We did hear the entire DEAL, didn't we??? One of the officers was a little P.O.d, but two out of three were more than reasonable. If you listened to the final policeman's explanation of how they SHOULD need to know this fellows' background, since he had been filming federal buildings and multiple Police activites (on and on (adnauseum) I believe that when the KID refused to cooperate and had no I.D. he should have been "TAKEN DOWNTOWN" In my opinion, and its only MY opinion, this kid was a jack-ass who chose to get in their faces with his freedoms and rights.. It would be great to get a look at what he's up to lately.. But I suspect that he WILL find trouble.. by making trouble!! RJM

For example in NY you can not take any photos or videos on or in any TriBoro Bridge and Tunnel Authority Bridges or Tunnels. The Port Authority of NY/NJ have a similar rule. It's like certain concert venues do not allow any flash photography and some allow no photography at all. Each state also has something along the lines of a video voyeur law.One would have to look up their local laws for an explanation of right of privacy.

I am sure Google has run into this little question a few times with Google Earth and their street view maps.

Exactly. They are profit-driven enterprises. The only thing worse is a profit-driven hospital. Why there are hospital corporations with shareholders is beyond me as their primary fiduciary responsibility is to the shareholder, not to the patient.

Now the problem isn't so simple that they've been 'ordered' to expand coverage. Premiums have been going up and services have been going down for a long time. This is not an ACA 'feature'.

But fear not, I think the gravy train is on track. The ACA sounds like a Republican nirvana to me which is why it has always made me a bit queasy.

Insurance companies make lots of money, personal responsibility is implemented via the mandate, the number of freeloaders in the system decreases, insurance can be sold over state lines, states are free to come up with alternative solutions (starting in 2017), steps have been taken to implement competitive bidding in Medicare, and more. All features Republicans were for before they were against.

Oh yeah, then there are also some number of millions of poor slobs who actually don't have to worry anymore that they don't have health insurance.

Oh yes, we must discuss rationing of care, which you deem to be proven by the photo of the notice telling patients that they must show proof of coverage. Now if you describe insurance companies creating/tightening up their networks as rationing of care, then care has been rationed here in the United States for at least 30 years.

I think the closed networks presented by insurance companies have been and continue to be an outrage. Perhaps if the Republicans were interested in accomplishing something besides taking meaningless votes, they would create legislation forcing the opening up of networks. Of course there is nil chance of the GOP doing anything to upset the insurance gravy train.

Well the certified PDF copy of the ACA from the GPO is 906 pages. In any case, it is a silly argument. And the number of words? This has some significance? Who read it or not is a ridiculous argument. My question was have you read it? Do you have a clue as to what is in the law or are you just against it because it feels good to be against it?

You are correct that the insurance companies are a primary beneficiary of the law. How else do you think it became law?

Secondary beneficiaries are the uninsured who have been able to buy insurance. That might not mean much to you, sitting pretty with your medicare or employer-provided coverage, but it means an awful lot to those who now have insurance.

My company-provided coverage has not been affected. Some will be depending on circumstance. So?

We'll see how it turns out in a few years but the GOP-predicted-and-hoped-for apocalypse failed to occur. You can keep hoping for eventual failure. What could be a more patriotic sentiment than that?