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.
should the people of the united states be allowed to vote on whether they want this health care bill or not?
We elect people who we think best represent our needs. They then work with Congress to pass bills that will best accommodate the needs of the people. That's how a Democracy works. No crying about it and wondering why we can't all vote for it later. Get a grip.
Not to be picky...but your second voting option is a double negative????? "People can't decide nor can the government"???? Or am I misunderstanding the second voting option????
that is why there is a hyphen after the choice, to explain how you are voting.
We elect people who we think best represent our needs. They then work with Congress to pass bills that will best accommodate the needs of the people. That's how a Democracy works. No crying about it and wondering why we can't all vote for it later. Get a grip.
congress is supposed to represent its constituents. maybe the people feel that government should fix 2 broken health care systems, medicare and medicaid, before they break another health care system.......
Can you imagine printing the whole bill so that people can understand what they are voitng on really. I wouldd bet it would be challenged and heldup in the courts for years and years.Stupid idea really.
Totally digressing, but has your mind ever been changed here, even once? Can you provide a link where you conceded a point, and admitted that you were wrong about something? Not flaming, just curious. Thanks
Dude, the intelligent mind is never satisfied. Curious and wondering, it is ever changing. Rethinking, reviewing, reconsidering, Absorbing new information. Examining issues from new or different points of view. This, of course, is quite a different process from the swallowing and then regurgitating of soundbites pre-chewed and pre-digested by the mythmakers of the right-wing disinformation media, a process that so many here would be rather more familiar with.
But I am not likely to change my opinion of facts unless they should somehow cease to be facts. Neither am I likely suddenly to opine that logic and reason are unnecessary components of crtitical thinking. If you are intent upon waiting around for changes such as those, I would suggest that you take care to come very well provisioned indeed.
Can you imagine printing the whole bill so that people can understand what they are voitng on really. I wouldd bet it would be challenged and heldup in the courts for years and years.Stupid idea really.
what is stupid is congress writing a bill that is incomprehensible, even to the people who actually are allowed to vote on it.
Have you bothered to read it?
You comment enough on it.
i actually have read most of it and found much of indecipherable and open to interpretation. i think it is easier for people to look at a system like massachusetts, where it has been implemented and has failed to see what the bill would actually do. i have already posted on the failure of that program, as have others.http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...is_failing_us/
add to that the fact that obama worked out a deal with big pharma to eliminate drug competition and we will have an imbalanced health care system, with skyrocketing costs for everyone.
Question for everyone: IF, and its a BIG if, the United States went to a National Healtcare System, say similar to the UK (only as an example), would you support a patients ability to sue their doctor for malpractice?
How are the two concepts connected? In the UK system (and in the comparable Canadian and Australian systems), malpractice suits are filed less frequently than here, but more are found in the plaintiff's favor and awards are 15-25% higher. In these systems, malpractice insurance is subsidized by the government so as to remove the profit potential. These systems protect doctors and patients. The US system protects insurance companies at the expense of doctors and patients.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
Or, should the Physican and Facilities be immune from suit as say, those practicing medicine in the Military currently are immune?
To be more accurate, the Feres Doctrine -- in effect since the 1950 Supreme Court decision of that name -- protects military doctors from suit by active duty personnel only.
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.
"People can't decide nor can the government"???? 
