's regulations making them happen.
It's like congress passed a law saying you cannot cross the street on Sunday and you observing no one crosses the street on Sunday then cite everyone stopping that practice on that day as the reason instead of the law's requirements.
The ACA requires many changes. The Cleavland Clinic is nixing a crap load of jobs because of it. Local hospitals are giving doctors the boot in favor of nurse practitioners. Nothing you mentioned can be shown not to be directly because of the ACA's requirements.
Corporations are executed all the time. Almost every state has a list of corporations that it has dissolved and or prohibited from operating within it's state.
What you seem to be confused on is that you actually think a corporation is somehow sentient. It isn't, it requires people inside the corporation to pull the levers and move the switches that make it run. Those people are the ones who are criminally liable for killing people if you can prove it. If the CEO says, "screw the safety cables, get the whatever online" and then something happens causing the death of 5 people, the CEO and everyone under him is criminally liable. Now, if the safety cables get prematurely fatigued and break causing the death of 5 people, then it is more or less an unfortunate accident and penalties are less severe.
But please, stop pretending the corporation is some sentient being capable of doing anything on it's own.
Like I said, it takes a real idiot.
Nothing you said counters anything I said except you said "seem" in the process to be purposely ambiguous in the process. All of the Bush Era policies that the democrats cries until their faces turned blue has been embraced and extended under Obama from warrantless wire taps all the way down to No Child Left Behind. Even after campaigning on not having industry insiders in high level government offices, Obama quickly put his insiders into them.
Wake up and stop being an idiot.
It doesn't matter how many times he did it. It being done was why the money was spent so his being caught likely would let his buddy know not to do it again.
Anyways, the courts determined all this, not a couple kids on the school yard so to re-argue it as if it was is sort of pointless. The law and the courts supported it happening that way and so it did.
Here is how you get around it. Once you reverse engineer their effective device, create an app that uses the effective device and register the copright. Then expose how to defeate your effective device and their effective device will cease to be effective. Their device or measure will likely not be registered or protected as it is a trade secrete. Just don't advertise it breaks yheir stuff.
The law is a direct result of the WCT or WIPO Copyright Treaty. The judge is likely interpreting "effective" within respect to that. It is under article 11 I think but i'm on my phone right now and it is a bit hard to check.
Anyways, i believe effective would mean anything non trivial or ancillary at the time of creation. So if a cipher is so easy to break that they teach doing so as part of security lessons, using that couldn't be effective. But requiring something that isn't known or readily done could be if it isn't blatently obvious.
One of the problems with being attacked is that you really do not know the intentions of the attackers until after it is over. There really is no understanding of they are only going to do X unless you have some sort of insight into the attackers.
This is sort of the problem with the travon martin case. His girlfriend says he was only going to get an ass beating but zimmerman didn't know that when he was getting his ass beaten and being told he was going to die. His over reaction to that basically allowed him to get away with killing a person as reasonable where if you knew his life was not in danger, it would have been criminal.
We made similar mistakes with 9/11 where until then, it was assumed hijackers wanted the passengers alive which is why box cutters had so much power. If you expected to live, why would you risk death stopping what was thought to end up as a big inconvienience. It wasn't untill one flight realized what happened with the others that it became worth it and that flight went down in PA.
In some cases neither is true. Look at speeding tickets and DUIs as an example. People do both and the penalties for one can be your freedom.
Lol.. no it does not. But it also does not mean you escaped without costs. Those costs can be reasonable if they just compare similar costs of remedies in similar situations. So lets say that most people only spend 2 million to achieve the same thing if under the same constraints like energeny service instead of contract scheduling and 24 hour monitoring until it is safe from the threat. You can reasonably be expected to be liable for that and possibly more if there was no options reasonably priced.
You are not going to find a lot of logic and reasoning in this that is sympathetic to the criminals. This is by design as a deterent. But it is really no different for anything else when damage or impending damage happens. Try getting an insurance claim provessed after a hurricane if you refused to spend the money to board the windows up. My neighbor had a tree limb fall through the roof of his house last spring. He spent morre getting someone out at 3am to tarp it to keep the rain out then it finally cost to fix it. Of course the homeownwers insurance paid for it because they require you to take reasonable steps to mitigate the damage.
It takes a real idiot to ignore the recent history of tbe US. Perhaps that is who you think you are talking to. But the democeats have taken just about anything the evil republicans have done and put new meanings to the word evil. Outrage over bush posibly listening in on citizens phone calls has turned into welcomed complacency of obama scraping every possible piece of information availible to support a war on terror that he himself said was over.
You tools really amaze me. But..but...but the republicans are worse doesn't fly when history and fact directly show otherwise to anyone paying attention. And even if it was remotely true, stop using it as justificatiin to accept the evil of the democrats.
Not a lot unless they paint it with paint consisting of chemicals we would later usr as rocket fuel.
And it was until a bunch of lawyers hot togethr and planted Rosa Parks on a bus to make a case the law was unjust. But don'T think for a minute she wasn't arrested, charged, and went through the legal system in order to make that happen. In the end, not minding your place on a bus was ended by the justice system which sort of makes me wonder what your point is in connection to someone breaking a law that has nothing to do with race, discrimination, or getting shot doen in court.
Actually they do. Had a meth head that kept breaking into my fathers garage and stealing tools to pawn. Installed some cameras and actually caught some kid about 15 or so doing it. The judge orderd him to pay for the cameras plus all the tools stolen over the 5 or 6 break ins. We sued his parents and got a judgement for $15k in all.this was around 2000 or so. It covered the instalation of the security system, cameras, and time taken off work to rush homr and see what was stolen this time.
I don't know why you were modded down. In my home town, as a prank arouns graduation, the seniors would dump liquid soap in a fountain so it would bubble all over the place. It was visible on the main drag. Another aspect was putting that art celulous over the lights illuminating it to match the school colors (blue and gold). It took about 50 graduates in order to do it without getting picked up by the cameras. One year, they put sensors in the foutain that went off when the soap changed the ph levels enough alerting the city to what was happening. Out of about 100 students that participated 6 where caught- 4 who hadn't even dumped the soap yet and they had to pay for the entiee security theator that ensued for a midemeanor act of mischief. The sad part is that this had happened for so long, everyone thought the city was in on it and we just needed to watch out for the caretaker who would be upset because he had to clean it later.
I learned then that you aren't 2% guilty. If you participate, you are 100% liable and that liability includes what they spent in response to your actions. This was back in the late 80s early 90s. Nothing new with this kid outside of what was vandalized.
Why would it have that? Your delusions seem interesting though.
One has a ? At the and and the other has a space.
Something tells me that wasn't whAt you were after.
Anyways, i'm wondering how the payments compare to radio with say a single station snd 400,000 listeners. I know BMI collects and pays differently for college radion verses commercial radio.
They will know more than that. They can determine if you have an affair, a medical condition that could potentially harm your ability in other areas like how AIDS patients were originslly treated as outcasts with leprosy or something.
Of course stuff like that may not matter to people who think the government should be in charge of their medical and all those aspects of life. But when your neighbor gets killed in a drug deal gone bad, disapeArs, and the government decides because you purchased lime for you garden, kives for your kitchen, large garbage bags, a shovel, new mattress and area rug for your bedroom, all within thE last 2 months- one of which your neighbor was missing, and decides you killed her because you also looked at a page about scott peterson, you will think differently about those dangers.
There have been people convicted for crimes primarily on circumstantial evidence. Traditionally, something connected them to the crime outside of that but what happens when there are no leads and they search your metadata and decide you are the most likely match for the criminal behind it? I know, you have nothing to hide.
Try looking at the differences in implementation. Of course placing cameras in the houses of children to monitor their behavior like in england would be unnaceptable but those other countries do things differently. So try looking at the situation and actually thinking before jumping to far right propaganda as excuses yo be intelectually lazy.
Not to mention the safety nets encourage single parent families by doling out benefits disproportionatly for single parents verses families. This is even true with the ACA where people claimed they are considering a divorce because their combined income as a family did not qualify for federal subsidies where theirr indevidual incomes did. Then there is the trophy culture of some who think the number of kids you claim means you are a man verses raising them like men traditionally had to.
I know you are working hard at trying to blame capitolism, but the reality is that more socialist safety nets are associated with the problems than anything. This even goes back to the Carter years where seniors where divorcing and shacking up tk maximize their benefits because the inflation took their retirement income and halved it.
Right. There is a difference between no skund and not being able to hear it. Also this chamber locks out about all other external stimulus except for gravity.i would think that might be a bit different then just being deaf
Yes, because Hungary, Slovenia, Estonia, Czech Republic, and China (Hong Kong) are all known to have higher standards of living then the regular Joe's in the US.
Perhaps there is something else involved like the family units or even cultures in some US areas or even among certain people?
I was with you until the 9/11 and secrete FISA courts. The Secrete FISA courts were instituted during the 70's with the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that came about because the cops were using the government's ability to spy on foreigners to get taps on citizens without warrants that the supreme court finally said was needed in the late 1960's. The idea of keeping them secrete was that spies couldn't use public records to piece together who and what was being looked at and the data processing capabilities wasn't capable at the time of finding patterns in every single court in the US to determine this without exposing someone actually trying to do so. In short, the secrete courts was a way to get warrants without tipping off the spies trying to find out how much we know and where we were getting our information from.
Sigh... I have seen that. I also have seen statements that United Healthcare decided to pull out of California individual markets and give up on the market there when evaluating the changes it needed to do to policies to be compliant with the ACA. You act as if the two are not connected when they are by the time and happenstance of the situation. Sure, United Healthcare may have eventually gave up and pulled out, but at what time and would it matter to this person when it happened? All the biased links you present do not answer that, they just suppose it was inevitable because California gives tax favorites to other companies and their participation rate was low so it is somehow better that a cancer patient lose their coverage now and not be able to find one that allows her to see her doctors then wait until some later point in time when that access may or may not be necessary. There is also no reason to believe that if United Healthcare pulled out of the California market that the coverage already in place would be removed. United Healthcare is staying in the corporate markets so they will not be completely disappearing. Yet it is magically assumed that they wouldn't maintain existing coverage for those already with them.
You see, the difference would be between saying no one is going to be covered and we aren't pursuing any more business. It is like a doctor saying I'm shutting my doors and treating no one again verses I'm not accepting new patients.
But I understand why you would want to blame everyone but the ACA including the victims. It is in the nature of a partisan tool. As long as your beliefs survive anything goes no matter what right? I mean the fact that her and about everyone else's policy had to be changed in order to meet the ACA qualifications had absolutely no impact on whether or not her existing coverage would be cancelled or not because people recognized they couldn't compete with other providers who get special treatment from the government. Even though they were able to provide this person and about 8000 more coverage until the policies had to be changed to comply with the ACA.
lol.. I guess reality is a troll.
Nothing said was not true. the argument, or one of the main arguments for the mandate is exactly that people with insurance are paying for those without when not everyone without gets treatment they cannot or do not pay for. Therefore, people who have never done so are now obligated to pay a third party in order to try and make the greedy people's insurance cheaper or face a penalty under law with no due process rights involved at all.
Marking something a troll cannot ever get around that simple fact.
You went bla blah blah then you agreed with me in part while trying to make some other obscene statement. You then get creative in blaming anyone who might be detrimental to your cause and substitute opinions over facts in a statement that if compared to anything else would be obscene to the senses. Seriously, they were going to do it anyways so Obamacare making it happen sooner doesn't count? How about if we arrest someone for rape and murder because they were going to do it anyways and the law allowing topless women on the beach would escalate it? How about killing our citizens in foreign countries because they are with known terrorist so we know they will eventually commit a terrorist act. Oh wait, we are already doing that.
Listen, I never said there wasn't problems with the old system. Your entire rant about bullshit is just about the same as far as I am concerned. I am more concerned with the lack of improvement and the inability to find exceptions to help those harmed by the supposed attempts to improve it. You can try to justify it all you want but even you haven't stopped to think this through. Like what would stop the federal government from banning abortions? Don't say Roe v. Wade because it relied on an expectation of privacy that the government didn't have the right to invade. Although with Obamacare, the government is intrinsically involved in your medical care with everything concerning what insurance providers will cover, how much they have to cover, to the IRS and HHS having and managing copies of your entire medical history. That 4th amendment expectation of privacy is gone and so is Roe v. Wade's protection against government intrusion. But that's not the only way it can be destroyed. Suppose the courts find that there is still some magical veil of privacy, then the feds can simply tax everyone who gets an abortion 90% of their annual income and the 90% of the gross revenue of anyone and any company who performs an abortion. I mean the due process-less penalty for not having insurance was upheld as a tax and the government's unlimited powers to tax. So even though it might be technically legal, no one could afford to get or give the procedure giving an effective ban on it.
But go right ahead and act like it is the best thing since sliced bread in its carnation. I certainly wouldn't think anything like that would bother you.