"I came here looking for herbal advise long ago and Lucy,eric and later brendon ganged up for the medical industry against anything herbal." I think what you're referring to is the thread in which you announced you were dropping all your heart failure meds and wanted to know what herbs to use instead. You were unhappy to be advised to consult your physician before making such a momentous decision. Occasionally some supporter of folklore-based herbalism will post here, complaining about how advocates for evidence-based medicine (herbal or otherwise) are supposedly turning off people and convincing them not to use science to help make decisions about their health. You'd think they'd be happy about that since it would mean converts to their way of thinking, but they're not. More likely, they're concerned that many forum visitors actually do appreciate having good evidence and are open to the idea of complementary medicine instead of having a rigid anti-mainstream medicine position.

A few years ago I went in for a colonoscopy. I was in a lot of pain and the girl taking the info. out of the clear blue sky asked me what bank I used. Yes, a red flag did go up...but I was in pain....and thankgoodness did not give her the correct bank. Gave her one with mortgages. Sure enough, identity theft. They used my name and address to try and break into this bank. Did it all on the computer. The bank just sent us a letter stating the change in the pin number had been changed. This was the day before Thanksgiving. We called the bank and told them this was fraud. They have the nerve to tell us that they didn't know if we were really were who we said we were and had to be at the bank the first thing in the morning after the holiday to cancel this account. I was furious. I now go to the sheriff's department. Couldn't even go up to see him...just talked on the phone down stairs. He said, (I quote) do you know how many people we have working on identiy theft???? I said. NO...He says "Your talking to him". Can you believe this. Well, we stopped the theft and since a crime was not committed, they could do nothing about it. Plus, we don't know what computer she used to do this. Think about this. She did everything from a name, address, and bank. I could not tell the doctor about this because if I identified her, I could be sued since I would be accusing her of a crime. I should have sent a letter without identifying myself but didn't. I'm disgusted with myself I didn't. I was stupid and pain or no pain I did not use my head!!!! But I never never never give out my social. Also, why do Doctor's offices need to know where you were born. My theft was just giving an address and a bank. Think what they can do with your address, age, date of birth and where you were born. I'm saying this because tomorrow I'm going to a new doctor and they have already asked where I was born on the phone. I stopped the conversation before they were completed. We are being paranoid, but I've had this theft twice now. The first time was my credit card. You are not safe in a doctor's office. You really don't know who these people are you're giving this info to. Give as little as possible. 's

Sable, yes I think your workshop leaders were over-zealous. Federal guidelines are quite explicit in defining sexual harrassment as UNWELCOME sexual behavior on the part of one party towards another. I have linked the guidelines below. Here are the relevant definitions: Title VII does not proscribe all conduct of a sexual nature in the workplace. Thus it is crucial to clearly define sexual harassment: only unwelcome sexual conduct that is a term or condition of employment constitutes a violation. 29 C.F.R. � 1604.11(a). The EEOC's Guidelines define two types of sexual harassment: "quid pro quo" and "hostile environment." The Guidelines provide that "unwelcome" sexual conduct constitutes sexual harassment when "submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment," 29 C.F.R � 1604.11 (a) (1). "Quid pro quo harassment" occurs when "submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual," 29 C.F.R � 1604.11(a)(2).1 29 C.F.R. � 1604.11(a)(3).2 The Supreme Court's decision in Vinson established that both types of sexual harassment are actionable under section 703 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-2(a), as forms of sex discrimination. A. Determining Whether Sexual Conduct Is Unwelcome Sexual harassment is "unwelcome . . . verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature . . . ." 29 C.F.R. � 1604.11(a). Because sexual attraction may often play a role in the day-to-day social exchange between employees, "the distinction between invited, uninvited-but-welcome, offensive- but-tolerated, and flatly rejected" sexual advances may well be difficult to discern. Barnes v. Costle, 561 F.2d 983, 999, 14 EPD � 7755 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (MacKinnon J., concurring). But this distinction is essential because sexual conduct becomes unlawful only when it is unwelcome. 2) Isolated Instances of Harassment - Unless the conduct is quite severe, a single incident or isolated incidents of offensive sexual conduct or remarks generally do not create an abusive environment. So, saying "You look nice today" does NOT constitute sexual harrassment. And because there is NO evidence that Monica felt that her relationship with Clinton was unwelcome or a condition of future employment in her job, it did NOT meet any criteria of sexual harrassment. I am not defending Clinton's behavior. But there was NO basis for impeachment. It was a very expensive partisan witch hunt, lead by the oh so holy Henry Hyde riding in to save the country. So indignent was he when his own behavior hit the news. What a bad bad joke. To set up a system that you have described where any sexual behavior in the workplace is prohibited and can reported on by fellow coworkers who then sit in judgement as to whether the relationship meets their criteria of a "genuine love affair" is frightening. It is also open to tons of potential of abuse of the kind of "hey, I want your job so I'll accuse you of having a relationship, even if both parties feel it is consensual." Oh wait, that is actually what happened to Clinton. The Republicans wanted his job, lol. Here is a link that might be useful: Federal guidelines for sexual harrassment

**Also, if it so wonderful, why won't congress and the first family take this coverage** That's sort of a confusing question--it seems like you think the new law creates new insurance policies that we all have to switch to, or something? And so you're wondering why Congress and the first family don't switch to the new policies? But the law doesn't do that. There is no coverage that Congress or the Obamas, or you for that matter, could switch to. The only new coverage options are the state-run exchanges for people with preexisting conditions who cannot get insurance on the private market, and a few new options for low-income people. But if you don't have a preexisting condition that has prevented you from getting insurance, or if you aren't low-income enough, you don't qualify for those new options. So there's nothing that Congress, the first family, etc., could switch to. Under the new law, you just keep your existing insurance (or move to whatever other policy your employer offers that you want). And so does Congress and the first family. What the law does is (1) change the rules for insurance companies so that your existing insurance is more reliable, (2) requires everyone to have health insurance, and (3) creates more options for lower-income people and for people with preexisting conditions, so that such people can get insurance more easily (through state-run exchanges, Medicaid and so on). So in other words, the coverage you have under it is the same as the coverage you have now--and the coverage Congress and the first family have is the same as what they have now--except with better rules: now your insurer can't cancel you for getting sick, can't exclude your kids for pre-existing conditions, as of 2014 also won't be able to exclude adults for pre-existing conditions, has to let you keep your children on your insurance until they're 26 if you want to, can't impose a lifetime cap on benefits, and so on. As for the waiver, I really have a problem with Fox News and others leaving out a few critical details, like the fact that McDonalds, Universal Orlando (the theme park), and other very mainstream companies got it (and you can google "McDonalds political contributions" to see that most of McDonalds' donations went to Republicans), and the fact that the waiver only lasts for one year. Apparently the purpose of it is to let part-time lower-income workers keep their extremely basic plans, which do impose a lifetime cap on benefits, while the details of their new plans get ironed out and the new system gets up and running. Most employers don't offer such bare-bones plans, so they don't need a waiver. I'm also a little confused by what you said about creating dozens or hundreds of new federal agencies. Here's an article (link below) that clarifies that. I took a look at the letter you posted, but there's no sense in responding to it because it's not talking about the law that actually got passed. It's talking about certain things that, at the time the letter was written, were being considered. I'm just going to stick to the law we actually have, not a 15-month-old letter about other possibilities. But I do want to point something out--you were comparing the price projections on page 28 of the letter to your own insurance premiums in 2010. Those price projections were for 2016. Even assuming those projections turn out to be correct--which would be a total fluke, since they were based on things that did not end up being passed in the actual law--it doesn't make sense to compare your price in 2010 to a projected 2016 price and then say, based on that, that the new law is going to increase your costs.