Cleo's Mom

From the teaparty movement itself: " Proud to be a teabagger". And from a man who loves Jesus. Well, I guess that says it all. It's you who doesn't "get it". I’ve actually talked to Tea Party activists who referred to themselves as “Teabaggers.” And at the 9/10 pre-March on Washington event at the D.C. Armory, I bought this button on sale from a vendor:

With reference to republicans trying to re-write history and hating the government at the same time - well, no one captures that hypocrisy better than Alan Grayson. This VIDEO IS A MUST WATCH. Daily Kos: Alan Grayson Eviscerates Republicans into Confetti - LOL

I switched surgeons last April after only 7 months after my surgery. I took all my test results, including discs of upper GI's to my current surgeon for a second opinion and when he told me some things my original surgeon didn't, I switched to him and it was the best move I ever made. My former surgeon was inexperienced and had unrealistic expectations for the band. He was not good with follow up care. You deserve to have your problems addressed and resolved and I hope one of those 5 doctors will take you on. Let us know how it goes.

BJean - I didn't see your post where you used that term. I was referring to another poster, as you know. I agree with you, too. And isn't it amazing that Reagan (and others) say the government is the problem - now elect me to a job in it. What frauds!!!

Not only that, but just ask the question: What has the republican party done for middle class america - and use any time span you want (in the last 20, 30, 40 years)? Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security for the poor/elderly? Democrats 40 hour work week: Democrats Child labor laws: Democrats Minimum wage, safe working conditions: Democrats Environmental rules for clean air/water: Democrats Healthcare (if it passes): Democrats Unemployment: Democrats Civil rights: Democrats Here is the republicans answer to everything: energy: drill, baby, drill economy/jobs: tax cuts for rich & corporations, crumbs for everyone else foreign policy: war at any cost - screw the rest of the world. healthcare: let the insurance companies continue to run it and for the uninsured: use the ER.

This attitude that the government must act like a strict parent and withhold things from people "for their own good" is EXTREMELY patronizing and condescending and is offensive. The government is not big brother, the government is "we the people" and as a people we do not let our fellow brothers and sisters suffer. That is not who we are. That is what differentiates us from the countries that do. Countries like Iran, Uganda, etc.. I don't want to be like them. There will always be poor people, people with disabilities and people who are unemployed and all these people suffer. Yes, some of them have made bad choices, but we cannot punish them all for the mistakes of a few. I am glad I live in a country as great as American that doesn't turn it's back on the least among us.

They gave that name to themselves, I didn't. They are the ones who hung teabags from their hats.

Give your surgeon one more chance to address your concerns. Tell the staff that if he doesn't respond you will go to the next level. Then do it. Call the patient advocate at the hospital and if not successful, call the hospital administrator. Also, by all means go to you PCP. Get copies of all your test results, including the CD of your upper GI. You should also get a second opinion from a bariatric surgeon and take ALL your test results with you. Call your surgeon's & PCP's office and ask for them. You do not have to live with all of this. Be strong, be assertive and don't take no for an answer. Good luck.

Pattygreen: On one of the threads you asked what buzzwords the teabaggers and like minded extremists use. Watch this video of Brown supporters (who you support) to hear one of them. And BTW, these buzzwords are not the exception, rather they are an intergral part of all the protests: Daily Kos: Gibbs: Coakley is going to win (and one STUNNING video))

Again this speaks to different translations and refers to the original Greek words and how they could be interpreted differently. And 25 English VERSIONS of the bible? Why do we need 25 if everyone should be on the same page? With only one interpretation: Pattygreen's. I Corinthians 6:9: The passage: In his first epistle to the church at Corinth, Paul lists many activities that he believes will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God (heaven). Robertson's Word Studies refers to this passage as: "a solemn roll call of the damned even if some of their names are on the church roll in Corinth whether officers or ordinary members." 1 Unfortunately, the Greek original from which many English language Bibles have been translated, is ambiguous about two of the groups who are condemned. The King James Version of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis ours) This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English versions of the Bible that we have analyzed. Unfortunately, many of the translations do not differentiate between: Persons who are sexually attracted to others of the same-sex, but who are celibate and do not act on their desire, andPersons who are are sexually active and who act on their sexual attraction to others of the same sex. The two activities of interest -- shown above in bold -- have been variously translated as: effeminate (KJV, NASB): In the English language, this covers a wide range of male behavior such as being unmanly, lacking virility. One might think of the characters "John," the receptionist on NYPD Blue, or "Jack" on Will and Grace. homosexuals, variously described as: "men who practice homosexuality," (ESV);"those who participate in homosexuality," (Amplified); "abusers of themselves with men," (KJV); "practicing homosexuals," (NET Bible). This translation would refer only to persons with a homosexual or bisexual orientation who is sexually active with persons of the same sex. It would not include persons who are sexually attracted to persons of the same sex, but who are celibate."homosexuals," (NASB, CSB, NKJ, NLT, The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English); "homosexual perversion," (NEB); "homosexual offenders," (NIV); "liers with mankind," (Rhiems); and "homosexual perverts." (TEV) "passive homosexual partners." (NET Bible)Although "homosexual" is a very common translation, it is almost certain to be inaccurate: If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males. The second term is "arsenokoitai" in Greek. The exact meaning of this word is lost. It seems to have been a term created by Paul for this verse. "Arsen" means "man" in Greek. So there is no way that "arsenokoitai" could refer to both male and female homosexuals. It seems that the translators gave in to the temptation to widen Paul's condemnation to include lesbians as well as gay males.Unfortunately, the term "homosexual" is commonly defined in two different ways: as a behavior (engaging in same-sex activity) or as a sexual orientation (being sexually attracted only to members of the same sex). Most of the biblical translations appear to refer to behavior rather than orientation. male prostitutes, also described as "men kept for unnatural purposes." The term "male prostitutes" (NIV, NRSV, CSB, NLT) can be interpreted in modern times as men who are paid to have sex with men only or with women only or with men or women. The original Greek appears to refer only to male-male contact. catamites, or boy prostitute. This is a young male who is kept as a sexual partner of an adult male. (Jerusalem Bible, NAB, James Moffatt). These translations provide another example of a theme that runs throughout the Bible: the transfer of guilt and punishment from guilty perpetrators to innocent persons. pederasts: male adults who sexually abuse boys; an abusive pedophile (an adult who molests young children) or abusive hebephile (an adult who molests post-pubertal teenagers). perverts: a person engaged in some undefined activity that is one of the dozens of sexual activities that some consider to be perversions. (Phillips, The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English) sodomites: This used to refer to inhabitants of the city of Sodom which is described in Genesis 19. It is now used as a "snarl" word to refer to men who have sex with men. InGenesis 19, the men of the city are described as wanting to rape some male visitors. Many Christians interpret this as a blanket condemnation of all homosexual behavior, whether rape or consensual; whether a one-night stand or within a committed relationship. (NRSV, NKJ, NAB). other terms: The Message refers to "Those who ... use and abuse sex," which is probably the broadest translation ever.BBE translates it as "or is less than a man, or makes a wrong use of men." Lost meaning? Broadening translations? Proves my point, AGAIN.

This guy has not read the bible, for if he did, he wouldn't believe the malarky he does. "This guy" is a rabbi and he didn't read the bible - are you kidding me?

PG: You have used the quote below to prove that God opposes homosexuality. The following is a rabbi's interpretation and I would think he was well versed and knowledgable: DOES THE BIBLE PROHIBIT HOMOSEXUALITY? Jacob Milgrom ____________________________________________________________ The biblical prohibition is addressed only to Israel. It is incorrect to apply it on a universal scale. ____________________________________________________________ This past Yom Kippur, September 25, 1993, my synagogue invited me to explain the afternoon scriptural reading, the list of forbidden sexual liasons in Leviticus 18. I chose to focus on what is today one of the most frequently quoted passages in the entire Bible, "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). What I said may be both good news and bad news to my Christian friends, depending on their position on gay and lesbian rights. This biblical prohibition is addressed only to the Jews. Non-Jews are affected only if they reside in the Holy Land, but not elsewhere (see the closing exhortation in Leviticus 18, verses 24-30). Thus, it is incorrect to apply this prohibition on a universal scale. But I spoke to my fellow Jews, who are required to observe this prohibition. What is the rationale for this prohibition? In a previous column, I noted that the Bible's impurity rules are part of a symbol system representing the forces of life and death. Israel is required to avoid these impurities and adhere to the laws commanded by God, who promotes the forces of life. Thus in the same chapter we read, "You shall heed my statutues and my rules, by doing them one shall live" (Leviticus 18:5). A man who discharges semen, whether intentionally or otherwise, is declared impure and must purify himself by bathing (a sort of re-baptism) before he is permitted to enter the Temple or touch sacred (sacrificial) food (Leviticus 15:16-18). Why? Because semen stands for life, and the loss of semen symbolizes the loss of life. Note also that in the entire list of forbidden sexual unions, THERE IS NO PROHIBITION AGAINST LESBIANISM. Can it be that lesbianism did not exist in ancient times or that Scripture was unaware of its existence? Lesbians existed and flourished, as attested in an old (pre-Israelite) Babylonian text and in the work of the lesbian poet Sappho (born c. 612 B.C.E., during the time of the First Temple), who came from the island of Lesbos (hence lesbianism). But there is a fundamental difference between the homosexual acts of men andwomen. IN LESBIANISM THERE IS NO SPILLING OF SEED. Thus life is not symbolically lost, and therefore lesbianism is not prohibited in the Bible. My argument ostensibly can be countered by a more comprehensive biblical injunction. The very first commandment, given to Adam and repeated to Noah, is "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1,7). The descendents of Noah--the entire human race--are duty-bound to fulfill this commandment. But the truth is that we have not only filled the earth, we have over-filled it. This does not mean, however, that the commandment should be thought of as no longer in force--especially among Jews, who have lost a third of their members in our lifetime. I recall an incident during a premarital interview from the early years of my rabbinate. The starry-eyed bride declared her noble intention to have twelve children to compensate for the tragic loss of six million killed in the Holocaust. I gasped, "Must you do it all by yourself?" I have since come to regret my flippant reply. This couple regarded their forthcoming marriage as a sacrament not just between themselves, but with the Jewish people. The problem has worsened for American Jews. Because intermarriage is rife and the Jewish birth rate is low, American Jewry, once at zero population growth, has dipped into the minus column. Were it not for a steady stream of converts, the extinction of American Jewry would be even more imminent. For us the divine command, "Be fruitful and multiply" is truly in force. To Jewish homosexuals I offer an unoriginal solution. As compensation for your loss of seed, adopt children. Although adoption was practiced in the ancient world (as attested in Babylonian law), there is no biblical procedure or institution of adoption. As a result the institution of adoption is absent from rabbinic jurisprudence. Yet there are isolated cases of a kind of pseudo-adoption in the Bible. For example, Abraham, long childless, complains to God that Eliezer of Damascus, his steward, will inherit him (Genesis 15:2). And barren Rachel beseeches her husband Jacob, "Here is my maid Bilhah--go into her that she may bear on my knees and that through her I too may have children" (Genesis 30:3). Adoption is certainly a possibility today. Lesbian couples have an additional advantage. Not only do they not violate biblical law, but through artificial insemination each can become the natural mother of her children. Thus from the Bible we can infer the following: Lesbians, presumably half of the world's homosexual population, are not mentioned. More than ninety-nine percent of the gays, namely non-Jews, are not addressed. This leaves the small number of male Jewish gays subject to this prohibition. If they are biologically or psychologically incapable of procreation, adoption provides a solution. I hope the Eternal, in love and compassion, will then reckon their spilled seed as producing fruit. Jacob Milgrom. Another interpretation and I assume different from yours. Again proving my point.

If Jesus had wanted to write a "bible" he would have done so and handed it to his disciples and said "here is my word that I have written. Pass it on." But he didn't. The writing of the bible was left to mere mortals who wrote it as they recalled the events and words. And the following shows that religious and other scholars do interpret the bible differently: Ads by GoogleHolyland Pilgrimage Come to Discover the Roots of Christian Faith www.holyland-pilgrimage.org Bible Colleges Seminaries Earn a seminary degree online from Liberty University-Enroll Today. www.LibertyOnlineSeminary.com Master's Divinity School Earn a Recognized Ministry Degree Associate - Doctorate 100% Online www.mdivs.edu Bible College Degrees Apply and Enroll Now Receive Instant Rebate! www.summitbiblecollege.com/ Turn the other cheek is a biblical reference mentioned in the New Testament in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus enjoins his followers, “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” In the Sermon on the Plains in Luke, the same sentence is repeated. Turn the other cheek is often interpreted as not responding with aggression or fight to aggressive attacks; the answer to violence is passivity and humility. Ads by Google Study The Bible Online Earn an Online AA, BA, Masters, or PhD. Request Free Information! www.eLearners.com/Bible Faith Based Schools Offering Online Programs & Degrees Learn More Today www.BaptistCollegesOnline.com Such thought is not only present in Christianity, and certainly exists in other religions. The idea of Ahimsa, an important part of some sects of Hinduism and Buddhism that existed for centuries prior to the advent of Christianity expresses that acting with violence incurs very bad karma. You can also find this idea outside of Christianity in the work and philosophy of people like Mahatma Gandhi. Biblical interpretation of turn the other cheek varies. Is Christ counseling his followers to never act in violence, even in self-defense? Some Christian sects, such as the Quakers believe this fully. There is no act of violence that can be praised. Other modern Christians would seem to act in full non-concordance with this philosophy. For instance, supporting the death penalty would seem in direct conflict with the concept of turning the other cheek. There are multiple interpretations of how turn the other cheek is meant, and when it’s acceptable to not act in accordance with these teachings. Some, for example, believe that violence in self-defense is absolutely moral, especially if you use a small amount of violence to escape someone who would hurt you. Striking someone down, but not killing that person, may help you prevent a person from acting in an unrighteous manner. If you knock someone out cold, who is attacking you, you may prevent him or her from killing you, a greater sin than simply attacking you. Alternately, running away instead of allowing someone to continue hurting you is viewed as viable and imminently sensible. Some argument against this teaching focuses on how “turn the other cheek” has been used in the past to sanction the violence of the oppressor. In abusive homes, pastors might counsel wives to behave better so they would not be beaten, instead of counseling them to flee a marriage where a wife or her children’s safety was at constant risk. As more has been understood about the nature of spousal abuse, this counsel is seldom given in most mainstream Christian churches. Too many women and children, and sometimes men, would pay the price for putting this philosophy in practice, turning the other cheek instead of escaping to safety. Some scholars argue that to turn the other cheek is a highly metaphoric phrase. It isn’t to be taken literally but instead means that there is benefit to not using aggression when it can be possibly avoided. This is the stance of people like Gandhi and the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Instead of sanctioning violent overthrow of the status quo, they advocated nonviolent resistance. The many sit-ins, walkouts, and deliberate acts of passive civil disobedience were viewed as a means of turning the other cheek since no violence was offered in this disobedience. Instead people quietly stood for what they believed, taking the full slap of the law on the other cheek without engaging in violence. Again, my point for different interpretations by those who study the bible is proven.

First of all, the bible was written by men, not God, not women and each man who has rewritten the bible has added his own interpretation of what the original words mean when translated into another language. There ARE DIFFERENT interpretations of the bible. It is ever evolving what certain passages mean. Spare the rod, spoil the child. Turn the other cheek are two that have been given different and not literal interpretations. Religious scholars differ on what these and other passages mean. They base their interpretation on the language of the time the bible was written. Matthew, Mark, Luke & John each wrote different accounts about Jesus's birth, yet they weren't there. The common story we now hold about the nativity is a combination of their versions. I don't recall any part of the bible where Jesus or anyone else tells the disciples the story of his birth. Did Mary? Did Joseph? How did they learn of it? My point is that the bible is absolutely open to interpretation of the words, their meaning when translated and viewed in the context of the time it was written.

I wish we would have a single payer, government run healthcare along the lines of medicare taking the profit motive out of healthcare, making it more affordable for everyone. And the private insurance companies would have to find another line of work or go pound sand. Again, a win-win.

President Obama said that we are not JUST a christian nation, and you know the video shows the correction so please stop reporting it otherwise. I have posted the video to prove it, but it doesn't matter to you.

They consider limbo a real place where innocent people, mostly babies, go when they have not been baptized yet and therefore still have original sin. It is supposed to be as wonderful as heaven but without God. My point was not to debate bible passages but to point out that reading the parts of the bible that the catholic church used to justify limbo and purgatory were interpreted differently by protestants who do not believe in either. Therefore, I can read the passages and come to my own conclusion about what Jesus meant, just as you have, just as the catholic church has, just as the protestant church has, etc.. AND THAT IS MY POINT.

If any of you saw Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" there is a part in which Jesus is portrayed and he comes across a leper on a stretcher. He tells him he cannot cure him because he has a pre-existing condition. Just as conservatives are trying to rewrite history (particularly the bush era) they are trying to re-write the bible to make Jesus this hard hearted conservative, when in fact he didn't travel with the rich, the powerful, the well-connected, but rather was among the poor, the sick, the desperate, the sinners.

Let me preface this by saying that in no way am I defending the Catholic Church. I don't agree with half of what they say we should believe. However, I am only pointing out that they justify ALL their religious conclusions on the bible. And I am pointing out that this major religion of billions of people has a different interpretation of the bible than you - which means that each of us is free to intrepret the bible individually and draw our own conclusions. Purgatory: 2 Mc 12 38-46 Limbo: Luke 16 22 Luke 23 43 I'm sure you won't have the same interpretation and I am not saying I do either. Just another example of how MEN take the same book and reach different conclusions, just as I have.

What is relevant to the debate about healthcare now is what Pres. Obama has proposed since this issue has been in focus (last summer). He has not proposed single payer, and has actually been lukewarm about the public option. What he wants is: 1) All americans covered 2) Affordable choices 3) Financial help for those who can't afford it 4) No denying pre-existing conditions 5) No dropping someone who gets sick 6) Portability of your insurance from job to job 7) Cost controls These are not all the points, just the main ones. AND HERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW - WHEN YOU USE SOME FANTASY ARGUEMENT THAT THE PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES MIGHT GO OUT OF BUSINESS - I DON'T CARE IF THEY DO. WE WOULD ALL BE BETTER OFF IF THEY DID. SO STOP USING THAT ARGUEMENT BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT HAPPEN. IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING IN MY BOOK.

Well, you see PG, the catholic church, which considers itself the one true apostolic church, has interpreted the bible a little differently than you. As a major religion, headed by the infallable pope, I guess they got it wrong because they believe in heaven, hell, purgatory and limbo. So, you see. There is more than one interpretation of the bible. Who knew??

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom I'm calling you out on this PG. I want you to cite specific language in any of the proposed healthcare reform bills where it says the plan was to have ONLY a government option and put all the other private plans out of business. This was not stated by anyone specifically, but it is what would have happened if there was a public option. Anyone can see that down the road. Really? I know that isn't going to happen. Just those who are opposed to Obama "saw" that!! So, that's hardly fact. Obama was NOT going to tell you that. Let's face it, if there is a public ins. plan out there that was not going to make a profit it would be the best plan at the lowest price. Well, there you've said it. The best plan at the lowest price. Who could oppose that? Oh, I know. Those who advocate for the insurance industry. That means: all of the republicans, Lieberman and the DINOS. It would not take long for all the people to get on it. This would leave all the other ins. companies with having to raise their premium fees in order to make a profit because now they have less people insured with them.Or here's a thought: Lower your premiums, offer better service and reduce your obscene profits. Also, what business would not choose the public option for their people if there was that choice? ALL businesses will try to save money if they can so that their own paychecks could grow. Again, sounds like a win-win situation to me!! Eventually, over time, the public option would push other ins. companies to go out of business and/or fail. First of all, that wouldn't happen. If we take the profit motive out of healthcare, which is what should happen, then insurance companies would have to compete or find another type of insurance to cheat people with: disability, long-term care, life, etc..Any number of types of insurances in which they can collect premiums and deny claims. Even Obama admitted, during his campaign, that this country would take a while to be able to achieve his goal of government HC for all.If you mean access to affordable healthcare for everyone, yes he said that. If you mean he said that he wanted the government to take over the healthcare in this country I WANT DOCUMENTATION OF THAT - A VIDEO WHERE HE SAYS THAT. It would start out as a 'choice'. He said," You can keep your ins. company if you like it." He said that because he knew that you could "at first". He didn't go on to tell you that eventually, though, all that will be available is the gov. plan to 'choose' from. Fact: The government already runs healthcare via medicaid and medicare. Neither one has put the private insurance companies out of business and medicare is very popular among the recipients. So, if they already had a plan set up for the poor and the elderly, why did they need a public option for the rest of Americans? How bogus. Just allow those without ins. to get on the plan that was already instated. They tried to have a medicare buy-in which was a good idea. Opposed by the republicans and the DINOS. Their procedures are corrupt and dishonest and costing the rest of us millions! Also, the Dems are pushing their agenda despite what the people want. It is clear that the majority didn't want the public option and still don't want the reform, but they are STILL pushing to get it. Even when they know full well, that it's not what we want. They are saying "We know the public doesn't want this, but we know what's best for these stupid people." Actually when the healthcare bill is explained to people they support it and most people supported the public option because they knew it was a cost cutting measure and would help to keep the greedy private insurance companies honest. People support not being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, they support being able to keep your coverage from job to job, they support your not being able to be dropped if you get sick. I will say that those who support healthcare haven't done a good enough PR job. The party of no, though, has gotten out there with their lies and buzzwords, though.

Thank you. You do too. Your posts are well thought out and intellegently written. Those who don't have that ability (or the facts on their side) have to resort to broad generalizations, emotional buzzwords, being judgemental and lies.

I'm calling you out on this PG. I want you to cite specific language in any of the proposed healthcare reform bills where it says the plan was to have ONLY a government option and put all the other private plans out of business. If you say that it wasn't in the bill, but that was their intent, then it's just so much more BS. Fact: The public option was going to be available to those who were uninsured. That was about 5% of the people. Fact: The government already runs healthcare via medicaid and medicare. Neither one has put the private insurance companies out of business and medicare is very popular among the recipients. Fact: The republicans used every procedural roadblock at their disposal to stop this bill, causing delay after delay and requiring the 1AM senate vote in order to meet required timelines. Fact: The democrats are now using procedures at THEIR disposal to get this bill reconciled. Since the republicans have nothing to offer but obstructions, there is no need for them to be included. Fact: If you think that when the republicans were in the majority that they didn't execute behind door deals with special interest groups then you are beyond naive. All you needed to know about healthcare reform to be opposed to it was that it was supported by Pres. Obama and the democrats. Who are you trying to fool?

Actually, the 7-11 guy is more representative of those who think like you than you are willing to admit. I have yet to see one factual sign or statement coming from the protesting teabaggers concerning healthcare. All I have seen is emotional buzzwords meant to incite, inflame and distort. Words like: socialism, nazi, death panel, rationing, government take over, the "n" word, etc.. Of course there are no concrete citings of any of these things in the actual bill. There doesn't have to be. Just keep saying these things over and over, have the media report on them and stupid people will begin to believe them. Now, if you want a concrete case of the government coming between a person and their healthcare there isn't a more glaring example than the Terry Shiavo case. Across the country, everyday, people make the decision to take a family member off of life support. This is a difficult decision but it is made in private and without media attention. Not so with Terry Schiavo. When her husband tried to remove life support, the republicans in CONGRESS, flew back to D.C. for a SPECIAL SESSION to address this issue. Sen. Frist (a doctor) tried to diagnose Terry from afar, going so far as to say she could talk (no true), sing (not true) and move around (not true). They tried to stop her husband from removing the life support. When her autopsy was done, it showed that she had no brain activity and hadn't for a long time, something her doctors had said all along. But here is an example of the GOVERNMENT COMING BETWEEN A PERSON AND THEIR HEALTHCARE and where where all those teabaggers then protesting that? HMMM. Once again, I will say: If it weren't for hypocrisy, the republicans would have nothing.