Privacy, in theory

Weary of torturing my posts to aim for the acumen, not pretension, but acumen I want to have, I am researching privacy and the constitution, and a legal scholar reminds me simply that it is about what the government cannot do. This is no longer applicable, because the social services system can do anything it wishes to me due to my technical quadriplegia. I do not want minority aides because many of them have traumatized me; I do not want Presby staff constantly in and out of my unit, so Debra Horne and Trudy Richardson can forcibly remove me any damn time they please for a psychiatric assessment due to my expressed animosity and then come up with competing rationalizations for it. I raise my voice; they do not bother to ask if this due to the fact that my larynx is the only part of my anatomy that works with above average capacity, and that my need to talk may be a functional compensation for a seriously compromised mobility as opposed to a simple bipolar label, among other things, and the Medicare actuary decides which and what medical technology I can and cannot have as a lifelong entitlement beneficiary, and independent living centers will go on deliberately marginalizing until they kill enough people to create a trauma nearly as powerful as Newtown. I will get the change I want, even if it means a major traumatic sacrifice, but never again, ever, can I maintain a positive outlook on the basic sanctity of the human condition, and that is tragic, not just shedding a long nascent infantilism.