Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Universal Health Care will put the government squarely into the patient/doctor relationship. Decisions that are made privately between a doctor and his/her patient will now include some kind of governmental medical bureau who will have the final say (considering that they will be the ones holding the purse strings).
Question: Wasn't the constitutionality of this decided in 1973? How can pro-choicers get behind a concept that goes against the privacy issue that is central to Roe v. Wade?
Not flaming here. I just want to know how this works.
And yes, I do realize that insurance companies wield this power now.
If you realize that insurance companies already wield the power, and that in universal health care the government becomes the insurance company, what exactly are you arguing will change?
If you realize that insurance companies already wield the power, and that in universal health care the government becomes the insurance company, what exactly are you arguing will change?
Universal Health Care will put the government squarely into the patient/doctor relationship. Decisions that are made privately between a doctor and his/her patient will now include some kind of governmental medical bureau who will have the final say (considering that they will be the ones holding the purse strings).
Nobody - NOBODY - is proposing universal health care. Nobody is even proposing single-payer health care. What we have under consideration is a very weak public program to help a small portion of Americans to get decent insurance coverage. And the right is working feverishly to kill that.
Universal Health Care will put the government squarely into the patient/doctor relationship. Decisions that are made privately between a doctor and his/her patient will now include some kind of governmental medical bureau who will have the final say (considering that they will be the ones holding the purse strings).
Question: Wasn't the constitutionality of this decided in 1973? How can pro-choicers get behind a concept that goes against the privacy issue that is central to Roe v. Wade?
Not flaming here. I just want to know how this works.
And yes, I do realize that insurance companies wield this power now.
That is why I support public option. If the government and private industry compete neither one will hold that power exclusively and the consumers will ultimately get to choose what plan they want.
Nobody - NOBODY - is proposing universal health care. Nobody is even proposing single-payer health care. What we have under consideration is a very weak public program to help a small portion of Americans to get decent insurance coverage. And the right is working feverishly to kill that.
The fever is occurring on the left. And it involves ramming a healthcare bill through before the summer recess before anyone has the time to read it or understand it.
How could you be so cavalier about changing the American healthcare system?
Question: How can pro-choicers get behind a concept that goes against the privacy issue that is central to Roe v. Wade?
Answer: Nothing.
Hmmm!
O.K.!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
