Posted by moondog 67 2000 on 08/27/09

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

(in the Commission's view), Now that statement in my opinion is very Socialistic. How about changing that to; the guidelines set forth by the United States Constitution and Federal Laws applicable to the First Amendment.

Over and over with even more vigor, usually when something bad is going to happen, the "Fairness Doctrine" appears!

Why is it even called the "Fairness Doctrine"? It can never be actually called that by law in my opinion. We have Inalienable Rights protecting us against the "Fairness Doctrine". You can find that protection in our countries Constitution under the First Amendment.

First Amendment

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits from making any laws "respecting an establishment of religion", prohibiting the free exercise of religion, infringing the freedom of speech, infringing the freedom of the press, limiting the right to peaceably assemble, or limiting the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

How can the "Fairness Doctrine" ever be made law? The Freedom of Speech is just that, "Free To Speak"! Freedom of the Press is just that, Free to release information to the public by way of writ, radio or any other means of informative communication within the United States! Now, there are laws that protect people from abusive press, it is called liable slander. What more do we need for protection? Not a thing in my opinion.

This "Fairness Doctrine" can only be one thing, a tool to make people like; (Congressman Ron Paul, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and a whole slue of other sources of government information that informs us, you know, "We the People" on whether our government is ad-hearing to their oath or not), to be SILENCED! Unable to inform us, the citizens of the United States of America of the good or the bad to come our way via un-lawful political venue!

The Basic Duty of the President of the United States of America

The Oath of Office

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So Help Me God!

My Point

I was taught in high school that when you take an oath, you in a sense, are making a contract between you and those the oath entales. When you take an oath to office in the government, you are making a legal contract with the whole United States of America. Not keeping that oath is breaking the law. If you are breaking the Supreme Law of the Land, you are committing to a specific charge and I think most of you reading this now know what that charge would be. 

How can the President of the United States of America allow anyone to even bring to the floor a law with-in it's own to promo-gate a direct violation of Federal Law, especially his own czar? In doing so, the President is not doing what he made oath to. It's the Presidents Contract with the Citizens of America to uphold the Constitution and Federal Law! Why or how is this being allowed to happen? To keep bringing this "Fairness Doctrine" to the floor is a complete waste of the tax payers money!

I would like to take this opportunity to thank a very close and special friend along with his family. Mr. Miller a True and Vibrant American Citizen who radiates with passion for the respect and the protection of the American way. It was this man to whom informed me and brought to light the abuses in trying to implement the "Fairness Doctrine".

Please feel free to answer the question below.

Posted by moondog 67 2000 on 11/19/09

I have fought and won my way back onto C4L and have read all the comments, most are saying a physical fight, it may be just the truth. People other than the people of C4L have kept me from being on here because I assume they know I am right. Until they get me again, I will say more of what I see.

I still say, petition for impeachment, why not? It is our right to. Once again, remember Clinton went through the process just for cheating on his wife.

Why it did not work? He was not threatening the constitution or the nation as with our present President.

We have all that is needed to approach this endeavor.

Obama has not protected the constitution rather has dismissed it all together. He is this nations highest of criminals and so is his administration by not following our constitution as they all gave oath to in my opinion.

How many more kicks to the nuts do we need?

Pelosi said, "Are you Kidding Me"! when someone cried from the crowd, "What About the Constitution"?.

That just told me that who ever cried that out was a joke to her, as if the constitution was just a historical document of no authority in our country any longer.

That my people is not preserving the constitution, that my friends in it self is treason! It makes me think that they are interpreting the preserve clause as in do not let it crumble away or something. Instead of making it the LAW OF THE NATION not allowing anything to stand before it.

Last chance to dance PEOPLE OF AMERICA!

Today on Fox News I watched as a Congressmen and a Senator say it isn't too late. The people can revolt!

Impeach and charge or be government slaves in your NEAR FUTURE!

Do Not Think I am talking crap. I have called it before Obama was elected. I have paid a price for that I have posted on here already. But have fought my way back.

Posted by moondog 67 2000 on 11/04/09

I read this and thought I would share it with you all.

U.S. House Approves Legislation Requiring Congressional & Public Oversight Over U.N. Land Designations Within The United States

Washington, D.C. - Bipartisan legislation which will require public participation and Congressional approval for the controversial United Nations' land designations within U.S. borders was approved today by the U.S. House of Representatives.

The legislation (H.R. 883) - "The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act" - was approvede by a voice vote, as amended (see Page 2 for amendments). U.S. Sen. Ben nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) has introduced similar legislation (S. 510) in the Senate.

Similar legislation was approved in the 105th Congress.

H.R. 883 was introduced by U.S. Rep. Don Young (R - Alaska), the Chairman of the House Committee on Resourcwes, which has jurisdiction over federal lands issues. H.R. 883 would require public input and Congressional approval of all proposed U.N. land reserves in the United States. There are currently 83 U.N. land designations in existence in the United States - almost all of which were designated with little or no participation from the local communities in the area or by Congress. These include 47 Biosphere Reserves, 20 World Heritage Sites and 16 Ramsar Sites.

Currently, international land designations in the United States are negotiated solely between the United Nations ande the Executive Branch. In addition, local citizens affected by U.N. land designations are rarely asked about their concerns and broad-based public input is not required.

"This Bill Guarantees Local Citizens Will Participate in Process" - Rep. Don Young
"This legislation finally will mandate the clear and direct approval of Congress before land in the United States may be designated for inclusion in a United Nations land use program," Rep. Don Young said. "More importantly, it guarantees that local citizens and public officials will participate in designating land for inclusion in the United Nations land reserves that are near their homes or communities.
"I can understand why United Nations officials from foreign nations oppose H.R. 883. But I find it unusual that some members of the Democratic leadership spoke so strongly against the public and Congress being involved in this process," Young said.

Two Amendments Approved To Legislation

During the floor debate, the House approved two amendments:
1) An amendment sponsored by U.S. Rep. John Sweeney (R - NY) which requires that U.S. management plans for U.N. Biosphere Reserves do not reduce state and local revenues for public education. This amendment protects local and state tax bases from potential adverse impacts caused by Biosphere Reserve designations. The Sweeney amendmant was approved by a 407 to 15 vote.
2) An amendment sponsored by U.S. Rep. Bruce Vento (D - MN) which states that no federal official can enter into an agreement with a foreign entity or foreign individual for the disposal or use of any federal lands unless authorized by law. The Vento amendment was approved by a 262 to 158 vote.
"The Vento amendment could cause numerous problems for foreign tourists and legal immigrants." said Rep. Don Young. "Under this amendment, foreign visitors could be denied access to America's national parks because it would require a U.S. Park Service employee selling a ticket to a foreign individual for the 'use' of federal land."
"In addition, the Vento amendment could deny a legal immigrant in the United States from even setting up a hot-dog stand on the Capitol or any other federal land because of foreign status. I intend to remove this unwise and unfair provision once the Senate approves the legislation," Young said.

"H.R. 883 is Necessary To Protect Property Owners" - Rep Pombo
"Like so many other agencies within the United Nations, the Heritage Area program has become a power hungry, bureaucracy that seeks to override the laws of nations," said U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo (R - CA). "H.R. 883, which will require congressional approval of United Nations actions, is necessary to protect property owners and retain American control over our own public lands."

"We Are Just Asking That Congress & American Public
Have The Last Word In The Decision" - Rep. Peterson
"The concept of this bill is solid and simple - give Americans control over America! said U.S. Rep. John Peterson (R - PA). "We are not asking for anything unreasonable. We are just asking that Congress and the American public have the last word in the decision to include American soil in a U.N. land designation."

"Private Property Should Not Fall Under Non-American Jurisdiction" - Re. Schaffer
"Under no circumstances should private property fall under the authority of any non-American jurisdiction whatsoever. In America, the unmolested freedom to hold private property is the bedrock of liberty," said U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer (R - CO).

Executive Branch Can No Longer Bypass Congress - Rep. Simpson
"Our public lands are an American treasure. But the executive branch has decided American land can be put into international reserves, without the consent of Congress. The American Land Sovereignty Act says to the president, 'No more'," said U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson (R - ID).

For more information, please check the House Committee on Resources Home Page at http://www.house.gov/resources

Posted by moondog 67 2000 on 11/01/09
Last updated 11/01/09

Ok, what is the deal people. We have the darn cure for our problems. It's called impeachment.

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure.

The involuntary removal of a sitting President of the United States has never occurred in our history. The only legal way such can be accomplished is by the impeachment process. This article discusses the legal standard to be properly applied by members of the United States House of Representatives when voting for or against Articles of Impeachment, and members of the United States Senate when voting whether or not to convict and remove from office a President of the United States, as well as the procedure to be followed.

Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Article II § 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." (Emphasis supplied).

Thus, the operative legal standard to apply to an impeachment of a sitting President is "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." There is substantial difference of opinion over the interpretation of these words.

There are essentially four schools of thought concerning the meaning of these words, although there are innumerable subsets within those four categories. The first general school of thought is that the standard enunciated by the Constitution is subject entirely to whatever interpretation Congress collectively wishes to make:

"What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office..." Congressman Gerald Ford, 116 Cong. Rec. H.3113-3114 (April 15, 1970).

This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress. However there are some, particularly in Congress, who hold this opinion.

The second view is that the above Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms. There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." (Emphasis supplied). Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed. Article II § 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." (Emphasis supplied). This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature. In the past, England had used impeachment of the King's ministers as a means of controlling policy (Parliament could not get rid of the King, but could get rid of his ministers who carried out acts Parliament believed to be against the best interest of the country). However, in English impeachments, once convicted that person was not only removed from office but was also punished (usually by execution).

The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard. Initially the standard was to be "malpractice or neglect of duty." This was removed and replaced with "treason, bribery, or corruption." The word "corruption" was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term "maladministration." This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted in its place. See Impeachment Trial and Errors, by Irving Brant, pages 17-19. There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.

The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious then simply "maladministration." This view is buttresses in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

Some hold the opinion that Congress could pass laws by declaring what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" which would, in effect, be a list of impeachable offenses. That has never happened. (Query: If Congress passed such a code of impeachable offenses, could that be applied retroactively, much as a definition, to a sitting President? Would such an application be viewed as an ex post facto law? Also, would such a statue be an attempt to amend the Constitution, without following the amendment procedure?)

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that judicial review of a Presidential impeachment is Constitutionally possible, where would such judicial review begin? Would it begin by the President filing suit in a United States District Court? If so, and relief were denied by the United States District Court, the President would have a right of appeal to a Circuit Court of Appeals, but might only have a right to review by the United States Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari. Thus, the Supreme Court could deny certiorari, and avoid ruling on the issue entirely.

But what if the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction over the review of a Presidential impeachment? After all, there were no inferior Federal Courts at the time the Constitution was created. The only Federal Court discussed at all in the Constitution is the Supreme Court. Could the President file suit against the Senate in the Supreme Court itself? And what of the possibility that, even if there is an avenue for judicial review, the "political question" doctrine which prevents Courts from deciding matters which are inherently political, rather then legal would be used to avoid ruling on the central issue? See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).

All of these questions remain unanswered at present, in concerns to the present circumstances with our current administration and the totality of non-constitutional proceedings against the United States of America's people, I would hope by the almighty God that it would be time to find out!

He has committed high crimes. He has surrounded himself with those who have self proclaimed to be Marxists, Communists and Socialists. Are those titles to be known as threats against the United States of America's way of life?

My Fellow Americans, It Is Time That We Tell These Type Of Peoples That Although We Show Tolerance At The Public Level, We Have No Tolerance At The Government Level, "What So Ever!

Posted by moondog 67 2000 on 08/30/09

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Government will audit the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC Bill - YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC Bill - THERE WILL BE A SECRETARY of HEALTH that decides what treatments/benefits you get

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The SECRETARY of HEALTH will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice!

Pg 50 Section 152 in HC Bill - HC will be provided to ALL non-U.S. citizens, illegal or otherwise

Pg 58 HC Bill - Government will have real-time access to individual's finances and a National ID Health Care Card will be issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your banks accounts for electronic funds transfer.

(NOTE- This really does mean they can take your money at any time. Who will have this authority?-a government bureaucrat.)

Pg 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions and community organizations (ACORN).

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government is creating a Health Care Exchange to bring private health care plans under government control.

Pg 84 Sec 203 HC Bill - Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private health care plans in the Exchange

Pg 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The government will ration your health care!

Pg 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Government mandates linguistic appropriate services.

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The government will use groups i.e., ACORN & AmeriCorps to sign up individuals for government Health Care Plan

Pg 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members - Your health care WILL be rationed!

Pg 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Individual will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

Pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue the government on price fixing. No "judicial review" against government monopoly.

Pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The government will tell YOU what you can make.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An employer MUST auto enroll employees into public opt plan. NO CHOICE

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for health care for part-time employees AND their families.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer w/ payroll 400k and above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll

Pg 150 Lines 9-13 Businesses with payroll between 251k and 400k who do not provide public opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable health care according to government will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay).

Pg 195 Officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans' financial and personal records.

Pg 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it says that.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, it does not matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same.

Pg 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of doctors' time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.

Pg 265 Sec 1131Government mandates and controls productivity for private health care industries.

Pg 268 Sec 1141 Federal Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.

Pg 272 SEC. 1145. Treatment of certain cancer hospitals - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

(Note: Much cancer treatment will not work unless implemented early, but the waiting time just to see a specialist will likely be months when this plan is implemented. As you can see in this bill, the option of the health care bureaucrat is to deny treatment to those they deem not likely to be helped by it.)

Page 280 Sec 1151 The government will penalize hospitals for what government deems preventable re-admissions. (Incentives for hospital to not treat and release.)

Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Doctors that treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission-Government will penalize you.

Pg 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells Doctors what/how much they can own.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Government is mandating hospitals cannot expand.

pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception, BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!!

Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Government mandates establishment of outcome based measures. Health Care the way they want. Rationing.

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans (Part B), HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Government plan.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs people!

Pg 379 Sec 1191 Government creates more bureaucracy - Tele-health Advisory Committee. Health care by phone/Internet?

Pg 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life. {Death} If a Doctor says they will not survive.

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!

Pg 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death.

Pg 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The government has a say in how your life ends.

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "adv. care planning consult" will be used frequently as patient's health deteriorates.

Pg 429 Lines 10-12 "adv. care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from Government.

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The government will specify which doctors can write an end of life order.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.

(NOTE-The above really does give the government the authority to determine who lives and dies, and when. A government bureaucrat really will be making this decision for you and your loved ones.)

Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services=Non-profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?

Pg 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment to a community-based org. Like ACORN?

Pg 489 Sec 1308 The government will cover Marriage and Family therapy. They will insert government into your marriage.

Pg 494-498 Government will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services.

PG 502 Sec 1181 Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research Established. - Hello Big Brother - Literally.

Pg 503 Lines 13-19 Government will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic medical records.

Pg 503 lines 21-25 Government may secure data directly from any department or agency of the U.S., including your data.

Pg 504 Lines 6-10 The "Center" will collect data both published and unpublished (that means public and your private info).

PG 506 Lines 19-21 The Center will recommend policies that would allow for public access of data.

PG 518 Lines 21-25 The Commission will have input from Health Care consumer reps - Can you say unions and ACORN?

PG 524 18-22 Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund set up. More taxes for ALL.

PG 621 Lines 20-25 Government will define what quality means in health care. Since when does government know about quality?

Pg 622 Lines 2-9 To pay for the Quality Standards, government will transfer money from other government Trust Funds. More Taxes.

PG 624 "Quality" measures shall be designed to assess outcomes and functional status of patients.

PG 624 "Quality" measures shall be designed to profile you including race, age, gender, place of residence, etc.

Pg 628 Sec 1443 Government will give "Multi-Stake Holders" Pre-Rule Making input into Selection of "Quality" Measures.

Pg 630 9-24/631 1-9 Those multi-stake holder groups include unions and groups like ACORN deciding health care quality.

Pg 632 Lines 14-25 The Government may implement any "Quality measure" of health care services as they see fit.

PG 633 14-25/ 634 1-9 The Secretary may issue non-endorsed "Quality Measures" for Physician Services and Dialysis Services.

Pg 635 to 653 Physicians Payments Sunshine Provision - Government wants to shine sunlight on doctor but not government.

Pg 654-659 Public Reporting on Health Care-Associated Infections - Looks okay.

PG 660-671 Doctors in Residency - Government will tell you where your residency will be, thus where you'll live.

Pg 676-686 Government will regulate hospitals in EVERY aspect of residency programs, including teaching hospitals.

Pg 686-700 Increased Funding to Fight Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. You mean like the government with an $18 million website?

(NOTE-Can you actually imagine empowering the government to fight waste, fraud, and abuse????)

PGs 701-704 Sec 1619 If your part of health care plan isn't in Government Health Care Exchange but you qualify for Federal aid, no payment.

PG 705-709 SEC. 1128 If Secretary gets complaints (ACORN) on health care provider or supplier, government can do background check.

PG 711 Lines 8-14 The Secretary has broad powers to deny health care providers/ suppliers admittance into Health Care Exchange. Your doctor could be thrown out of business.

Pg 719-720 Sec 1637 ANY Doctor who orders durable medical equipment or home medical services MUST be enrolled in Medicare.

PG 722 Sec 1639 Government MANDATES doctors must have face-to-face with patient to certify patient for Home Health Services.

PG 724 23-25 PG 725 1-5 The same government certifications will apply to Medicaid and CHIP (your kids).

PG 724 Lines 16-22 Government reserves right to apply face-to-face certification for patient to ANY other health care service.

Pg 735 lines 16-25 For law enforcement, proposes the Secretary-HHS will give Attorney General access to ALL data.

PG 740-757 Government sets guidelines for subsidizing the uninsured (That's your tax dollars people).

Pg 757-762 Federal Government will shift burden of payments to Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) to States. (Taxes)

Pg 763 1-8 No DS/EA hospitals will be paid unless they provide services without regard to national origin.

Pg 765 Sec 1711 Government will require Preventative Services including vaccines. (Choice?)

Pg 768 Sec 1713 Government - Nurse Home Visitation Services (Hello union paybacks).

Pg 769 11-14 Nurse Home Visit Services include economic self-sufficiency, employ adv, school-readiness.

Pg 769 3-5 Nurse Home Visit Services - "increasing birth intervals between pregnancies." Government ABORTIONS anyone?

Pg 770 SEC 1714 Federal Government mandates eligibility for State Family Planning Services. Abortion and State Sovereign.

(NOTE-Can you believe that in America you will be told how many children you can have, and when? Does this mean we can expect the government to impose mandatory abortions? How else can this be interpreted?)

Pg 789-797 Government will set, mandate drug prices, controlling which drugs brought to market. Bye innovation.

Pgs 797-800 SEC. 1744 PAYMENTS for graduate medical education. The government will now control doctors' educations.

PG 801 Sec 1751 The government will decide which health care conditions will be paid. Say RATION!

Pg 810 SEC. 1759. Billing Agents, clearinghouses, etc. req. to register. Government takes over private payment system.

Pg 820-824 Sec 1801 Government will identify individuals ineligible for subsidies. Will access all personal financial information.

Pg 824-829 SEC. 1802. Government sets up Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund. Another tax black hole.

PG 829-833 Government will impose a fee on ALL private health insurance plans including self-insured to pay for Trust Fund!

PG 835 11-13 fees imposed by government for Trust Fund shall be treated as if they were taxes.

Pg 838-840 Government will design and implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids and families expecting kids.

PG 844-845 This Home Visitation Program includes government coming into your house and telling you how to parent!!!

(NOTE-If you think this sounds like "Big Brother" actually coming into our homes, we really need to think about what comes after Big Brother. )

Pg 859 Government will establish a Public Health Fund at a cost of $88,800,000,000. Yes that's billion.

Pg 865 The government will MANDATE the establishment of a National Health Service Corps.

PG 865 to 876 The NHS Corps is a program where doctors perform mandatory health care for two years for part loan repayment.

PG 876-892 The government takes over the education of our medical students and doctors.

PG 898 The government will establish a Public Health Workforce Corps to ensure supply of public health prof.

PG 898 The Public Health Workforce Corps shall consist of civilian employees of the U.S. as Secretary deems.

PG 898 The Public Health Workforce Corps shall consist of officers of Regular and Reserve Corps of Service.

PG 900 The Public Health Workforce Corps includes veterinarians.

PG 901 The Public Health Workforce Corps WILL include commissioned Regular and Reserve Officers. HC Draft?

PG 910 The government will develop, build, and run Public Health Training Centers.

PG 913-914 Government starts a health care affirmative action program thru guise of diversity scholarships.

PG 915 SEC. 2251. Government MANDDATES Cultural and linguistic competency training for health care professionals.

Pg 932 The Government will establish Preventative and Wellness Trust fund- initial cost of $30,800,000,000 billion.

PG 935 21-22 Government will identify specific goals & objectives for prevention & wellness activities. Control YOU!!

PG 936 Government will develop "Healthy People and National Public Health Performance Standards" Tell me what to eat?

(NOTE-This is no joke-the government will be able to actually mandate what you can eat or not eat. This could be helpful for some, but do we want the government doing it?)

PG 942 Lines 22-25 More government? Offices of Surgeon General -Public Health Svc, Minority Health, Women's Health

PG 950- 980 BIG GOVERNMENT core pub health infrastructure including workforce capacity, lab systems, health info sys, etc.

PG 993 Government will establish school based health clinics. Your kids won't have a chance or choice.

PG 994 School Based Health Clinic will be integrated into the school environment. Seems ok.
PG 1001 The government will establish a National Medical Device Registry.

Will you be tracked?