Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you actually claiming that "the government" wants to do (or is doing) such a thing?
If its part of the healthcare bill, (the stories link to the old versions and I havent pulled up the new editions to see if it still exists), then it indeed is the government doing such things is it not? Its not McDonalds offering to implant people to track big mac sales..
That isn't a huge jump. It isn't a jump at all If there isn't a verifiable way of ensuring the same human being is attached to those records, the records are useless. The executive order included establishing a means of matching individuals with the correct electronic record.
But an executive order isn't the same as a law. Obama took an executive order and made it law. He made it democratic.
You dont find the idea that the government wasnt to give individuals the opportunity to have a microchip implanted as if we were some type of pet, troubling? You'd be going crazy if this was in a bill by Bush..
So again you agree with me. There is no mandate.
But no, you're incorrect. I'd be upset (I don't go crazy) if the government prohibited someone from having a chip implanted if that's what he desired.
You dont find the idea that the government wasnt to give individuals the opportunity to have a microchip implanted as if we were some type of pet, troubling? You'd be going crazy if this was in a bill by Bush..
Guess what? If this were actually in the health care bill, the opponents of the bill would have made it perfectly clear to the American public and they would have been outraged.
I never said there was a mandate, the wording clearly offers it as an option. You are pretending I'm saying things again that I havent..
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
But no, you're incorrect. I'd be upset (I don't go crazy) if the government prohibited someone from having a chip implanted if that's what he desired.
One could have an implant now, so tell me the point to adding something into a bill authorizing something individuals were already authorized to do? Who will put the data on the implant? Whats the point if it cant/wont be read?
I can see it now, person offering the implant "we offer this fabulous new technology that keeps people from pretending they are you, dont you want to protect your identity from all of those bad people out there"..
"of course I do.. please implant me now".
I find it odd that so many object to things like national drivers licenses, but are ok with people having chips implanted..
Guess what? If this were actually in the health care bill, the opponents of the bill would have made it perfectly clear to the American public and they would have been outraged.
But you dont find it troubling that ANYONE would suggest such things be made into law? Wow, the amount of excuses from those on the left is astounding..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbrauer
Do you have any cognitive abilities?
I never stated it was in the bill.. I CLEARLY said that it was in the OLD bill, and that I have no read the NEW version of the bill to see if it was there. Do YOU have cognitive abilities?
Hey, if it's on the internet, then it must be true!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
