Do you feel that it is necessary to give up civil liberties to prevent terrorist attacks?

This theme is a very controversial one and there's lot of debate about it. Objectively, it is necessary that the people should give on some of their civil liberties, of course to a certain extent and to not be abused by the authorities, in order for the terrorist to be traced and stopped before they commit a terrorist attack. Lot of people are against this, as they are not very fond of having they privacy in the hands of the government, and that is understandable. Others are willing to give up full access to the government in order for the terrorist attacks to be prevented. The problem is that the terrorists are constantly using the newest methods to communicate, recruit, organize, so in order for the special services to be able to monitor things well, they have to intrude the privacy of the people to a certain degree, so unfortunately it seems to be a necessary method.

hr2520 is the patient's act. there is required the secretary of health to summon a committee to develop a national strategic plan of prevention. this committee has forth provisions that make possible for the govern entities to acquire private health insurance services.

is easier to keep this hr2520 as federal, because that way the secretary of health has centralized power to deal with private insurance companies and the federas government has more ways and power to negotiate with them, than doing this process state by state in their specific terms.

answer: hamilton

explanation: