• Seniors deserve better!!! • Onion skinned Governor?!? • Welcome Hafa Adai Bingo!!!

Welcome Hafa Adai Bingo – Before anything else, allow me to inform my kababayans and fellow Guamanians, the BEST BINGO EXPERIENCE IS NOW IN TOWN- The Hafa Adai Bingo at the Greyhound Park, Tamuning, open daily with great prizes. See it for yourself. To my fellow seniors, do drop by, mag kita-kita tayo dun!!!


Seniors deserve better- I simply cannot understand how come the Guam government together with our legislators cannot solve the problem of the seniors when it comes to availing of our healthcare benefits.

What do I mean? It is a fact that a lot of our senior citizens frequent the Philippines for various reasons. The problem is, if the need arises for one to seek medical treatment when they are off-island, they cannot make use of their health benefits.

Principally, the Medicare in its supposedly accredited St. Luke’s hospital together with the Medical City in the Philippines, will not accept the current coverage of our unfortunate seniors. The only way one can use the Medicare benefits off island is if the physician refers the patient off island – still the patient has to advance payment and will just work on a refund. Unfortunately, this will not apply to an emergency, and as the term is “emergency” you just can’t coordinate anything beforehand. So now, poor senior is left holding an empty bag so to speak and can kiss any refund from Medicare goodbye.

While this is a Federal issue, the legislators, the Honorable Congresswoman and other concerned leaders should be able to lobby for the approval of such. After all the seniors had gone through lifetime contributions.

And as if to rub salt to an already gapping wound, those in Medicaid are allowed to use their Medicaid benefits off island, W T F is that?

Some fellow seniors I have spoken have lamented that perhaps the Medicare should just return to us our lifetime contributions.

At present, there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel and the seniors just have to pray that treatment is available in the island and keep their fingers crossed that an emergency situation does not arise.


Onion skinned Governor?!? – The banner story of this paper says it all. It seems that Guam under the current political leadership is heading or is already in a semi de facto martial rule. Well, I can live with that, after all, when I left the Philippines, it was during the early years of martial law (early 70’s) and to think that I was an active member of the press then. Nostalgic isn’t it?

At any rate, let me remind the powerful people who hold office at Adelup of the following:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not. The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

“Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.”

Freedom of speech includes the right:
• Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
• Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
• To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
• To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
• To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
• To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Now tell me if the Adelup “law” supersedes the first Amendment???