problem allowing the government to pry into the intimate details of their physical and mental health with the Nationalized Health Care Program? And then give further power to them to dictate what is in your best intrests medically.... Unless you are a suspected terrorist... which one allows greater access to your personal and private information? Even if you are a suspected terrorist or even if that evil Bush administration tapped your line illegally (not that they care to, stop the paranoia).... would you rather the government know what you talked about on the phone in the last week or all of your personal health details?
2007-09-07 08:54:35 · 16 answers · asked by Mr. Perfect 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Prezteldent... If you bothered reading the legislation it clearly gives permissions to tap "Suspected Foreign Terrorists"... can this be any clearer? If they are suspected... there has obviously been some investigation done into the matter.
2007-09-07 10:13:36 · update #1
The issue that they have with wiretapping is that they use telephones, cell phones and the Internet to arrange all of their drug deals. The Patriot Act is a threat to them as it makes catching them much easier, yes the Patriot Act has been used in this manner as well as other crimes such as pedophiles.
With the Nationalize Health Care Program, we are told that the current HIPPA laws will protect our privacy but when everything is controlled by the government just how much privacy does one expect to have. The CIA,FBI, Homeland Security will all have access to our records as will all of the medical services. You will find that in short order the government will be able to tell you what type of drugs you have or are taking, both legal and illegal. One day you may find that the police are at your doorstep with a search warrant and you are being carted off to jail.
The question is, do you want to get rid of terrorist activities, drug dealers and pedophiles; Or do you want to just talk on the phone? I think a great many drug dealers prefer the later as do the pedophiles.
2007-09-07 09:50:29 · answer #1 · answered by justgetitright 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
A lot of the Liberals keep saying that the health care would be a choice. Indeed, it would be a choice and the choice would be you pay for it and you use it or don't use it. Nice way of saying that the people who work and make reasonable decisions or choices get to pay for their own good health care and someone else's poor health care.
The real way that will work out is all those companies that pay for health care for their employees would stop, so everyone would have lousy health care and high taxes.
2007-09-07 13:20:03 · answer #2 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Liberals do not understand that even with HIPPA, the government will know your business. Universal health care is socialized medicine plain and simple! It does not work. I prefer to make my own choices with affordable health care for everyone. Do you see how messed up governments programs are now? It would only get worse under Hitlery's plan. I am for the tapping of phones to eliminate terrorists or any criminal activity with it done under justifiable means. Fred Thompson is right on about big government. "A government big enough to do everything for you, is big enough to do anything to you!"
The problem Kelly is that you are giving the government far to much control over your life. Do you really want big brother watching you?
2007-09-07 09:13:07 · answer #3 · answered by Moody Red 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Good question. I am a Liberal, and personally have no problem with wiretapping since I have nothing to hide. I also support a Universal Health Care program. I understand why people feel that it is an infringement upon their privacy, but I wouldn't limit the opposition to only Liberals. I know many Republicans that oppose the wiretapping also!
2007-09-07 09:04:33 · answer #4 · answered by Lisa M 5 · 5⤊ 3⤋
That's a strawman argument. The Democratic Party's position on wiretapping is clear, they're fine with it, so long as a warrant is obtained beforehand. That's called due process, in case you're new to basic civics. Secondly, the government has a history of keeping files on, and spying on people who weren't suspected terrorists (the name J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon ring a bell, kiddo?). Finally, there are competing national healthcare proposals, and I know of none of them that allow the government to look at your private medical files, which would violate doctor-patient confidentiality laws. You seem to be talking about John Edwards' proposal, which does mandate medical visits. It should be noted, that no one else's plan does that. You might want to try a little better research before you try and smear the Democrats next time, so as you don't look so foolish.
2007-09-07 09:05:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
Great question???? It is amazing how some people believe everything they hear in the media and don't bother to check out the "truth" of the matter.
2007-09-07 10:47:47 · answer #6 · answered by pollywog 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How much private business communications have the government got their hands on with this power? They all have businesses that they are involved with whether themselves personally or family members or friends in business?
You don't think there's some insider info being passed around this way? Please!
That's just one reason I oppose this!
If the government ran health care coverage the doctors would determine procedures and care not the government!!!!
This is a false arguement meant to scare people!
Insurance companies are already determining what procedures they will cover.
Getting the gov. involved with watchdog groups for the citizens overseeing this what's the problem?
2007-09-07 09:06:11 · answer #7 · answered by Kelly B 4 · 4⤊ 5⤋
Just another thing to complain about for them. Notice how they never mention the far more intrusive and unwarranted wiretapping that went on during the Carter and CLINTON administration!
As for socialized medicine, no matter how obviously bad it is proven to be, even with cold hard facts staring them in the face, liberals and socialists (basically the same these days) will never admit how bad it is or renounce their support of it!
2007-09-07 11:29:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Well, I'm a Moderate Republican, and I think what people take issue with is (1) that the wiretapping and other spying on Americans was done without legal authorization when there was legislation in place that would have let him wiretap anybody he wanted to legally. He just wanted to do it clandestinely. (2) Most of the people he spied on were not suspected terrorists, they were political rivals or their supporters.
In these ways I see his crimes as no different from the crimes of Richard Nixon, and I think that's how most people feel about it.
2007-09-07 09:09:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 6⤋
It's called the difference between illegal and legal sources, for one, and also the difference in what actually shows results. A nationalized healthcare program shows immediate results, a wire tapping has shown none whatsoever.
2007-09-07 09:03:20 · answer #10 · answered by whiteflame55 6 · 4⤊ 8⤋