Why is the public option only for uninsured?

Why? I don't get this. If you are "lucky" enough to have health insurance (even if it is the most minimal policy with the most deceitful company), then you don't get the same choice of having insurance which has an incentive to help you instead of having an incentive to make a profit? The fact that someone is insured doesn't mean that they don't a) have a cheating company which nickel-and-dimes you so that you pay for virtually everything, b) are struggling to pay the co-pays and/or premiums and/or the bills which result from problem A, or c) both. Another thing is the opt-out for states. This is simply one of the worst and self-defeating ideas. While wealth of a person tends to positively correlate with a Republican vote (and hence opposition to the public option, the median income of a state tends to NEGATIVELY correlate with Republican votes. This means that there will be more uninsured and underinsured people in poorer states, states which are more likely to opt-out. This is a classic example of the tyranny of the majority, and why the rights of the minority are more important than the wants of the majority. The fact that a majority of people in a state legistature do not want a public option does not mean that their uninsured masses do not deserve the basic inalienable right to health care. It is ludicrous to think that blue-staters deserve health insurance, while red-staters don't. It is merely a political move to appease opposition to the public option and it hurts America's families.

Public option gives Americans choice of insurance in the business of helping people, or in the business of making money

Why are so many people opposed to the public option, popularly termed by its detractors as "Obamacare"? It would give Amercians, for the first time in history, an oppurtunity to get quality care from an institution which does not look for loopholes and time-sinks to make as much money as possible. One complaint of Republicans is that it would drive private insurance out of business. If the public option is so evil, why would people choose it in the first place? Also, Republican Congresspeople say that government cannot run health care well. If that is the case, why do they permit government to run THEIR OWN health care? If government is so bad, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and pay for private insurance? Here's why:Government can run health care well and you know it. You just want Obama to fail. How can a human being be so callous and selfish to put the very LIVES of millions of Americans behind their own political power?
If you want proof of the heartlessness and deceitful ways of corporate health insurance, just talk to my family. I once had an ear infection and the doctor forgot to write in what the treatment was for, so they billed us two years later (well beyond the 120-day limit to file an appeal), and we had to pay $500.00. In one instance, they have flat-out refused to pay for stitches I needed, and my dad got them to cough up $200.00 of the $1100.000, but he is still fighting with them. Also, dad fights with them about his medication all the time. The scariest part of this is that this is supposed to be the best coverage the state offers (my dad is a state worker). In this recession, how can we possibly be expected to pay over a thousand dollars for something totally unexpected? Especially with my parents both getting pay cuts, money has become pretty tight. Another frightening thought is that this has created a pretty big hardship for us, a middle-class family. Just think of what this could mean to those less fortunate than us.

Atheist sites at this school=blocked. Why?

Why the HECK (pardon my strong language) are "alternative spirituality" sites which have information about and/or promote atheism, Wicca, agnosticism, Satanism, and "magic and paranormal" blocked? This is a rather blatant violation of the Establishment Clause, as it prefers one religion over another and it prefers religion to irreligion. While I can understand why one wouldn't want websites about Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA), I can't see why sites about atheism are blocked! I attempted to get on that site for a genuine research paper, but it was censored. So, this school is actually reducing the quality of their student's schoolwork by doing this. Are they afraid that students will convert to such beliefs? Well, if they keep this up than they should be. Oliver Wendell Holmes discussed the "marketplace of ideas" saying that if an idea is allowed to be discussed, than the people will judge it as a good idea or a bad idea. However, if a bad idea is censored, the people who have it will say "Well, if this is such a bad idea, why is the government afraid that we will take over?". If the school is really so concerned about students converting to atheism and think that it's such a bad idea, they should allow for open research of it from a pro-atheist standpoint as well, or else students will wonder why the school is so afraid of it. In fact, many of our founding fathers and early presidents were irreligious, although few were atheists. Abraham Lincoln himself did not profess any religion. To teach our Founding Fathers as heroes (which they were), but to discriminate against the irreligious and say that "Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs." is tantamount to saying that our nation was founded on Muslim values. Either block all religion websites or (preferably) none. It is unconstitutional to have it both ways.

Exact text

Alternative Spirituality/Belief
Sites that promote and provide information on alternative spiritual and non-religious ideologies such as atheism, agnosticism, witchcraft, and Satanism. Occult practices, voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism are represented here. Includes sites that endorse or offer methods, means of instruction, or other resources to affect or influence real events through the use of spells, incantations, curses and magic powers. This category includes sites that discuss or deal with paranormal or unexplained events.

Examples: atheists.org, ufocasebook.com, paranormalnetwork.net, ancientblackmagic.com, spellsandmagic.com, churchofsatan.com, paranormalnews.com, morespells.com, nuforc.org, neworleansghosts.com

"Under God"

Is the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional when recited in a teacher-led pledge, even if recitation of the pledge is not mandatory? I think so. Teacher-led school prayer, even at a football game, is considered to be unconstitutional. So shouldn't direct acknowledgement of God be considered unconstitutional as well? The original version of the Pledge of Allegiance did not even have the phrase "under God" in it. This was added in the 1950's to taunt the Soviet Union, which was atheist. So, why do we still have the phrase, even after the Cold War has been over? It serves almost no purpose other than to taunt those who do not believe in a higher power. David Souter stated that "Government shall not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." Isn't saying that we are a nation which is under God as an enactor of the state a blatant preference of religion to irreligion? Why should the government say that we are under God when we are an expressly secular country? Can you imagine the public outcry if there were a "one nation against God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance? How is that not equivalent to saying that we are a nation which is under God?